/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230714.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, July 14, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 141
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Gartland Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Horne Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Johnson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Moses Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Nathan Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Nolze Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: Patrick Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Peterman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Pfoltzer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Powell Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Roberts Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
ADVANCED CUSTOM: Carpio Sues Over Clerks' Unpaid Wages
AETNA INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says
ALISAN 2 CORP: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Yaman Claims
ALL MEDICAL: Removes McGrath Suit to C.D. California
AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL: Rodriguez Sues Over Laborers' Unpaid Wages
AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORP: Dukes Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
ANALOG DEVICES: Ryan Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal
APOLLO ELECTRIC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sadowski Alleges
APPLE INC: iPhone 14 Smartphone Lacks Charging Block, Strong Claims
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Boyd Says
BENNET HOLDING'S: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Maldonado Alleges
BLUE CROSS: Paul Seeks Denied Health Benefits for Cancer Treatment
BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
BNSF RAILWAY: Judge Orders New Trial in BIPA Class Action
BOHEMIAN CLUB: Servers File Class Action Over Labor Violations
BOW TIE: Discloses Consumers' Info to FB, Taino Suit Claims
BP EXPLORATION: Brown's Claims in B3 Case Dismissed With Prejudice
BRIDGE IT: Collects Excessive Fees for Cash Advances, Murphy Says
CANADA BREAD: Price-Fixing Class Actions Pending
CANOPY GROWTH: Kantner Files Suit Over Share Price Drop
CARDINAL GLASS: Underpays Production Leads, Quijano Suit Alleges
CHARTER FOODS: Fitch Files Suit Over Data Breach
COMERICA BANK: Moscato Sues Over Denied Claims for Stolen Funds
CREATE RENOVATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Acelas Alleges
DISCOUNT TIRE: Fails to Pay Assistant Managers' OT Wages Under FLSA
DZS INC: Faces Link Suit Over 45% Decline of Securities Price
ELH MGMT: Fails to Pay Superintendents' OT Wages, Ruiz Says
ENZO BIOCHEM: Failed to Protect Customers' Info, Crimeni Says
EPAM SYSTEMS: Pomerantz LLP Investigates Securities Claims
FIRMENICH SA: Alexia Sues Over Fragrances' Price Monopoly
FLEET FARM: Court Denies Bids to Remand and Dismiss Minnesota Suit
GRILLMARX HC: Counsellor Sues Over Alleged Labor Law Violations
HAIR CLUB FOR MEN: Zapata Suit Removed to E.D. California
HARVARD PILGRIM: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Vorpahl Alleges
HILTON IRVINE: Housekeepers File Suit Over Ordinance Violations
HOUSING AUTHORITY: Ursery Suit Removed to C.D. California
HUGGINS METAL: Fails to Pay Purchasing Agents' OT Wages, Smith Says
ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS: Hess Suit Removed to C.D. California
IMMUNITYBIO INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Aug. 29
INTELLIHARTX: Fails to Secure Clients' Personal Info, Suit Says
INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Cospro Sues Over Fragrance Price-fixing
INTERSTATE TRUCK CENTER: Bennett Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
JANKMAN LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Twining-Mass Says
JHPDE FINANCE: Johnson Sues Over Illegal Collection of Debts
KANSAS: Contractors Face Investigation Over Foster Care Handling
KRAEMER NORTH: Fails to Secure Employees' Info, Blackwell Says
LAML LLC: Fails to Properly Pay Bartenders, Mabry Suit Claims
LETSGETCHECKED INC: Faces Suit For Lyme Disease Test' Deceptive Ads
LIFEMD INC: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Texts, Medina Suit Claims
LIMBACH HOLDINGS: Annual Meeting Not Valid, Ayers Alleges
LOS JALICIENSES: Rocha Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
MADISON GLOBAL: Quarrato Files Suit Over Alleged Tip Skimming
MADISON SQUARE: Arnel Sues Over Unlawful Biometrics Collection
MAN BITES DOG: Fails to Pay Proper and Timely Wages, Ahmed Claims
MANAGED CARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, McIntyre Alleges
MARRIOTT IRVINE: Hotel Workers Starting to Strike for Better Pay
MDL 2262: Fact Discovery in Principal v. BoA Due April 4, 2024
MDL 2262: Fact Discovery in Prudential v. BoA Due April 4, 2024
MDL 2262: Fact Discovery in Riverside City v. BoA Due April 4, 2024
MDL 2573: Nicholson Appeals Dismissal in Antitrust Suit
MEADOW HILL: Singh Sues Over Fraudulent Tax Information Forms
MEMORIAL HEALTH: Valladolid Suit Moved to Los Angeles Super. Court
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidated Class Action
META PLATFORMS: Parris Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometrics
METV: Averts Meta Video Privacy Class Action
MISSION COMPETITION: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MISTER CANGREJO: Gomez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Shields Claims
MONTANA UNIVERSITY SYSTEM: Niman Files Suit in D. Montana
MOSAIC BRANDS: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NATIONAL TENANT: Clermont Files FCRA Suit in D. New Jersey
NATIONSBENEFITS LLC: Stewart Alleges Layoff Without Advance Notice
NEWELL BRANDS: Harris Sues Over Deceptive Labeling of Pacifiers
NFI MANAGEMENT: Faces Navarrete Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
ON & ON 168 INC: Miao Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
OPENAI INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Theft
OPENAI LP: Collects Personal Data Without Consent, Suit Says
PAM TRANSPORT: Cross Sues Over Age Discrimination in Hiring Drivers
PARAGON MECHANICAL: Solomianko Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
PARATRANSIT INC: Brown Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Aug. 8
PHARMERICA CORPORATION: Baca Sues Over Failure to Secure PII/PHI
PICKERING VALLEY: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PIERRE FABRE: Bid to Dismiss Bojko Class Complaint Granted in Part
PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Payne Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
POINT32HEALTH INC: Sapienza Suit Removed from State Ct. to D. Mass.
PORSCHE CARS: Gearhart Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
PRECISION IMAGING: Luttrell Files Suit in M.D. Florida
PRO-TEK SECURITY: Grant Sues Over Labor Law Violations
PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL: Tate Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Anastasio Sues Over Alleged Data Breach
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Diggs Claims
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Tenner Says
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: McAdam Files Suit in E.D. Louisiana
QUALITY SHEET: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Lopez Rios Claims
RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN: Anderson Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE: Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
RISE DEVELOPMENT: Wave Seeks to Recover $37,896 Subcontract Pay
ROBLOX CORP: August 10 Cash Claim Form Submission Deadline Set
ROCK SPRINGS: Fails to Pay Drywall Finishers' OT, Rosales Claims
RUGSUSA LLC: Briggs Files Suit in W.D. Washington
SCRANTON CARDIOVASCULAR: Counterman Sues Over Data Breach
SCRANTON CARDIOVASCULAR: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Suit Says
SHUTTERSTOCK INC: Davis Sues Over Subscription's Renewal Policy
SN SERVICING: Pyke Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
SYSCO CORPORATION: Crooks Files Suit in S.D. Texas
TAB RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kaciak Alleges
TC ENERGY: Irvine Housekeepers File Class Action Suit
TECHNIQUE FITNESS: Faces Selvanathan Suit Over Collection Letter
TESLA INC: Faces Black Workers' Class Action Over Extreme Racism
TREE JUICE MAPLE SYRUP: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
UNITED AUTO: Faces Selvanathan Class Suit Over Collection Letter
VENUS LABORATORIES: Court Narrows Claims in 1st Amended Lizama Suit
VIRGINIA AGRICULTURAL: Santamaria Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
VORO INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WAG LABS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Pinkerton Alleges
WALT DISNEY: Wage Discrimination Suit May Become $300MM Class Suit
WE PUSH FOR PEACE: Carter Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
WELLS ELECTRICAL: Sierra Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
WELLS FARGO & COMPANY: Morris Suit Removed to N.D. California
WESTERN WATER: Mendoza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
XPONENTIAL FITNESS: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
[*] Class Action Lawsuits on Growth Trajectory in New Zealand
[*] Law on Class Actions by Litigants Needs to Be Tightened Up
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Faces Product Liability Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Strong Global Entertainment Defends PI Lawsuits
*********
3M COMPANY: Gartland Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Gartland, 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-03055-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: Horne Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Horne, 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-03093-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: Johnson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dodge H. Johnson, 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-03095-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 kidney cancer
as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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: Moses Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael W. Moses, Jr., 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-02726-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: Nathan Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
David Nathan, 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-03052-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: Nolze Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as William Nolze, et al, and all others similarly
situated v. 3M Company, AGC Chemicals Americas Inc.; Amerex
Corporation; Archroma US Inc.; Buckeye Fire Equipment Company;
Carrier Global Corporation; ChemDesign Products Inc.; Chemguard
Inc.; Chemicals Inc.; Chemours Company FC LLC; Clariant Corp.;
Corteva Inc.; Deepwater Chemicals Inc.; Du Pont De Nemours Inc.
formerly known as: Dowdupont Inc.; Dynax Corporation; EI Du Pont De
Nemours and Company; Kidde PLC; Kidde-Fenwal Inc.; Nation Ford
Chemical Company; National Foam Inc.; Fire-Dex LLC; Globe
Manufacturing Company LLC; Honeywell Safety Products USA Inc.; Lion
Group Inc.; Mallory Safety and Supply LLC; Mine Safety Appliance
Company LLC; Municipal Emergency Services Inc.; PBI Performance
Products Inc.; Southern Mills Inc.; Stedfast USA Inc.; The Chemours
Company; Tyco Fire Products LP, As successor-in interest to The
Ansul Company; UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation Inc.
formerly known as: GE Interlogix Inc.; United Technologies
Corporation, W L Gore & Associates Inc, Case No. 2:23-cv-00664 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina on June 21, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02836-RMG to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for
Product Liability.
3M -- https://www.3m.com/ -- (originally the Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company) is an American multinational conglomerate
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare and
consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
The Defendant is represented by:
M. Christian King
Harlan I. Prater, IV
W. Larkin Radney, IV
Wesley B. Gilchrist
LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C.
The Clark Building
400 North 20th Street
Birmingham, AL 35203-3200
Phone: (205) 581-0700
Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com
hprater@lightfootlaw.com
lradney@lightfootlaw.com
wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com
3M COMPANY: Patrick Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert R. Patrick, 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-02727-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 kidney cancer as
a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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: Peterman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Peterman, 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-02783-RMG (D.S.C., June 16, 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: Pfoltzer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Pfoltzer, 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-02284-RMG (D.S.C., May 26, 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
appendix adenocarcinoma 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: Powell Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton Powell, 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-03054-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
bladder cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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: Roberts Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael W. Roberts, 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-03096-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
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
ADVANCED CUSTOM: Carpio Sues Over Clerks' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------
VANESSA CARPIO, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ADVANCED CUSTOM INTERIORS INC. and ANTHONY GONZALEZ,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04829 (E.D.N.Y., June 28, 2023) arises
out of the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, as recently amended by the
Wage Theft Prevention Act, and elated provisions from Title 12 of
New York Codes, Rules and Regulations.
Plaintiff Carpio was employed by Defendants as a clerk at its
office in Queens, New York from on or about March 19, 2021, until
March 8, 2022. Throughout her employment, Plaintiff regularly
worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week; however she
did not receive appropriate overtime compensation. In addition, the
Defendants also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping as
required by the FLSA and the NYLL, says the suit.
Advanced Custom Interiors is a corporation headquartered in Ozone
Park, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
AETNA INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
S.W., A.T., and T.E., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AETNA INTERNATIONAL, LLC; AETNA,
INC.; AETNA HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC.; AETNA HEALTH, INC.; AETNA
CORPORATE SERVICES, LLC; and AETNA RESOURCES, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 3:23-cv-00873 (D. Conn., June 30, 2023) is an action regarding
the Defendants' unauthorized disclosure of the Plaintiffs'
Protected Health Information and Personally Identifiable
Information that occurred on or around January 30, 2023 (the
"Breach").
According to the complaint, on or about January 30, 2023, an
unauthorized third party or person accessed and downloaded
Plaintiffs' and the Class Members' PHI and PII. Defendants have
independent, non-delegable duties to their customers to safeguard
their PHI and PII and are responsible for the wrongful disclosure
of Plaintiffs' and the Class Members' PHI and PII. The Defendants
flagrantly disregarded the Plaintiffs' and the other Class Members'
privacy and property rights by intentionally, willfully, and
recklessly failing to take the necessary precautions required to
safeguard and protect Plaintiffs' and the other Class Members' PHI
and PII from unauthorized disclosure, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs' and the other Class Members' PHI and PII was
improperly handled, inadequately protected, readily able to be
copied by anyone with nefarious intent and not kept in accordance
with basic security protocols. Defendants' obtaining of the
information and sharing of same also represent a flagrant disregard
of the Plaintiffs' and the other Class Members' rights, both as to
privacy and property.
AETNA INTERNATIONAL, LLC provides insurance products and related
services. The Company offers range of services including medical,
pharmacy, dental, group life, long term care and disability plans,
and other products. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian P. Murray, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Avenue, Suite 358
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
Email: bmurray@glancylaw.com
- and -
Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
Lucy McShane, Esq.
MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC
1656 Washington Street, Suite 120
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 888-8010
Facsimile: (816) 332-6295
Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com
lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com
- and -
Sharon J. Zinns, Esq.
ZINNS LAW, LLC
4243 Dunwoody Club Drive, Suite 104
Atlanta, GA 30350
Telehpone: (404) 882-9002
Email: sharon@zinnslaw.com
- and -
John A. Love, Esq.
LOVE CONSUMER LAW
2500 Northwinds Parkway Suite 330
Alpharetta, GA 30009
Telephone: (404) 855-3600
Facsimile: (404) 301-2300
Email: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com
ALISAN 2 CORP: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Yaman Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
ORHAN YAMAN, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. ALISAN 2 CORP. and FILIZ KAHRAMAN, Case No.
2:23-cv-04740 (E.D.N.Y., June 26, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid
minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours in each workweek,
but the Defendants allegedly failed to pay the Plaintiff at the
rate of times his regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours per workweek. Instead, the Defendants paid the Plaintiff at
his regular rate of pay for hours worked after 40 hours per
workweek. From April 2021 through January 2023, the Defendants paid
the Plaintiff at a rate that fell below the applicable statutory
minimum wage in violation of the NYLL. The Plaintiff also regularly
worked in excess of 10 hours in a single day but the Defendants
failed to pay the Plaintiff spread-of-hours pay, the suit claims.
The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly-paid retail service station
attendant by the Defendants from April 2021 to June 2023.
ALISAN 2 CORP. is a retail service station company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com
ALL MEDICAL: Removes McGrath Suit to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of MARY ELIZABETH MCGRATH, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALL
MEDICAL PERSONNEL, INC.; and ALL MEDICAL PERSONNEL, LLC,
Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No.
23STCV00124) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on June 29, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No2:23-cv-05181. The case is assigned to Stanley Blumenfeld,
Jr. and referred to Magistrate Pedro V. Castillo.
ALL MEDICAL PERSONNEL, INC. is a staffing and recruiting company
that provides healthcare staffing solutions. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Kenneth D. Sulzer, Esq.
Matthew Scholl, Esq.
CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 909-7775
Email: ksulzer@constangy.com
mscholl@constangy.com
AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL: Rodriguez Sues Over Laborers' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARCIDES RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL SERVICES,
INC., GEORGE ADAMIAN, and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 23LBCV01191 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 27, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of California
Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including
failure to pay wages, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide rest periods, failure to provide
meal periods, failure to provide compensation for actual hours
worked, failure to pay wages due upon termination, waiting time
penalties, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
failure to keep accurate payroll records, secretly paying lower
wages, shaving or deleting overtime hours worked, and unfair
business practices.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a laborer in Long Beach,
California from in or about 2000 until on or about February 11,
2023.
American Industrial Services, Inc. is an industrial cleaning
service company doing business in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Balesh, Esq.
BALESH LAW GROUP, PC
3055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 480-0418
Facsimile: (213) 226-4653
AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORP: Dukes Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
---------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH DUKES, MARK A. GALE, CHRISTINE CHAVIS, and DAVID R. FLY,
individually, and as representatives of a Class of Participants and
Beneficiaries of the AmerisourceBergen Corporation Employee
Investment Plan, Plaintiffs v. AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION and
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION, and
AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION BENEFITS COMMITTEE, Defendants, Case
No. 3:23-cv-00313-DJH (W.D. Ken., June 20, 2023) is brought by the
Plaintiff, individually and as representatives of a Class of
Participants and Beneficiaries of the AmerisourceBergen Corporation
Employee Investment Plan, alleging Defendants' violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
The Plaintiffs allege two ERISA violations against Defendants: a
violation of the duty of prudence against the Benefits Committee
for charging excessive total recordkeeping and administrative fees,
and a claim against AmerisourceBergen and its Board of Directors
for failure to monitor fiduciaries on the Benefits Committee with
regard to Plan Total RKA fees. These breaches of fiduciary duty
caused Plaintiffs and Class Members millions of dollars of harm in
the form of lower retirement account balances than they otherwise
should have had in the absence of these unreasonable Plan fees and
expenses, assert the Plaintiffs.
To remedy these fiduciary breaches, Plaintiffs bring this action on
behalf of the Plan to enforce Defendants' liability under 29 U.S.C.
Section 1109(a), to make good to the Plan all losses resulting from
these breaches.
AmerisourceBergen Corporation is an American drug wholesale company
that was formed by the merger of Bergen Brunswig and AmeriSource in
2001.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Paul Hershberg, Esq.
PAUL HERSHBERG LAW, PLLC
Kaden Tower, Suite 1100
6100 Dutchmans Lane
Louisville, KY 40205
Telephone: (502) 736-7040
Facsimile: (502) 736-7510
E-mail: paul@hershberglaw.com
- and -
Paul M. Secunda, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Dr., Suite 240
Brookfield, WI0 53005
Telephone: (414) 828-2372
E-mail: psecunda@walcheskeluzi.com
ANALOG DEVICES: Ryan Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs WALTER E. RYAN, JR., et al., filed an appeal from a
court's ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Ryan Asset
Management, LLC, Walter E. Ryan Jr., and other similarly situated
v. Analog Devices, Inc., James R. Bergman, Joseph R. Bronson,
Maryann Wright, Mercedes Johnson, Robert E. Grady, Tracy Accardi,
Tunc Doluca, William D. Watkins, William P. Sullivan, Case No.
2022-0255-MTZ, in the Chancery Court of the State of Delaware in
and for New Castle County.
The complaint alleges a breach of fiduciary duties by the
individual defendants in connection with Maxim's agreement, as part
of the merger negotiations with the company, to suspend Maxim's
dividends for up to four quarters prior to the closing of the
company's acquisition of Maxim.
The complaint further alleges that the company aided and abetted
that alleged breach of fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs seek
damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plaintiffs' costs,
and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys' and experts'
fees, costs, and other expenses.
The Plaintiffs appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware
from (a) the Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Verified Class Action Complaint by the Honorable Morgan
T. Zurn, Vice Chancellor, dated May 2, 2023; and (b) the order
denying Plaintiffs' timely Rules of Civil Procedure 59(f) Motion
for Reargument by the Honorable Zurn dated May 30, 2023.
The appellate case is captioned as Walter E. Ryan, Jr., et al. v.
Tracy Accardi, et al., Case No. 224,2023, in the Supreme Court of
the State of Delaware, filed on June 21, 2023.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants WALTER E. RYAN, JR. and RYAN ASSET
MANAGEMENT, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:
Christopher D. Loizides, Esq.
LOIZIDES, P.A.
1225 King Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 654-0248
Facsimile: (302) 654-0728
E-mail: loizides@loizides.com
Defendants-Appellees TRACY ACCARDI, JAMES R. BERGMAN, JOSEPH R.
BRONSON, TUNC DOLUCA, ROBERT E. GRADY, MERCEDES JOHNSON, WILLIAM P.
SULLIVAN, WILLIAM D. WATKINS, MARYANN WRIGHT AND ANALOG DEVICES,
INC. are represented by:
Michael Sirkin, Esq.
ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP
1313 North Market Street, Suite 1001
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 576-1606
Facsimile: (302) 576-1100
E-mail: msirkin@ramllp.com
APOLLO ELECTRIC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sadowski Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
PIOTR SADOWSKI, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APOLLO ELECTRIC, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 610267/2023 (N.Y., Sup., Nassau Cty., June 29, 2023) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs.
Plaintiff Sadowski was employed by the Defendant as an electrician
mechanic.
APOLLO ELECTRIC operates as an electrical contracting company. The
Company offers services for high schools, hospitals, gas company,
post offices, research and development facilities. Apollo Electric
serves customers in the State of California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
Sara J. Isaacson, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Telephone: (212) 392-4772
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
sara@lipskylowe.com
APPLE INC: iPhone 14 Smartphone Lacks Charging Block, Strong Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Montana Strong, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00774-AMN-ML (N.D.N.Y.,
June 25, 2023) alleges that the Defendant sells iPhone 14 Pro
smartphone without charging block, rendering the product defective
as sold and/or diminished in value, because it will not operate
unless the buyer completes a separate purchase for more money.
According to the complaint, the only notice provided to iPhone 14
Pro buyers that they would be unable to turn their smartphone on
was in small print on the back of the box, which stated, "Includes:
iPhone 14 Pro and USB-C to Lightning Cable; power adapter and
headphones sold separately." Apple promotes the 14 Pro's features,
such as its "48MP (megapixel) Main camera [with] Mind-blowing
detail," navigation, "A battery that's all in, all day," and its
A16 cutting-edge chip that enable these and other functions.
Purchasers of the iPhone 14 Pro who realized their expensive and
high tech smartphone could not be turned on without the essential
wall plug were shocked. Instead of receiving charging cords and
power adapters, iPhone 14 Pro buyers received only a charging cord,
SIM card ejector and sticker with their device, the suit says.
Buyers of the iPhone 14 Pro expect it will come with a charging
cable and plug because this is consistent with common trade
practices in the sale of smartphones, which provide not only the
smartphone but the charging equipment to use it. By selling the
iPhone 14 Pro without a charging block, purchasers are unable to
use it as intended, whether to make calls, use the internet, play
games and send messages, because these functions require power
transmitted to the device in the form of electricity, the Plaintiff
contends.
As a result of the alleged false and misleading representations and
omissions, the Product is sold at premium price, approximately not
less than eight hundred dollars, excluding tax and sales.
The Plaintiff purchased the Product through a cell phone carrier
and/or consumer electronics store in 2022, in New York.
Apple, Inc. sells the iPhone 14 Pro smartphone, combining a cell
phone and computer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Boyd Says
------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY BOYD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APRIA HEALTHCARE LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-01085-SEB-MG (S.D. Ind., June 21, 2023) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff seeking compensation and injunctive relief
under principles of common law, negligence, and unjust enrichment,
as well as for breach of the California Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act and Unfair Competition Law, for the damages caused
by the Defendant to him and those of fellow Class members.
The Plaintiff and other Apria patients had entrusted their
personally identifiable information and protected health
information to obtain Apria's services. But while it was holding
itself out to the public as a leader in keeping its patients' data
private, Apria in reality allowed that data to be accessed by third
parties. More troublingly, Apria was aware as early as September 1,
2021 -- nearly two years ago -- that its systems had been
compromised by an unauthorized third party. Yet it waited years to
notify its patients that their data had been compromised, the suit
says.
As a result of Defendant's wrongful conduct as alleged in this
complaint including, among things, its knowing failure to employ
adequate data security measures, its continued maintenance and use
of the PII and PHI belonging to Plaintiff and Class members without
having adequate data security measures, and its other conduct
facilitating the theft of that PII and PHI, Defendant has been
unjustly enriched at the expense of, and to the detriment of,
Plaintiff and Class members, asserts the suit.
Apria Healthcare LLC provides home healthcare equipment to nearly 2
million patients across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
Brandon P. Jack, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: (916) 239-4778
Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com
gharoutunian@justice4you.com
bjack@justice4you.com
- and -
Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 682-5600
Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
kboyd@tousley.com
BENNET HOLDING'S: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Maldonado Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN MALDONADO, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BENNET HOLDING'S & AQUISITIONS,
LLC; and SHAWN MCDONALD, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04832
(E.D.N.Y., June 28, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals,
and provide accurate wage statements.
Plaintiff Maldonado Jr. was employed by the Defendants as a
bartender.
BENNET HOLDING'S & AQUISITIONS, LLC owns and operates a bar and
lounge known as "Blu Room Bar & Lounge" located at Brooklyn, NY.
[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
Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com
BLUE CROSS: Paul Seeks Denied Health Benefits for Cancer Treatment
------------------------------------------------------------------
DOUG PAUL and ALEXANDER BEKO, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF
NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-00354-FL (E.D.N.C.,
June 27, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for breach
of contract, breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, and unfair and deceptive trade practices.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to pay the benefits
due under the health contract. The Plaintiffs and similarly
situated participants and beneficiaries of health benefit plans
administered by the Defendant were denied benefits for proton beam
radiation therapy (PBRT) to treat prostate cancer based upon its
Medical Policy. The Defendant failed to investigate the merits of
the Plaintiffs' and the Class Members' medical claims and failed to
provide them with a full and fair review prior to issuing denials
of their claims and appeals properly and adequately. As a result,
the Plaintiffs and Class members suffered damages, says the suit.
Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina (BCBSNC) is an insurance
company with its principal place of business in Durham, North
Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Norris A. Adams, II, Esq.
ESSEX RICHARDS, P.A.
1701 South Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28203
Telephone: (704) 377-4300
Facsimile: (704) 372-1357
E-mail: nadams@essexrichards.com
- and -
Elizabeth K. Green, Esq.
KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP
19839 Nordhoff Street
Northridge, CA 91324
Telephone: (818) 886-2525
E-mail: egreen@kantorlaw.net
BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
ERICK SMITH AND KIZZIE LUCAS, each individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated V. BLYTHEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Case
No. 3:23-cv-00144-BSM (E.D. Ark., June 21, 2023) sues the Defendant
for its failure to pay bus drivers' minimum wage compensation and
overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act and seeks declaratory judgment,
monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and
costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees.
The Plaintiffs are paid a set hourly rate for time spent driving
their regularly assigned bus routes, which require the Plaintiffs
to transport students to and from school twice a day. As part of
their regular job duties, the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated bus driver employees drive additional routes, which
require the Plaintiffs to transport students and faculty members to
other locations for school-related events like field trips,
athletic events, and extra-curricular activities. The Plaintiffs
and other similarly situated bus driver employees are required to
wait at these various locations for students and faculty members to
finish their events so they can transport them back to school
campuses. As part of their regular job duties, the Plaintiffs and
other similarly situated bus driver employees drive additional
routes, which require Plaintiffs to transport students and faculty
members to other locations for school-related events like field
trips, athletic events, and extra-curricular activities, says the
suit.
During the 2022-2023 school year, the Defendant allegedly stopped
paying the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated bus driver
employees their hourly rate for all the time spent driving
additional routes. The Defendant also reduced the Plaintiffs and
other similarly situated bus driver employees hourly pay for the
period of time they spent waiting for students from their regular
hourly rate to a lower rate, the Plaintiffs claim.
The Defendant stated that drivers should not be paid any additional
funds for driving additional routes to deliver faculty and staff to
other locations for field trips, athletic events, and
extra-curricular activities, even though the Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated bus driver employees are required to wait at
these locations to transport them back to school and cannot leave
their locations to engage in other activities. As a result of
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated bus driver employees for all the time they spent
performing job duties for the district and reducing their hourly
rate for waiting time, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs a
minimum wage rate for all hours worked and a lawful overtime rate
for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, the suit further claims.
The Plaintiffs are residents and citizens of Mississippi County,
Arkansas. They were employed by the Defendant as hourly-paid
employees within the three years relevant to this lawsuit.
Blytheville School District is a public school district located in
Mississippi County, Arkansas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lindsley Noe, Esq.
Chris Burks, Esq.
WHLAW
1 Riverfront Place, Suite 7 45
North Little Rock, AR 72114
Telephone: (501) 891-6000
E-mail: lindsey@wh.law
chris@wh.law
BNSF RAILWAY: Judge Orders New Trial in BIPA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Insurance Journal reports that a U.S. judge on June 30 ordered a
new trial on damages against BNSF Railway in a privacy class
action, in a ruling that wiped out an award of $228 million to
truck drivers who accused the freight railway giant of unlawfully
collecting their fingerprints.
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly in Illinois
upheld a jury's liability verdict that BNSF had violated the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, which imposes
restrictions on the collection and use of personal information such
as retinal scans and fingerprints.
But Kennelly said damages under the biometric law were
discretionary, and so "BNSF is entitled to have a jury determine
the appropriate amount of damages."
The trial was the first to be held under the Illinois biometric
privacy law, which is among the most stringent nationwide in
protecting sensitive personal information.
Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway BRKa.N owns BNSF, which
operates one of the country's largest freight rail networks.
A spokesperson for BNSF and a lawyer for the company did not
immediately respond to requests on June 30 seeking comment.
Attorneys for the plaintiff did not immediately respond to similar
messages.
A truck driver sued BNSF in 2019, alleging the Fort Worth,
Texas-based company unlawfully required drivers to scan
fingerprints at facilities in the state.
The jury in Chicago last year concluded BNSF "recklessly or
intentionally" violated the Illinois biometric privacy law 45,600
times. The law allows $5,000 per violation.
Lawyers for BNSF said in a post-trial brief that the Illinois
biometric law contains the word "may" and that "there is the option
not to award damages, or to award damages in any amount less than
the statutory maximum."
The state law poses myriad compliance hurdles for companies, and
many have faced litigation. In 2020, Facebook said it would pay
$650 million to resolve class action allegations that it violated
the Illinois law in a feature that could recognize people in
photographs shared to the site.
The case is Rogers v. BNSF Railway Company, U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Illinois, No. 1:19-cv-03083. [GN]
BOHEMIAN CLUB: Servers File Class Action Over Labor Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Getahun, writing for Business Insider, reports that The
Bohemian Club, an all-men's private society in California that
counts former presidents among its members, faces a class action
lawsuit from servers for alleged labor violations.
The exclusive club occasionally pops up in the news, primarily for
its association with elite and wealthy men. Most recently, a
ProPublica report detailing Justice Clarence Thomas' relationship
with Harlan Crow mentioned the club.
Thomas, who went on luxurious vacations with the billionaire real
estate magnate and GOP megadonor, accompanied him to Bohemian Grove
-- a hidden woodland retreat often associated with the club that
hosts events like a 14-day summer camp.
Former valets who used to work at Monastery Camp in Monte Rio,
California, which they described as one of the "most prestigious
and well-known camps at Bohemian Grove," filed the complaint on
June 5.
The valets, who attended to wealthy guests during summer camp,
claim in the complaint that workers were required to work over 15
hours a day with no breaks or meal periods while only receiving pay
for 8 hours a day. The suit alleges that club management
"continually worked together to come up with methods to avoid
paying payroll taxes and overtime."
The suit names Bohemian Club treasurer William Dawson as someone
who directly asked employees to "falsify payroll records." It also
claims that valets were asked to hide when the owner of the payroll
company Pomella LLC, also named as a defendant in the suit, came to
inspect the Grove. The suit alleges that the payroll company was
also aware of the falsified timesheets.
The lawsuit also alleges that valets working at around 100 other
camps plaintiffs say are associated with the club are run by
captains that have engaged in similar labor violations. The lawsuit
says that Bohemian Club may seek to distance itself from these
camps during litigation, but asserts that these affiliate camps are
a joint venture of the main club and that members pay the club to
access these sites.
The members are suing for up to $1.5 million in damages.
In a statement to the Press Democrat, Sam Singer, a communications
representative for the club, said that the club "has always valued
and respected its employees, and that includes our commitment to
full compliance with all applicable wage and hour laws and
regulations."
"We believe these three individuals know full well they did not
work for the Club and that this lawsuit is a transparent attempt to
drag the Club into their individual circumstances," Singer told the
Press Democrat. "The Club will vigorously defend itself in this
action, as it would in any other meritless lawsuit."
The Bohemian Club, which has thousands of members and has been
associated with Republican presidents like Ronald Reagan, Richard
Nixon, and George HW Bush, has been hosting the summer camp for
over 150 years and describes itself as a club of "gentlemen who are
connected professionally with Literature, Art, Music, or the
Drama."
The club, full of elite men often tight-lipped about its members
and events, has garnered the interest of conspiracy theorists,
left-leaning protestors, and interested onlookers. Although there
is still much to learn about the club, one ritual was uncovered by
InfoWars host Alex Jones, who snuck into the Bohemian Grove summer
camp to film a strange ritual that consisted of robed members
burning a coffin effigy -- named "Care" -- in front of a 40-foot
owl statue.
According to previous investigative reports, the Grove also hosts
various social activities, like plays and comedy shows featuring
men portraying female characters. The club is also known for
hosting "Lakeside Talks," where members, often those of the
political elite, speak about policy ideas.
The Bohemian Club and a lawyer for the plaintiffs did not
immediately respond to Insider's request for comment. [GN]
BOW TIE: Discloses Consumers' Info to FB, Taino Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL TAINO, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. BOW TIE CINEMAS, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-05371 (S.D.N.Y.,
June 23, 2023) alleges that the Defendant violates the Video
Privacy Protection Act by knowingly and intentionally disclosing
consumers' personal identifying information to Facebook when they
purchase movie tickets on the Bow Tie Website.
Mr. Taino accessed the Bow Tie Website and purchased a movie ticket
on June 27, 2021. He was logged into his Facebook account on the
same device used to access the Bow Tie Website. When the Plaintiff
purchased movie tickets on the Bow Tie Website on June 27, 2021,
Bow Tie shared with Facebook the name of the movie for which the
Plaintiff purchased a ticket, along with Plaintiff's Facebook ID.
Bow Tie has allegedly programmed its website to take advantage of
the fact that Facebook knows who its users are as they browse the
web. Bow Tie informs Facebook which movies a Facebook user has
purchased tickets for while knowing that the information is linked
to a specific consumer and that the information provided is
sufficient to "identify a person as having requested or obtained
specific video materials or services from a video tape service
provider."
Plaintiff Taino never consented, agreed, or otherwise permitted
Defendant to disclose his PII in connection with his purchases of
movie tickets on the Bow Tie Website. By disclosing this
information to Facebook, Bow Tie violated Plaintiff Taino's right
to privacy in his video-viewing history and his interest in
retaining control over his personal information, says the suit.
On behalf of himself and the Class, the Plaintiff seeks declaratory
relief; injunctive and equitable relief as is necessary to protect
the interests of the Plaintiff and the Class by requiring Defendant
to comply with VPPA's requirements for protecting a consumer's PII;
statutory damages of $2,500 for each violation of the VPPA;
punitive damages; and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and
other litigation expenses.
Bow Tie sells movie tickets to consumers on the Bow Tie Website and
delivers pre-recorded movies to consumers in movie theaters.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary M. Vaughan, Esq.
Sherrie R. Savett, Esq.
Lane L. Vines, Esq.
Sophia M. Rios, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
2001 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (215) 875-4602
E-mail: zvaughan@bm.net
ssavett@bm.net
lvines@bm.net
srios@bm.net
BP EXPLORATION: Brown's Claims in B3 Case Dismissed With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHONTE NICOLE BROWN v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC., ET AL., Civil Action No. 17-03519 (E.D. La.), Judge Sara S.
Vance of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana:
a. grants the BP parties' motion to exclude the testimony of
Dr. Jerald Cook;
b. denies the Plaintiff's motion to admit Dr. Cook's report as
a sanction for the Defendants' alleged spoliation;
c. grants the BP parties' motion for summary judgment; and
d. dismisses the Plaintiff's claims with prejudice.
Before the Court is BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP America
Production Co., and BP p.l.c.'s, (collectively, the "BP parties"),
motion to exclude the testimony of the Plaintiff's general
causation expert, Dr. Cook, and their motion for summary judgment.
The Plaintiff opposes both motions. The Court also considers the
Plaintiff's motion to admit the expert report of Dr. Cook as a
sanction for the Defendants' alleged spoliation, which the
Defendants oppose.
The case arises from the Plaintiff's alleged exposure to toxic
chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico. The Plaintiff alleges that she was exposed to crude oil and
dispersants from her work as an onshore cleanup worker. She
represents that this exposure has resulted in the following health
problems: blisters, skin rash/lesions, dermatitis, impetigo,
eczema, prurigo, inflammation, acne, hives, dry skin, boils,
itching, pharyngitis, sinusitis, rhinitis, cough, nasal
congestion/discharge, decrease sense of smell, sore throat,
headache, joint pain, brain fog, depression, fatigue, weakness, eye
irritation, chest pain, shortness of breath, nausea, stomach
cramps, dizziness, fainting.
The Plaintiff's case was originally part of the multidistrict
litigation ("MDL") pending before Judge Carl J. Barbier. Her case
was severed from the MDL as one of the "B3" cases for plaintiffs
who either opted out of, or were excluded from, the Deepwater
Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement. The
Plaintiff opted out of the settlement. After her case was severed,
it was reallocated to this Court. The Plaintiff asserts claims for
general maritime negligence, negligence per se, and gross
negligence against the Defendants because of the oil spill and its
cleanup.
To demonstrate that exposure to crude oil, weathered oil, and
dispersants can cause the symptoms the Plaintiff alleges in her
complaint, she offers the testimony of Dr. Cook, an occupational
and environmental physician. Dr. Cook is the Plaintiff's sole
expert offering an opinion on general causation. In his report
dated May 31, 2022, he utilizes a general causation approach to
determine if some of the frequently reported health complaints
could indeed be from the result of exposures sustained in
performing oil spill cleanup work.
The BP parties contend that Dr. Cook's expert report should be
excluded on the grounds that that it is unreliable and unhelpful.
They also move for summary judgment, asserting that if Dr. Cook's
general causation opinion is excluded, the Plaintiff is unable to
carry her burden on causation. The Plaintiff opposes both motions,
contending that the Defendants' failure to record quantitative
exposure data during the oil spill response amounts to spoliation,
and seeks the admission of Dr. Cook's report as a sanction. The
Defendants oppose the Plaintiff's motion.
At issue is whether the Plaintiff has produced admissible general
causation evidence, Judge Vance states. She finds that Dr. Cook's
failure to identify the level of exposure to a relevant chemical
that can cause the conditions asserted in the Plaintiff's complaint
renders his opinion unreliable, unhelpful, and incapable of
establishing general causation. Given Dr. Cook's failure to
determine the relevant harmful level of exposure to chemicals to
which the Plaintiff was exposed for her specific conditions, he
lacks sufficient facts to provide a reliable opinion on general
causation.
The Plaintiff, as the party offering the testimony of Dr. Cook, has
failed to meet her burden of establishing the reliability and
relevance of Dr. Cook's report. Given that Dr. Cook's report is
unreliable and fails to provide the "minimal facts necessary" to
establish general causation in the case, Judge Vance grants the
Defendants' motion to exclude Dr. Cook's testimony.
The Plaintiff's motion seeks the sanction of admission of Dr.
Cook's report. The Plaintiff asserts that this sanction is
appropriate because BP's decision to not record quantitative
exposure data during the BP Oil Spill response has deprived her of
data which would quantitatively establish her exposure.
The Plaintiff's spoliation motion suffers several deficiencies,
Judge Vance finds. First, the Plaintiff's contention that BP's
failure to conduct monitoring amounts to spoliation is based on the
faulty premise that BP was obligated to develop evidence in
anticipation of litigation. Further, the remedy the Plaintiff seeks
-- admission of Dr. Cook's expert opinion despite its numerous
deficiencies -- is unwarranted. Dr. Cook's failure to link any
specific chemicals to the conditions allegedly suffered by
plaintiff prevents the admission of his opinion. Judge Vance thus
denies the Plaintiff's motion to admit Dr. Cook's report as a
sanction despite its failure to meet the requirements of Fed. R.
Evid. 702.
In their motion for summary judgment, the Defendants contend that
they are entitled to summary judgment because the Plaintiff cannot
establish either general or specific causation.
Given that the Plaintiff cannot prove a necessary element of her
claims against defendants, her claims must be dismissed.
Accordingly, Judge Vance grants the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment. The Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2023 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bdf88fjv from Leagle.com.
BRIDGE IT: Collects Excessive Fees for Cash Advances, Murphy Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JEANNIE MURPHY and VERA BECKFORD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BRIDGE IT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01068-CCC (M.D. Pa., June 27, 2023) is
a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the Loan Interest and
Protection Law, the Consumer Discount Company Act, the
Truth-in-Lending Act, and the Electronic Funds Transfer Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant collected from the
Plaintiffs and the Class members interest in excess of that
provided for by the LIPL and CDCA, and charges prohibited or in
excess of those allowed by the LIPL and CDCA. The Defendant could
not charge, collect, contract for, or receive more than 6 percent
combined interest, fees, or other charges on loans or advances
issued in amounts under $25,000, however, charged, collected,
contracted for, or received interest, fees, or other charges above
this amount. The Plaintiffs and the Class members lost money or
property as a result of the Defendant's violations, says the suit.
Bridge It, Inc. is a technology company headquartered in New York,
New York. [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
E-mail: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com
ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com
csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com
smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com
CANADA BREAD: Price-Fixing Class Actions Pending
------------------------------------------------
Jenny Cowley, writing for CBC News, reports that major bread
producer Canada Bread admitted it colluded to fix prices -- a
scheme that resulted in two wholesale hikes in 2007 and 2011.
The Competition Bureau said the guilty plea is a significant
development in its more than seven-year investigation into an
alleged industry-wide bread price-fixing scheme.
"[It's a] very serious crime," said Commissioner of Competition
Matthew Boswell in an interview on June 30. "Bread, as we all know,
is a staple of the Canadian diet."
Nevertheless, the $50-million fine will go into the federal
government's general revenue pool. Although that money will be used
for government services, many Canadians want to know why it's not
going directly to them -- the folks who bought the overpriced
bread.
The Competition Bureau said that Canadians searching for
compensation can pursue civil litigation. Currently, two
class-action lawsuits, one in Ontario and one in Quebec, are
seeking cash for bread shoppers from Canada Bread and other
companies allegedly involved in the price-fixing scandal.
The Competition Bureau is still investigating grocers Sobeys,
Walmart and Giant Tiger, as well as wholesaler Maple Leaf Foods for
allegedly taking part in the bread price-fixing scheme which ran
from 2001 to 2015.
Each of those companies has said they have no knowledge of any
wrongdoing. [GN]
CANOPY GROWTH: Kantner Files Suit Over Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIANN KANTNER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CANOPY GROWTH CORPORATION, DAVID
KLEIN, JUDY HONG, and MICHAEL LEE, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-04905 (C.D. Cal., June 21, 2023) is a class action brought
on behalf of the Plaintiff and persons and entities that purchased
or otherwise acquired Canopy Growth securities between June 1, 2021
and May 10, 2023, inclusive, pursuing claims against the Defendants
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors that: (i) issues with Canopy Growth's BioSteel business,
including, inter alia, aged inventory and overspending, had been
significantly hampering the Company's profitability; (ii) there
were material weaknesses in the Company's internal controls over
accounting and financial reporting; (iii) as a result, the Company
improperly booked sales of its BioSteel business unit; (iv) as a
result, the Company's revenue was overstated; and (v) as a result
of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis, says the suit.
On this news, Canopy Growth's common share price fell $0.18 per
share, or 14.8%, to close at $1.04 per share on May 11, 2023, on
unusually heavy trading volume. As a result of Defendants' wrongful
acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value
of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages, the suit alleges.
Canopy Growth produces, distributes, and sells a diverse range of
cannabis, hemp, and consumer packaged goods products for
recreational and medical use.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
CARDINAL GLASS: Underpays Production Leads, Quijano Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN QUIJANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CARDINAL GLASS INDUSTRIES, INC.; and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV14915 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., June 27, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's Private
Attorneys' General Act including failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal breaks,
failure to provide rest breaks, failure to reimburse business
expenses, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to
provide sick leave pay, and failure to timely pay wages.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee with the title of production lead in California.
Cardinal Glass Industries, Inc. is a glass provider based in
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua S. Falakassa, Esq.
FALAKASSA LAW, P.C.
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (818) 456-6168
Facsimile: (888) 505-0868
E-mail: josh@falakassalaw.com
- and -
Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, P.C.
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 975-1493
Facsimile: (310) 675-0861
CHARTER FOODS: Fitch Files Suit Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------
MCKENNIA FITCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHARTER FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-00069 (E.D. Tenn., June 20, 2023) seeks to hold Defendant
responsible for the injuries inflicted on Plaintiff and
approximately 109,1941 similarly situated persons due to
Defendant's impermissibly inadequate data security, which caused
the personal information of Plaintiff and those similarly situated
to be exfiltrated by unauthorized access by cybercriminals on
January 13, 2023.
According to the complaint, the data that Defendant caused to be
exfiltrated by cybercriminals for the purpose of engaging identity
theft to the detriment and injury to Plaintiff and Class Members
were highly sensitive personal identifying information, including
individual's name, address, date of birth, and/or social security
number. The Plaintiff and Class Members will and have suffered
additional financial costs for purchasing necessary credit
monitoring services, credit freezes, credit reports, or other
protective measures to deter and detect identity theft, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff and the Class Members, as current or former Charter
Foods customers and employees, reasonably relied (directly or
indirectly) on Defendant to keep their sensitive PII confidential;
to maintain its system security; to use this information for
business purposes only; and to make only authorized disclosures of
their PII.
Charter Foods, Inc. is a franchisee of YUM! Brands, a parent
company which owns several fast foods chains, including Taco Bell,
Long John Silvers, KFC, Pizza Hut Express, and A&W Stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Marcio W. Valladares, Esq.
Ra O. Amen, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
E-mail: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com
MValladares@forthepeople.com
RAmen@forthepeople.com
- and -
R. Burke Keaty, II, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN - NASHVILLE, PLLC
810 Broadway, Suite 105
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 514-4205
E-mail: bkeaty@forthepeople.com
COMERICA BANK: Moscato Sues Over Denied Claims for Stolen Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID J. MOSCATO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMERICA BANK, CONDUENT STATE &
LOCAL SOLUTIONS, INC., and CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00993 (D. Nev., June 27, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act and the Nevada Deceptive Trade
Practices Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' refusal to credit the amounts
of the stolen funds and associated fees for the transactions
charged to the Way2Go Card accounts of the Plaintiff and similarly
situated account holders. By unknown means, perpetrators gained
access to the accounts and commenced an unauthorized transaction,
draining nearly all funds from the accounts without the consent,
knowledge, or authorization of the Plaintiff and Class members. The
Defendants' error resolution process violates the EFTA by
explicitly placing the burden of proving the unauthorized transfer
on the consumer and denying disputes on grounds that the consumer
has not met his or her burden of proving that the transaction was
unauthorized, says the suit.
Comerica Bank is a federally chartered bank headquartered in
Dallas, Texas.
Conduent State & Local Solutions, Inc. is a provider of business
process services based in Maryland.
Conduent Business Services, LLC. is a provider of business process
services headquartered in New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Friedberg, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG B. FRIEDBERG, ESQ.
4760 South Pecos Road, Suite 103
Las Vegas, NV 89121
Telephone: (702) 435-7968
E-mail: attcbf@cox.net
- and -
Evan S. Rothfarb, Esq.
Daniel A. Schlanger, Esq.
SCHLANGER LAW GROUP, LLP
80 Broad Street, Suite 3103
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 500-6114
Facsimile: (646) 612-7996
E-mail: erothfarb@consumerprotection.net
dschlanger@consumerprotection.net
CREATE RENOVATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Acelas Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
CRISTIAM ACELAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CREATE RENOVATION & DESIGN, INC.; and MIGUEL
A CRISANTOS PRUDENCIO, Case No. 1:23-cv-04957 (E.D.N.Y., June 30,
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 Acelas was employed by the Defendants as a construction
worker.
CREATE RENOVATION & DESIGN, INC. owns and operates a construction
and remodeling company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Erik M. Bashian, Esq.
BASHIAN & PAPANTONIOU, P.C.
500 Old Country Road, Ste. 302
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 279-1554
Fax: (516) 213-0339
Email: eb@bashpaplaw.com
- and -
Nolan Klein, Esq.
Law Office of Nolan Klein, P.A.
5550 Glades Road, Ste. 500
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Tel: (954) 745-0588
Email: klein@nklegal.com
amy@nklegal.com
melanie@nklegal.com
DISCOUNT TIRE: Fails to Pay Assistant Managers' OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Stoddard, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons, v. Discount Tire Co, Inc., an Arizona corporation, Case
No. 3:23-cv-08114-DWL (D. Ariz., June 21, 2023) fails to pay the
Assistant Managers' overtime pay for all hours in excess of 40
hours in a workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Arizona Wage Act, and the Arizona Minimum Wage Act.
According to the complaint, Discount Tire required the Plaintiff to
arrive at work before his scheduled time and begin tasks associated
with opening the store, including cleaning the store and performing
tire adjustments which included documenting the details of
defective tires. However, Discount Tire did not permit the
Plaintiff to clock into its timekeeping system until his scheduled
start time. Similarly, at the end of the day, Discount Tire
required the Plaintiff to clock out at his scheduled end time and
then continue to work, including performing work on customers'
vehicles and assisting customers who were picking up their
vehicles, as well as cleaning the store and other closing tasks,
the suit claims.
In addition, Discount Tire routinely contacted the Plaintiff and
the similarly situated AMs on their days off about work matters
when they were off the clock. Finally, Discount Tire required the
Plaintiff and the similarly situated AMs to run errands, such as
depositing money at the bank, when they were already off the clock.
Pursuant to Discount Tire's policy, pattern, or practice, the
Plaintiff and the similarly situated AMs regularly worked Unpaid
Overtime Hours for Discount Tire's benefit without receiving all
legally mandated pay, asserts the suit.
From 2012 or 2013 to March 2021, the Plaintiff worked for Discount
Tire as an AM at its locations throughout Arizona, including in
Avondale, Goodyear, Flagstaff, and Show Low.
Discount Tire is an independent tire and wheel retailer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel R. Randall, Esq.
RANDALL LAW PLLC
4742 N 24th St., Suite 300
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 328-0262
Facsimile: (602) 926-1479
E-mail: srandall@randallslaw.com
- and -
Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
Michael J. Scimone, Esq.
Hannah Cole-Chu, Esq.
Kaelyn Mahar, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 245-1000
Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com
mscimone@outtengolden.com
HColeChu@outtengolden.com
KMahar@outtengolden.com
- and -
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Alan Quiles, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Rd., Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: 561-447-8888
E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
aquiles@shavitzlaw.com
DZS INC: Faces Link Suit Over 45% Decline of Securities Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH LINK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DZS INC., CHARLES DANIEL VOGT, and MISTY
KAWECKI, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00603-SDJ (E.D. Tex., June
27, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of the Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
According to the complaint, the Defendants filed materially false
and misleading statements about DZS's business and operations in
order to trade DZS securities at artificially inflated prices
between March 10, 2023 and May 31, 2023. Specifically, the
Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) DZS's financial statements
from March 31, 2023 to the present included certain errors; (ii) as
a result, DZS would need to restate its previously filed quarterly
financial statement for the period ending March 31, 2023; (iii) the
Company had ongoing undisclosed issues with its internal controls
over financial reporting; and (iv) as a result, Defendants'
statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times.
When the truth emerged, DZS's stock price plummeted by $2.17 per
share, or 36 percent, to close at $3.82 on June 1, 2023, on
extremely high trading volume. The next day, DZS's stock price
declined another $0.36 per share, or 9.42 percent, to close at
$3.46 per share on June 2, 2023, says the suit.
DZS Inc. is a telecommunications equipment company headquartered in
Plano, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
12700 Park Central Drive, Suite 520
Dallas, TX 75251
Telephone: (972) 521-6868
Facsimile: (346) 214-7463
E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
211 Perimeter Center Parkway, Suite 1010
Atlanta, GA 30346
Telephone: (770) 392-0090
Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
ELH MGMT: Fails to Pay Superintendents' OT Wages, Ruiz Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
LUIS RUIZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. ELH MGMT. LLC, a New York limited liability company, and LARRY
HIRSCHFIELD, an individual, Case No. 1:23-cv-05367 (S.D.N.Y., June
23, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed to perform activities as a
superintendent of a residential building located at 1160 Evergreen
Avenue, Bronx, New York. He was on call at the building 24 hours a
day, seven days a week. He worked 60-65 hours per week.
The Plaintiff and other members of the FLSA Class were similarly
situated in that they had substantially similar job requirements
and pay provisions, and were subject to the Defendants' common
practices, polices, programs, procedures, protocols and plans
including willfully failing and refusing to pay them the required
overtime, the lawsuit claims.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from September 2018 through
March 2022.
The Defendant owns and operates a property management company known
as ELH Mgmt., which owns and operates buildings in the Southern
District of 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
- and –
Nolan Klein, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
5550 Glades Road, Ste. 500
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (954) 745-0588
E-mail: klein@nklegal.com
ENZO BIOCHEM: Failed to Protect Customers' Info, Crimeni Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
ELYSSA CRIMENI and MARQUIS SIMON, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. ENZO BIOCHEM, INC., ENZO
CLINICAL LABS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04538 (E.D.N.Y.,
June 20, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and
violation of the New York Deceptive Trade Practices Act arising
from the Defendants' failure to implement reasonable security
protections sufficient to prevent a foreseeable and avoidable
ransomware cyberattack.
According to the complaint, between April 4, 2023, and April 6,
2023, unauthorized actors compromised Defendants' network,
accessed, and apparently stole highly-sensitive personally
identifying information and protected health information of 2.47
million of Enzo's customer patients, including the Plaintiffs and
putative Class Members, as well as approximately 600,000 Social
Security numbers from its customers.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this class action complaint on behalf
of all those similarly situated persons as a result of Defendants'
negligence, violations of federal and state statutes, and on other
grounds, in failing to: (i) adequately protect their PII and PHI;
(ii) adequately warn them of Defendants' inadequate information
security practices; (iii) adequately secure computer systems and
hardware containing protected PII and PHI using reasonable and
effective security measures free of vulnerabilities and incidents;
and (iv) failure to timely warn them of the data breach.
The Plaintiffs provided their PII and PHI to Defendants in
connection with medical laboratory services they received from the
Defendants.
Enzo Biochem, Inc. is a public company that, through its wholly
owned subsidiaries including Defendant Enzo Clinical, provides
integrated diagnostics, clinical lab, and life sciences healthcare
services and products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James M. Evangelista, Esq.
EVANGELISTA WORLEY LLC
500 Sugar Mill Road, Suite 245A
Atlanta, GA 30350
Telephone: (404) 205-8400
Facsimile: (404) 205-8395
E-mail: jim@ewlawllc.com
- and -
Jennifer Czeisler, Esq.
JKC LAW, LLC
269 Altessa Blvd.
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (516)457-9571
E-mail: jennifer@jkclawllc.com
EPAM SYSTEMS: Pomerantz LLP Investigates Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
EPAM Systems, Inc. ("EPAM" or the "Company") (NYSE: EPAM). Such
investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.
The investigation concerns whether EPAM and certain of its officers
and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful
business practices.
On June 5, 2023, just one month after issuing guidance during its
first quarter earnings call on May 5, 2023, EPAM lowered its
expectations for the second quarter and the full year, claiming
that the demand for IT consulting appeared to have dried up.
On this news, EPAM's stock price fell $56.40 per share, or 21.72%,
to close at $203.25 per share on June 5, 2023.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class
members. See www.pomlaw.com.
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]
FIRMENICH SA: Alexia Sues Over Fragrances' Price Monopoly
---------------------------------------------------------
ALEXIA DAHMES d/b/a ALEXIA VIOLA NAPA VALLEY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIRMENICH SA;
FIRMENICH INCORPORATED; AGILEX FLAVORS & FRAGRANCE, INC.; GIVAUDAN
SA; GIVAUDAN FRAGRANCES CORPORATION; GIVAUDAN ROURE INC.; UNGERER &
COMPANY, INC.; CUSTOM ESSENCE INCORPORATED; SYMRISE AG AND SYMRISE
INC.; and INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-03547 (D.N.J., June 30, 2023) is an action
alleging that the Defendants participated in a conspiracy to fix,
raise, maintain, and stabilize the prices for "Fragrances," from
January 1, 2018, to the present ("Class Period") in violation of
the Sherman Act.
According to the complaint, beginning at least as early as January
1, 2018, the Defendants entered into an unlawful agreement in
restraint of trade to increase Fragrance prices. Defendants'
conspiracy to fix prices for Fragrances was in reaction to
increased costs of the raw materials used to manufacture
Fragrances. To maintain their profitability, Defendants coordinated
with one another to set the price of Fragrances for their
customers, divided the consumer market by allocating certain
customers to certain Defendants, and imposed supply constraints for
Fragrances. Through this unlawful coordination, the Defendants
charged their customers supracompetitive prices, which were in turn
passed through to indirect purchasers of Fragrances, including the
Plaintiff and the Class, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and
the Classes have been injured in the form of paying artificially
inflated prices for Fragrances and/or Fragrance Ingredients
manufactured by one or more Defendants or their affiliated entities
during the Class Period, the suit added.
FIRMENICH SA distributes fragrances, flavors, and chemicals. The
Company produces fragrances for perfumes, hair care and laundry
products, and air fresheners, flavors for beverages, sweets and
other foods, and chemicals used to produce fragrances and flavors.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG &
AFANADOR, LLC
570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 623-3000
Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
Email: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
- and -
Mindee J. Reuben, Esq.
Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq.
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG &
AFANADOR, LLC
1515 Market Street - Suite 1200
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (267) 519-8306
Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
Email: mreuben@litedepalma.com
sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com
FLEET FARM: Court Denies Bids to Remand and Dismiss Minnesota Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STATE OF MINNESOTA, Plaintiff v. FLEET FARM LLC, FLEET
FARM GROUP LLC, FLEET FARM WHOLESALE SUPPLY CO. LLC, Defendants,
Civil No. 22-2694 (JRT/JFD) (D. Minn.), Judge John R. Tunheim of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota denies the
State's Motion to Remand to State Court and the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss.
The State of Minnesota brought this action in Minnesota state court
against Fleet Farm LLC (formerly known as Mills Fleet Farm LLC),
Fleet Farm Group LLC (formerly known as Mills Fleet Farm Group
LLC), and Fleet Farm Wholesale Supply Co. (formerly known as Fleet
Wholesale Supply Co. LLC) (together, "Fleet Farm" or "Defendants")
for allegedly selling firearms to individuals that Fleet Farm knew
or should have known were straw purchasers of weapons -- meaning
they were purchasing firearms for others who could not legally
obtain or possess one. The State's Complaint alleged five different
theories of liability: negligence, negligence per se, negligent
entrustment, aiding and abetting, and public nuisance. The
Defendants subsequently removed this action to federal court. The
State has now filed a Motion to Remand to State Court, and the
Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss.
The State of Minnesota sued Fleet Farm in Minnesota state court for
allegedly selling handguns to straw purchasers. A straw purchase
occurs when a person knowingly purchases a firearm at the request
of someone who is not eligible to possess the firearm.
The State alleges that Fleet Farm sold at least 37 firearms to two
straw purchasers over the course of 16 months. In particular, it
claims that Fleet Farm disregarded well-known and blatant warning
signs of straw purchasing such as: (1) multiple purchases of
similar handguns (especially 9mm caliber); (2) buying sprees over
concentrated periods of time; and (3) staggered visits to different
Fleet Farm locations to elude multiple sale reporting
requirements.
The State considers these practices hallmark 'red flags' of illegal
gun trafficking by straw purchasers. It claims that Fleet Farm
turned a blind eye to these flagrantly suspicious circumstances,
knew or consciously avoided knowing that these individuals were
straw purchasing firearms, and aided and abetted their illegal and
criminal conduct.
The State relies heavily on federal and state laws and regulations
throughout its Complaint. The Complaint relies upon the federal Gun
Control Act of 1968 ("GCA"), 18 U.S.C. Sections 921-931. The GCA
created a nationwide licensing scheme for firearm dealers. Under
the GCA, a person is prohibited from engaging in manufacturing,
importing, or dealing in firearms without becoming a federal
firearms licensee ("FFL"). Federal law requires FFLs to be trained
on how to spot persons prohibited from possessing firearms, how to
spot traffickers and straw purchasers, and on other federal
regulations of firearms.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ("ATF")
plays a central role in enforcing the GCA and other aspects of
federal regulations of firearms. Federal rules further require that
dealers keep records of all transactions. Finally, firearm dealers
review federal firearm laws and regulations with ATF agents when
they receive their license and during ATF audits.
The Minnesota Gun Control Act establishes categories of persons who
are prohibited from possessing firearms and requires that
purchasers obtain a Minnesota permit before buying a pistol or
semiautomatic military-style assault weapon ("SAMSAW") from a
firearms dealer. State law also criminalizes straw purchases; under
Minnesota state law, it is illegal to transfer a pistol or a SAMSAW
to a person who has made a false statement to become a transferee,
if the transferor knows or has reason to know the transferee has
made the false statement.
The State alleges that Fleet farm knew or should have known it was
selling to straw purchasers who were trafficking arms. The
Complaint focuses on two individuals: Jerome Horton and Sarah
Elwood.
Horton purchased 24 firearms from Fleet Farm in a four-month span
between mid-June and mid-October 2021. He purchased multiple guns
at once on five different days, made multiple purchases at the same
location within five business days on several occasions, purchased
nearly all the same caliber (9mm) of a handgun, and staggered
purchases of single handguns within days or weeks of each other at
different Fleet Farm locations. He was also recorded by Fleet Farm
surveillance videos using his phone to either take photographs or
video in connection with the purchase of a handgun on Oct. 17,
2021. The State alleges that some of these purchases necessitated
that Fleet Farm submit additional paperwork to the ATF because of
indicators of unlawful gun trafficking. These behaviors allegedly
put Fleet Farm on notice that Horton was engaged in straw
purchasing, but Fleet Farm continued to sell guns to Horton anyway.
Horton was charged by information on Jan. 18, 2022, and ultimately
pled guilty to one count of making false statements while
purchasing a firearm.
Fleet Farm sold 13 firearms to Elwood in the 12-month span from
June 2020 to May 2021. Many of these were sold on the same day,
including three days in which Fleet Farm sold her multiple handguns
just days apart. The State argues that the sheer volume of
purchases by Elwood within a short time put Fleet Farm on notice
that she may have been a straw purchaser. Additionally, multiple
purchases required additional paperwork to the ATF because of
indicators of unlawful gun trafficking. Like Horton, Elwood
ultimately pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements
during the purchase of a firearms.
The Complaint alleges that guns sold by Fleet Farm to straw
purchasers, including Horton, caused harm to residents of
Minnesota. Multiple guns originating from Fleet Farm have been
found in the possession of individuals without a permit to carry a
handgun. The State filed this action against Fleet Farm in
Minnesota state court. It brings five claims under state law:
negligence, negligence per se, negligent entrustment,
aiding-and-abetting, and public nuisance. It seeks injunctive and
monetary relief on behalf of the people of the State of Minnesota.
Fleet Farm removed this action to federal court on Oct. 26, 2022.
It argued that the Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1331 both because there is a federal question and under the
Class Action Fairness Act (28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)) ("CAFA")
because this is effectively a class action on behalf of Minnesota's
residents.
The State then moved to remand this action to Minnesota state
court, arguing that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
Fleet Farm has moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
First, although the State's Complaint only raises causes of action
based on state law, Judge Tunheim concludes that the case falls
under the small subset of cases where a federal issue is so
pervasively involved in the Complaint as to justify federal
jurisdiction. The State extensively relies on federal laws,
regulations, and guidance related to firearm dealers and sales that
a federal issue is necessarily raised. Furthermore, Judge Tunheim
finds that federal law is the only possible source for the duties
of care that are necessary under the State's negligence claim,
which is at the crux of the Complaint. Therefore, he denies the
State's Motion to Remand.
Second, Judge Tunheim finds that the State's Complaint is not
preempted by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, 15
U.S.C. Sections 7901, et seq. ("PLCAA" or "the Act"). The PLCAA
protects federally licensed firearm dealers from lawsuits stemming
from the illegal use of lawfully obtained firearms and promotes a
cohesive set of federal firearm industry regulations. However, the
PLCAA excepts certain actions that are predicated on the violation
of a state or federal statute governing firearms. Because the Court
finds that the negligence, public nuisance, and aiding-and-abetting
claims are each at least partially predicated on the violation of
state and federal statutes governing firearms, the Court concludes
that the entire action is exempt from the PLCAA and may proceed.
Third, Judge Tunheim finds that each of the claims are plausibly
alleged at this early stage of the litigation. The State plausibly
alleged proximate cause for each of the claims because, assuming
the factual allegations in the Complaint are true, a reasonable
jury may conclude that Fleet Farm should have known there was a
high likelihood that the firearms would be given to wrongdoers who
were highly likely to injure others. The State properly alleged its
negligence claims because the straw purchasers' actions plausibly
gave rise to a duty of care when it should have become apparent to
Fleet Farm that the purchases were not legitimate.
The State plausibly alleged the public nuisance claim because the
State claims that the act of selling firearms to a known or
suspected straw purchaser can constitute a public nuisance since
the proliferation of illegal firearms reasonably endangers the
safety and health of the community.
The aiding and abetting claim is also sufficiently alleged because
the straw purchasers committed the tort of negligence per se and
because the State plausibly alleged the knowledge necessary under
state law. The Complaint alleges substantial assistance sufficient
for an aiding and abetting claim assuming that Fleet Farm ignored,
as alleged, the apparent red flags from the sales.
Similarly, the State sufficiently alleges negligent entrustment
based on the apparent red flags from the straw purchasers, which
would have alerted a reasonable firearms dealer that the sale
created an unreasonable risk of physical harm to the buyer or
others.
Finally, Judge Tunheim holds that the State plausibly alleged
negligence per se based on statutes designed to protect the public
from firearms possessed by criminals and others not permitted to
possess them. He therefore denies the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
and allows the action to proceed.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4hp7et6t from
Leagle.com.
Eric John Maloney, Jason T. Pleggenkuhle, Katherine A. Moerke,
MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, 445 Minnesota Street, Suite
1200, Saint Paul, MN 55101, for the Plaintiff.
Andrew W. Davis -- andrew.davis@stinson.com -- Andrew Leiendecker
-- andrew.leiendecker@stinson.com -- Sharon Robin Markowitz --
sharon.markowitz@stinson.com -- Todd A. Noteboom --
todd.noteboom@stinson.com -- STINSON LLP, 50 South Sixth Street,
Suite 2600, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for the Defendants.
GRILLMARX HC: Counsellor Sues Over Alleged Labor Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Counsellor, On behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GrillMarx HC, LLC and Jacqueline Baker-Nees,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01740-GLR (D. Md., June 28, 2023)
arises out of the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland
Wage Payment and Collection Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants at the GrillMarx
restaurant in Columbia from, on or about May 1, 2021 until on or
about June/July 2022. He performed manual work as a bartender and
was nonexempt from the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the
FLSA and MWHL. Allegedly, the Defendants failed to inform tipped
employees, like Plaintiff and others similarly situated tipped
employees, that among other things, tipped employees were entitled
to retain all of their tips except in a valid tip pooling
arrangement, before Defendants could potentially pay $3.63, an
hourly wage which is lower than the requirements of law, says the
suit.
GrillManc HC, LLC is a Maryland-based company that owns and
operates GrillMarx, a restaurant and bar in Columbia, Maryland.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Howard B. Hoffman, Esq.
HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAW, LLC
600 Jefferson Plaza, Suite 204
Rockville, MD 20852
Telephone: (301)251-3752
Facsimile: (301) 251-3753
- and -
Jordan S. Liew, Esq.
HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAW, LLC
600 Jefferson Plaza, Suite 204
Rockville, MD 20852
Telephone: (301) 251-3752
Facsimile: (301) 251-3753
HAIR CLUB FOR MEN: Zapata Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Laura Zapata, an individual; on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated and the general public v.
HAIR CLUB FOR MEN, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and
DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0004251 was removed
from the Superior Court for the County of San Joaquin, to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
on June 30, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-at-00636.
On April 26, 2023, the Plaintiff filed an unverified Complaint
alleging eight causes of action for: Violation of B&PC; (2)
Violation of Labor Code Sections 204, 510, 1194 and 1198; Violation
of Labor Code Sections 200; Failure to Pay Meal and Rest Break
Premiums at the Proper Regular Rate of Pay; Failure to Provide &
Maintain Accurate Wage Statements Pursuant to Labor Code; Failure
to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Breaks; and
Failure to Reimburse Expenses.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Justin T. Curley, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 397-2823
Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
Email: jcurley@seyfarth.com
- and -
Reiko Furuta, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Phone: (310) 277-7200
Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
Email: rfuruta@seyfarth.com
HARVARD PILGRIM: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Vorpahl Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE VORPAHL, PH.D., KAI VORPAHL, AND KATIE MCGUIRE,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
HARVARD PILGRIM HEALTH CARE, INC., HPHC INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. and
POINT32HEALTH, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-11384 (D. Mass., June 21,
2023) sues the Defendants for failing to adequately secure the
private, personal medical information of the Plaintiffs and all
others similarly situated who are either enrolled or previously
enrolled in Defendants' health plans and who are to receive notice
of the ransomware data breach from the Defendants and for failing
to take steps necessary to prevent such an attack and have refused
to date to fully and adequately notify victims of this attack.
Accordingly, the Defendants disclosed in a notice that was first
made publicly available on May 25, 2023 and thereafter sent or to
be sent to the Plaintiffs and other affected Class members, that
the Defendants "discovered a cybersecurity ransomware incident that
impacted systems that support Harvard Pilgrim Health Care
Commercial and Medicare Advantage Strike plans" on April 17, 2023,
and that "the investigation identified signs that data was copied
and taken from our Harvard Pilgrim systems from March 28, 2023, to
April 17, 2023."
The Defendants allegedly disregarded the rights of Plaintiffs and
members of the Class by failing to take available steps to prevent
an unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow
applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies, and
procedures regarding data access and encryption, even for internal
use, as well as appropriate procedures. As a result, the Personal
and Medical Information of approximately 2.5 million Class members
was compromised through disclosure to unauthorized third parties.
This data includes enrollees' names, physical addresses, phone
numbers, dates of birth, health insurance account information,
Social Security numbers, provider taxpayer identification numbers,
and clinical information (e.g., medical history, diagnoses,
treatment, dates of service, and provider names), the suit
contends.
The Plaintiffs and Class members now face a long-term battle
against identity theft as a result of this breach. The Plaintiffs
bring this action seeking damages, injunctive relief, and equitable
relief that is appropriate for the benefit of the Plaintiffs and
the Class and the general public as appropriate for the particular
causes of action at issue, including costs and expenses of
litigation and attorneys' fees.
Plaintiff Jacqueline Vorpahl, Ph.D. and Plaintiff Kai Vorpahl are
residents and citizens of Massachusetts, residing in Millis,
Massachusetts. They were members of multiple Harvard Pilgrim health
plans during the relevant time period.
Harvard Pilgrim Health Care is a non-profit health services company
based in Canton, Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
Deborah J. Winegard, Esq.
WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
101 Federal Street, 19th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 203-8459
Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
E-mail: psheehan@whatleykallas.com
amansfield@whatleykallas.com
dwinegard@whatleykallas.com
HILTON IRVINE: Housekeepers File Suit Over Ordinance Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
A longtime housekeeper at the Hilton Irvine filed a class action
lawsuit against the hotel alleging violations of the Irvine Hotel
Worker Protection Ordinance ("Ordinance"), which the City of Irvine
adopted in November 2022. While similar ordinances have passed in
Los Angeles, Seattle, Oakland, Santa Monica, Emeryville, Glendale,
West Hollywood, and Long Beach, this is the first lawsuit to be
brought under the Irvine Ordinance. The workers are represented by
Lauren Teukolsky of Teukolsky Law and Zoe Tucker of UNITE HERE
Local 11.
The Ordinance protects Irvine hotel workers against the risk of
sexual assault by implementing panic buttons and other measures,
and it guarantees room attendants fair compensation when their
workload exceeds proscribed limits.
The lawsuit, which was filed in Orange County Superior Court,
alleges that even after Irvine Hilton housekeepers experienced
several incidents of threatening behavior from guests, including
guests exposing their genitals and subjecting room attendants to
unwanted physical contact, the hotel failed to comply with the
safety provisions of the Ordinance, which went into effect in
December 2022. The lawsuit alleges that the Hilton failed to
provide functioning panic buttons, failed to hire 24-hour security
to respond to panic button calls, delayed for months to post the
required notice of the Ordinance on guest room and restroom doors,
and failed to provide adequate training to workers.
The lawsuit further alleges that since the workload provisions went
into effect in May 2023, Hilton has failed to pay its housekeepers
double pay when their workloads exceeded the set limits, failed to
keep proper workload records, failed to implement daily room
cleaning, and failed to provide workers with notice of their rights
under the Ordinance.
Also in May 2023, the Hilton Irvine informed its workers that it
would apply to the City of Irvine to be exempted from the workload
provisions of the lawsuit, citing alleged economic hardship.
According to SEC filings, Hilton CEO Christopher J. Nassetta made
$23,532,938 last year.
Plaintiff Diana Nufio, who has worked as a housekeeper at the
Irvine Hilton for more than 11 years, said, "I feel like Hilton
does not think about us workers as people–they just think about
money. But now, our hotel is asking the City for a waiver from the
Ordinance, which is even more of an insult after we fought so hard
for our City Council to pass these protections."
Lauren Teukolsky, who represents the workers, adds, "We hope this
lawsuit sends a message to all Irvine hotels that they are required
to comply with the Ordinance immediately. There is no excuse for
failing to protect hotel workers from the risk of sexual assault
and crushing workloads."
UNITE HERE Local 11 is a labor union representing over 32,000
hospitality workers in Southern California and Arizona who work in
hotels, restaurants, universities, convention centers, and
airports.
Contacts:
Lauren Teukolsky, (626) 522-8982 x 101, lauren@teuklaw.com [GN]
HOUSING AUTHORITY: Ursery Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Robert Ursery, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Housing Authority of the City of Los
Angeles, Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV10917 was
removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on June 23, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-05206-JLS-SK to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles --
http://www.hacla.org/en-- is a state-chartered public agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
280 South Beverly Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (858) 209-6941
Fax: (865) 522-0049
Email: jnelson@milberg.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Danielle E. Stierna, Esq.
Brant H. Dveirin, Esq.
Jon P. Kardassakis, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD AND SMITH LLP
633 West 5th Street Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 250-1800
Fax: (213) 250-7900
Email: danielle.stierna@lewisbrisbois.com
brant.dveirin@lewisbrisbois.com
jon.kardassakis@lewisbrisbois.com
HUGGINS METAL: Fails to Pay Purchasing Agents' OT Wages, Smith Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Candice L. Smith, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Huggins Metal Finishing, Inc. d/b/a Sullivan Precision
Metal Finishing, Case No. 4:23-cv-00821 (E.D. Mo., June 26, 2023)
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
In September 2020, Sullivan Precision Metal Finishing General
Manager Pam Huggins conducted new employee orientation training for
Ms. Smith and others. In that meeting, the employees were advised
that regardless of when an employee clocked in or out for their
scheduled shift, the employee would only be paid in 15-minute
intervals, rounded "up" for the "clock in" time and rounded "down"
for the "clock out" time. During the orientation, Ms. Smith spoke
with Ms. Huggins and advised her that another company of which she
was aware had recently paid out $64,000,000 in settlement for a
claim based on similar conduct, the lawsuit says.
Despite Ms. Smith's warning, the company executed the described
practices throughout Ms. Smith's employment until August 6, 2022,
when it changed course after receiving numerous further objections
to these practices by Ms. Smith and others. On November 10, 2022,
Sullivan Precision Metal Finishing terminated Ms. Smith in
retaliation for having objected to Defendant's illegal wage
practices, the lawsuit claims.
The Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief; unpaid back wages;
liquidated and/or other damages as permitted by applicable law; and
attorney's fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this action.
Plaintiff Candice Smith was hired by the Defendant as a full-time
Purchasing Agent on August 31, 2020.
Huggins Metal provides metal processing and finishing
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Rolwes, Esq.
THE CRONE LAW FIRM, PLC
4818 Washington Blvd., No. 107
St. Louis, MO, 63108
Telephone: (901) 737-7740
Facsimile: (901) 474-7926
E-mail: erolwes@cronelawfirmplc.com
ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS: Hess Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Tina L. Hess, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS, INC. d/b/a "Opto
Diode Corporation," a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2023CUOE009321 was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Ventura, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
June 29, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-05171.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges claims for: Failure to Pay All
Wages; Failure to Pay All Wages Due to Illegal Rounding; Failure to
Pay All Overtime Wages at the Legal Overtime Rate; Failure to Pay
Reporting Time Pay; Failure to Provide All Meal Periods; Failure to
Authorize and Permit All Paid Rest Periods; Derivative Failure to
Timely Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Derivative
Violations of Labor Code; Independent Violations of Labor Code; and
Unfair Business Practices. The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, and attorneys' fees
and costs, among other types of monetary and non-monetary
relief.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Amanda C. Sommerfeld, Esq.
Estefani Rodriguez, Esq.
JONES DAY
555 South Flower Street
Fiftieth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071.2452
Phone: +1.213.489.3939
Facsimile: +1.213.243.2539
Email: asommerfeld@jonesday.com
estefanirodriguez@jonesday.com
- and -
Aileen H. Kim, Esq.
JONES DAY
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: +1.949.851.3939
Facsimile: +1.949.553.7539
Email: aileenkim@jonesday.com
IMMUNITYBIO INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Aug. 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, on July 2 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against ImmunityBio, Inc. ("ImmunityBio" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: IBRX) in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired ImmunityBio securities
between May 23, 2022 and May 10, 2023, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Investors have until August 29, 2023 to apply to
the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
ImmunityBio is a clinical-stage biotechnology company that engages
in developing therapies and vaccines that complement, harness, and
amplify the immune system to defeat cancers and infectious diseases
in the U.S. and Europe. The Company offers immunotherapy and cell
therapy platforms, including, inter alia, antibody cytokine fusion
protein N-803, commercially referred to as "Anktiva". The Company
uses third-party contract manufacturing organizations ("CMOs") to
produce certain of its product candidates, including Anktiva.
In May 2022, ImmunityBio submitted a Biologics License Application
("BLA") for Anktiva to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA"). Following submission of its application, ImmunityBio
consistently assured investors that "[w]e have established Good
Manufacturing Practice (GMP) manufacturing capacity at scale with
cutting-edge cell manufacturing expertise and ready-to-scale
facilities[.]"
On May 11, 2023, during pre-market hours, ImmunityBio announced
that the FDA had rejected the BLA for Anktiva in its present form,
citing "deficiencies relat[ing] to the FDA's pre-license inspection
of the Company's third-party contract manufacturing
organizations."
On this news, ImmunityBio's stock price fell $3.43 per share, or
55.14%, to close at $2.79 per share on May 11, 2023.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) ImmunityBio conducted insufficient due diligence
to discover, or else did discover and ignored, GMP deficiencies at
its third-party CMOs for Anktiva; (ii) one or more of the Company's
third-party CMOs for Anktiva did in fact suffer from GMP
deficiencies; (iii) the foregoing deficiencies was likely to cause
the FDA to reject the Anktiva BLA in its present form; (iv)
accordingly, the Company overstated the regulatory approval
prospects for the Anktiva BLA; and (v) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired ImmunityBio shares and
suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information,
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Marion
Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212)
355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or
obligation to you.
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.
Contacts:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
INTELLIHARTX: Fails to Secure Clients' Personal Info, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT TERWILLIGER and EDWIN RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. INTELLIHARTX, LLC and FORTRA
LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00074 (E.D. Tenn., June 26, 2023) alleges
that the Defendants failed to properly secure and safeguard the
Class Members personally identifiable information and protected
health information from unauthorized disclosure to cybercriminals.
According to the complaint, the private information includes names,
addresses, medical billing and insurance information, certain
medical information such as diagnoses and medication, and
demographic information such as dates of birth and Social Security
numbers. On January 30, 2023, or earlier, an unauthorized third
party or person accessed and downloaded Plaintiffs' and Class
Members' Private Information.
On June 6, 2023, and June 9, 2023, in Notice of Security Incident
letters sent to the Plaintiffs and Class Members, ITx confirmed
that the PII and PHI of certain of its healthcare clients'
patients, including that of the Plaintiffs, were exposed by
Fortra's attacker. It is estimated that almost half a million
individuals whose Private Information was in the possession and
care of ITx were impacted by the Data Breach.
As a result of the Defendants' ongoing failure to notify the
Plaintiffs and Class Members regarding exactly what Private
Information has been compromised, the Plaintiffs and Class Members
have been unable to take the necessary precautions to prevent
future fraud and mitigate damages, says the suit.
ITx is a healthcare revenue cycle company located in Kingsport,
Tennessee that maintains the PII and PHI of patients of its
clients.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan Swann Taylor, Esq.
TAYLOR & KNIGHT, GP
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 600
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 971-1701
Facsimile: (865) 971-1705
E-mail: jstaylor@taylorknightlaw.com
- and -
Andrea McKellar, Esq.
MCKELLAR LAW GROUP, PLLC
117 28th Avenue N.
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 866-9699
Facsimile: (615) 866-1278
E-mail: andie@mckellarlawgroup.com
- and -
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Cospro Sues Over Fragrance Price-fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
COSPRO DEVELOPMENT CORP., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS & FRAGRANCES
INC., GIVAUDAN SA, GIVAUDAN FRAGRANCES CORP., DSM-FIRMENICH AG,
FIRMENICH INTERNATIONAL SA, FIRMENICH INC., AGILEX FLAVORS &
FRAGRANCES, INC., SYMRISE AG, and SYMRISE INC., Defendants, Case
No. 2:23-cv-03368 (D.N.J., June 20, 2023) arises from an unlawful
conspiracy to fix, raise, or maintain the prices for fragrances and
fragrance ingredients by the Defendants in violation of Sections 1
and 3 of the Sherman Act.
On March 7, 2023, the European Commission announced that it had
carried out dawn raids at several suppliers and an industry
association in the fragrances and fragrance ingredient industry in
coordination with the Swiss Competition Commission (COMCO), the
U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, and the U.K.
Competition and Markets Authority. COMCO revealed that the dawn
raids were based on "indications that several undertakings active
in the production of fragrances have violated cartel law." COMCO
also identified the mentioned Defendants as the subject of the
investigation and disclosed that "there are suspicions that these
undertakings have coordinated their pricing policy, prohibited
their competitors from supplying certain customers and limited the
production of certain fragrances," says the suit.
The Plaintiff purchased fragrances and fragrance ingredients from
one or more Defendants at artificially inflated prices and was
thereby injured in its business or property. Thus, Plaintiff brings
this action on behalf of itself and a Class that directly purchased
fragrances or fragrance ingredients during the period from January
1, 2018 until the effects of the conspiracy ceased.
The Defendants are the four largest producers in the global flavors
and fragrances market, together comprising 64% of the market.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Caitlin G. Coslett, Esq.
Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
Candice J. Enders, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
E-mail: ccoslett@bm.net
ecramer@bm.net
cenders@bm.net
- and -
Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
GRABAR LAW OFFICE
One Liberty Place
1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 507-6085
E-mail: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com
- and -
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street Suite N-300
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (215) 867-2399
Facsimile: (267) 685-0676
E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com
INTERSTATE TRUCK CENTER: Bennett Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Interstate Truck
Center, LLC. The case is styled as Dejon Marquis Bennett,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Interstate Truck Center, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2023-0006709
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., June 29, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Interstate Truck Center LLC --
https://itc.interstatetruckcenter.com/ -- sells new and used
trucks. The Company offers trucks as well as spare parts, services,
and accessories including belts, hoses, and other engine
parts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
Phone: 213-232-3128
Fax: 213-232-3125
Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
JANKMAN LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Twining-Mass Says
---------------------------------------------------------
ALLEGRA TWINING-MASS; MEENA KNOWLES; and JEANNE SMITH, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. JANKMAN LLC, d/b/a JACK'S WIFE FREDA; GAUTENG LLC D/B/A JACK'S
WIFE FREDA; MOLLY PICON LLC D/B/A JACK'S WIFE FREDA; JANKYBOYZ LLC
D/B/A JACK'S WIFE FREDA; DEAN JANKELOWITZ; and MAYA JANKELOWITZ,
Defendants, Case No. 519103/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., June 30,
2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as servers.
JANKMAN LLC owns and operates a restaurant known as Jack's Wife
Freda, located at New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Molly A. Brooks, Esq.
Rebecca L. Pattiz, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 245-1000
Email: mbrooks@outtengolden.com
rpattiz@outtengolden.com
- and -
Theanne Liu Svedman, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
1225 New York Ave NW, Suite 1200b
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 914-5097
Facsimile: (202) 847-4410
Email: tliusvedman@outtengolden.com
- and -
Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Telephone: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
JHPDE FINANCE: Johnson Sues Over Illegal Collection of Debts
------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JHPDE FINANCE I, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-CV-02883-JPB-LTW (N.D. Ga., June 28, 2023) arises out of the
Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
On January 12, 2023, Defendant mailed a collection communication in
the form of a debt verification letter to the Plaintiff. However,
the collection letter contained inconsistent amounts for the
balance and does not clearly state what is the amount owed on the
alleged consumer debt, says the suit.
Defendant is a Delaware corporation and may be served with process
in Georgia upon Corporation Service Company, its registered agent
for service of process, at 2 Sun Ct, Ste 400, Peachtree Corners,
GA. The company uses mail, telephone, and facsimile and regularly
engages in business of collecting debts that are alleged to be due
another. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Misty Oaks Paxton, Esq.
3895 Brookgreen Point
Decatur, GA 30034
Telephone: (405) 529-6257
Facsimile: (775) 320-3698
E-mail: attyoaks@yahoo.com
- and -
M. Hasan Siddiqui, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: 201-282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: hsiddiqui@steinsakslegal.com
KANSAS: Contractors Face Investigation Over Foster Care Handling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Kansas City Star reports that contractors in charge of handling
foster care in Kansas have been investigated dozens of times during
the past three years, in some cases leading to changes to protect
children they serve.
Records obtained by The Star show that in multiple situations
foster children's mental health needs were not met and contractors
fell short in ensuring some kids were placed in appropriate homes
or facilities.
The records, which detail complaints investigated by the Department
for Children and Families' licensing unit, offer a rare glimpse
into reported problems at the state's four contractors. And they
provide insight into Kansas' troubled system, which was the first
to be fully privatized in the mid 1990s.
Among the incidents investigated:
-- A foster care manager didn't respond to requests that a child be
psychologically evaluated. In the meantime, the boy laid down on a
busy highway "attempting to get run over."
-- Two foster kids were placed in the home of a caregiver who was
on the state's Child Abuse Registry, and even after the contractor
was notified about the error they remained there for a month.
-- A fourth Kansas child in care was able to grab "unsecured"
prescription medication and run off. Later, he allegedly crushed
and snorted some of it.
-- And, early last year, a supervisor with Saint Francis Ministries
was investigated for dragging a foster child by her ankles.
Some incidents, described in detail throughout the records, are
proof, experts and child advocates say, that DCF must do more to
hold contractors accountable and protect the state's most
vulnerable children.
"There's such a culture of allowing the contract agencies to just
run rampant," said Lori Burns-Bucklew, a Kansas City attorney and
accredited child welfare law specialist who was involved in a class
action lawsuit filed against DCF in 2018. "That's the only thing
that could allow this kind of situation to take place.
"It's such bad practice. Some of these things sound
unconscionable."
Under the Kansas Open Records Act, The Star requested all
complaints against the four contractors reported to the state since
2020. DCF released roughly three dozen complaints and the survey
findings in those cases.
All four foster care contractors were found noncompliant in various
areas and were required to complete a "compliance action plan,"
records show. One was issued a civil fine.
For as long as privatization has existed in Kansas there's been
concern that private contractors often aren't subjected to public
scrutiny and that the state isn't cracking down on their
performance enough.
When Laura Howard took over as DCF secretary more than four years
ago, she said accountability of contractors would be a critical
focus for her administration. While detailed examples laid out in
the licensing complaints and surveys do "cause great concern,"
Howard said she's confident that the contractor oversight in place
finds shortcomings and works to correct them.
"Yes, of course, I'm very concerned about specific situations that
happened that could put a child at risk," she said. "But I'm glad
that we have a robust regulatory process to pursue that, to remedy
that and to try to avert something similar happening in the
future."
Teresa Woody, litigation director for the Kansas Appleseed Center
for Law and Justice, which was part of the team of attorneys filing
the class action lawsuit five years ago, said it's encouraging to
see DCF has investigated dozens of complaints in recent years.
"One of the biggest concerns that we've had is that DCF have
appropriate oversight of the contractors," Woody said. "I think
it's a good sign that DCF is trying to see what (contractors) are
doing and getting the complaints and trying to deal with them."
One contractor faces a third of complaints
The boy who laid down on a busy highway also stabbed himself in the
leg with scissors, "which resulted in an emergency trip to the
hospital and an acute psychological screen," according to records
obtained from DCF.
Before those incidents, multiple emails were sent regarding the
need to get the child evaluated. The manager with Saint Francis
Ministries said he "forgot to get to the emails," records show.
"That's horrifying," Woody said. "Absolutely horrifying, that a
child is under such stress, such mental and emotional needs that
aren't being addressed, because somebody is just ignoring them."
When asked, Saint Francis did not answer what the specific outcome
of the case investigation was. The nonprofit also could not provide
specific information about the child's age or medical services
received, said Cristian Garcia, the nonprofit's chief advancement
officer.
"Saint Francis followed all reporting processes as required both
internally and externally," Garcia said in an email. "Saint Francis
worked collaboratively with DCF to ensure the safety and well-being
of this youth."
One-third of the complaints investigated since January 2020
involved Saint Francis Ministries, which has been engulfed in
controversy since 2020 when former CEO Robert Nelson Smith, an
episcopal priest from Salina, was accused of misusing funds.
Last year, Smith was one of two people indicted on federal charges
related to allegations they participated in a conspiracy to defraud
the faith-based nonprofit.
Garcia said in an email that St. Francis is "committed to the
safety and well-being of the children and families we serve."
"At Saint Francis, we have the privilege of serving 46% of children
in the foster care system in Kansas," he said. "Based on serving
almost half of the state of Kansas, the rate of complaints is
proportional to complaints to our partners."
Garcia went on to say in the email that Saint Francis Ministries
"works collaboratively and transparently with DCF to identify and
work through any challenges regarding complaints and has a robust
process using a data tracking system that ensures visibility for
our organization."
Other complaints involving St. Francis
The focus of a second complaint involving Saint Francis also
centered on a lack of mental health treatment for a 17-year-old
foster child. Records show that in 2020, the teen had a "bucket
filled with urine, feces and feminine products" in her bedroom.
Also in the room were dirty dishes, spoiled food and soiled
clothing, the documents said.
DCF found Saint Francis noncompliant for failing to provide
training or resources to the foster family "regarding the foster
child's isolation, theft and personal hygiene." And noncompliant by
failing to refer the teen into new mental health services and
making sure the foster child attended regularly.
"The youth was exhibiting serious mental health needs and due to
SFM (Saint Francis Ministries) missed mental health services from
12/2020 to 2/2021," the survey of the complaint read.
"Additionally, SFM failed to maintain communication with the mental
health provider once services were set up. SFM failed to notify the
mental health provider of any of the concerning behaviors the youth
was exhibiting."
"The 17-year-old foster child's bedroom was in deplorable condition
. . . yet SFM did not intervene or develop a plan with the family
to resolve the safety hazard," the survey findings from the
complaint said. "During the monthly visits by the Case Manager and
by the Foster Care Worker the youth was simply told to clean her
room and no follow up or guidance was provided to the Foster Family
or the youth."
Saint Francis Ministries did not answer specific questions
regarding the incident. Garcia said the nonprofit is "committed to
the safety and well-being of the children and families we serve."
Another complaint involving the contractor and a different child
pertained to an incident on Jan. 31, 2022.
"The foster child was held in a bathroom and drug by her ankles by
an SFM supervisor," records show. This complaint had several "non
compliance issues" identified in the investigation.
The nonprofit did not respond to The Star's questions regarding the
supervisor and what punishments, if any, were issued.
Lawmakers and child advocates say they continue to be concerned
about Saint Francis amid these complaints and leadership
controversy in recent years.
"I think any contractor who has the volume of issues that have been
raised with St. Francis both with respect to children in their care
and with respect to the way they were being run and the financial
issues that have surfaced," Woody said, "I would think that would
be a concern to me.
"I personally would not want them as a contractor."
Saint Francis has strengthened its training programs, Garcia said,
"to ensure our team members are equipped to work through difficult
conversations and monitor the safety environment of our children."
"Furthermore, Saint Francis has established a Child Welfare
Certification Program that trains our front-line team members to
deliver optimal service."
Issues from lawsuit persist
Many of the records The Star analyzed involved the alleged failure
by contractors to conduct proper mental health assessments of
foster children and concerns that kids weren't put in appropriate
placements. Both were critical issues in the 2018 class action
lawsuit that was settled three years ago and approved by a judge
months later.
The state is still under that settlement and is required to meet 14
benchmarks before it is released from the oversight. In September,
DCF received its first progress report that showed it had met seven
benchmarks and didn't meet five. Of the remaining two, one was in
progress and another couldn't be measured because of "data
issues."
Burns-Bucklew said Kansas' child welfare system is still not doing
enough for those "hard-to-place" youth.
"They've done nothing to increase or improve their placement
array," she said. "They're working on the front end to try to
prevent kids from coming into care. . . . But they haven't really
done anything that I've seen to recruit foster homes for the
population of youth they're having trouble placing."
State Sen. Molly Baumgardner, a Louisburg Republican, said that for
several years too many foster children have not received the mental
health assessments they need. And even though it's mandated in the
settlement, the state still fails to ensure children are properly
assessed during their time in care.
"What is frustrating to me is that no one seems to be able to
pinpoint why it isn't occurring in a timely manner," said
Baumgardner, a member of the Joint Committee on Child Welfare
System Oversight. "When they don't receive that evaluation, the
foster parents can't move forward to help them. And essentially,
that mental health issue is on hold.
"That puts the foster parent at risk, their foster family at risk
and absolutely puts the child at risk. And so the expense of being
in foster care continues."
Jenny Kutz, a spokeswoman for foster care contractor KVC Kansas,
said it's important to remember that "the Kansas foster care system
is safe, and in fact it is safer than most other U.S. states."
"KVC Kansas and the state as a whole are not only meeting the
federal standard for child safety in foster care but performing
much better than the federal standard."
Investigations lead to change
Complaints can come into the state hotline as possible child abuse
and neglect and evolve into a licensing investigation. Or vice
versa.
"I think one of the things that's really robust about this system
is that we can be doing things on the abuse and neglect side,"
Howard said, "but then at the same time have something parallel
happening related to the conditions of licensure.
". . . We're very much walking alongside them and overseeing them
in lots of different facets."
Several child welfare experts and lawmakers say they weren't aware
of the allegations detailed in the licensing investigations. Or
that corrective steps have been taken to address those concerns at
the state level or inside many of the contract agencies.
One case that prompted change was the incident where two children
served by TFI Family Services were placed in a home where the
caregiver was on the state's Child Abuse Registry. According to the
complaint and survey findings, once TFI learned of the problem, the
children remained there for a month.
A TFI spokeswoman said the organization could not discuss specifics
of the case "due to confidentiality."
When asked, DCF said the case involved a "near kin" placement,
meaning the caregiver was not a family member but known to the two
kids.
"The licensing investigation found the agency to be in
noncompliance and a civil penalty was assessed," DCF said.
The state agency also stated that it had recently signed a
"memorandum of understanding" with case management providers and
child placement agencies regarding this issue. These agreements
allow them to access background information when there is need for
emergency placement with a relative or people known to the
children.
This would "determine if they are a match to a confirmed, validated
or substantiated case of child abuse on the Central Child Abuse
Registry," DCF said.
Keeping medication secured
Multiple licensing investigations involved medication and whether
it was property secured.
Late last year, DCF investigated a complaint about contractor
Cornerstones of Care and a 13-year-old foster child. The teen was
being "transported" to a foster placement when the incident
occurred.
Prescription medications "were in the front passenger seat of the
transportation van and accessible to the 13-year-old foster child,"
the survey findings said. The foster child ended up "taking his
medications then proceeding to run off and then later was sitting
on the top of the vehicle."
"Reportedly the 13-year-old foster child pocketed some prescription
medication and later crushed, snorted, and took the additional
prescription medication," the records said. The boy was not
hospitalized.
In the investigation, DCF found Cornerstones to be non compliant in
several areas including not providing the child with proper
supervision during the transport and for the worker not notifying
the child's foster placements about the incident.
"A Compliance Action Plan was initiated," DCF said in an email,
"which included mandatory education and training for specific
(Cornerstones of Care) staff on safety measures for transporting
children with accompanying medication.
". . . DCF's priority is always the health and safety of children
in our custody, including access to medication. This is why we work
with our partners on training and provide technical assistance
through licensing processes to ensure youth remain safe."
Justin Horton, Cornerstones' chief programs and innovation officer,
said in a statement that his agency is bound by regulations to "not
disclose information and respect the privacy rights of our children
and families."
"We take each inquiry made through Kansas DCF seriously and examine
each situation on a case-by-case basis," Horton said. "We follow
internal procedures that reflect DCF's policies in Kansas. In the
complex world of foster care, we always look to celebrate our
successes and steadfastly look for areas of improvement."
Securing medicine also came up in a complaint involving KVC
Behavioral HealthCare, which is also known as KVC Kansas. In that
situation, a 15-year-old foster child had been released from the
hospital after an overdose of non-prescription medication.
"The CPA (child placement agency) worker did not document . . .
that the family foster home had violations of medications not being
in locked storage," DCF records said. "Since no documentation was
noted . . . licensing requirements were not met and the safety of
the foster child was not met."
Kutz, of KVC Kansas, said that all foster families "are informed
that prescription and over-the-counter medication must be locked up
to ensure the safety of youth."
"Medication safety is an important part of foster home safety and
our licensing staff continue to train families about this on a
daily basis," she said. ". . . In this case, the worker who first
went to the home documented the need to store medication safely
before the youth was placed there. What was missing was the
follow-up documentation to verify it had been secured."
A delay in reporting
In another complaint related to KVC, a 15-year-old foster child
reported in early December 2021 that a 16-year-old boy "put his
hands up her top and down her pants" inside the "child room" at the
nonprofit's Olathe office. The girl told an "on call worker" what
had happened.
According to the licensing investigation, the incident was not
reported to the state hotline for about a week and following the
incident the two teens were not separated after the worker
initially spoke to the 15-year-old girl.
"The agency was found to be in non-compliance, and a mandatory
Compliance Action Plan was put into place," DCF said in response to
questions from The Star. "The worker is no longer employed by KVC.
KVC did not act immediately when it discovered the delayed mandated
report."
Kutz said her agency investigated the incident and notified law
enforcement. Because of confidentiality and privacy laws she said
she is limited in what she can say about any specific event.
"The safety of children is our priority, and indeed it is the
purpose of providing foster care services," Kutz said. "While we do
not have the right to share state or law enforcement investigation
results, we can tell you the state's investigation is concluded.
". . . The substantiation of non-compliance only concerns our
delayed call to the DCF hotline as we did not make the call within
12 hours as required. It is not substantiation of the allegation
itself. Several staff were in the room with the youth, and they
were supervising them."
Though an "internal review and DCF child abuse investigation of the
incident did not result in any substantiations," Kutz said that KVC
did put in place corrective action "to ensure that reports of
suspected or reported child abuse are submitted to the Kansas
Reporting Center timely."
KVC already had policies regarding staff supervision of children
who are waiting inside child welfare offices. The contractor,
though, did provide "reminders and additional training to staff,"
Kutz said. [GN]
KRAEMER NORTH: Fails to Secure Employees' Info, Blackwell Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT BLACKWELL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KRAEMER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 0:23-cv-01851-KMM-LIB (D. Minn., June 20, 2023) is a class
action brought by the Plaintiff against Kraemer for its failure to
secure and safeguard the confidential, personally identifiable
information of its employees.
According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly
sensitive personal identifiable information about its current and
former employees including Plaintiff. But Defendant lost control
over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently
protected computer systems in a data breach. On information and
belief, cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems
because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on
cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards
or protocols to protect the Class' PII. In short, Defendant's
failures placed the Class' PII in a vulnerable position --
rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit.
Due to Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff and the Class have
suffered harm and are subject to a present and continuing risk of
identity theft. The Plaintiff's and the Class' PII has been
compromised and they must now undertake additional security
measures to mitigate the damage caused by Defendant, the suit
claims.
Kraemer North America, LLC is a national heavy civil contractor
that focuses on transportation, rail, and marine construction
related projects.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Brittany Resch, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson St., Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
E-mail: raina@turkestrauss.com
sam@turkestrauss.com
brittanyr@turkestrauss.com
LAML LLC: Fails to Properly Pay Bartenders, Mabry Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
FAITH MABRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LAML, LLC, d/b/a JOHN SULLIVAN'S BAR &
GRILL; 240 BBJ PUB INC., d/b/a JACK DOYLE'S PUB & RESTAURANT; 505
HP LLC, d/b/a THE TAILOR PUBLIC HOUSE & KITCHEN; BRENDAN CREEGAN;
and JOHN CREEGAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-05468 (S.D.N.Y.,
June 27, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, and failure to
provide wage notices or wage statements.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a bartender at John
Sullivan's in Manhattan, New York from May 2022 to the April 2023.
LAML, LLC, doing business as John Sullivan's Bar & Grill, is a pub
owner and operator located at 210 West 35th Street, New York, New
York.
240 BBJ Pub Inc., doing business as Jack Doyle's Pub & Restaurant,
is a pub owner and operator located at 240 West 35th Street, New
York, New York.
505 HP LLC, doing business as The Tailor Public House & Kitchen, is
a pub owner and operator located at 505 8th Avenue, New York, New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
Michael DiGiulio, Esq.
JOSEPH KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
32 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 688-5640
Facsimile: (212) 981-9587
LETSGETCHECKED INC: Faces Suit For Lyme Disease Test' Deceptive Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TRUTHCURES and MOIRA KERANS, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. LetsGetChecked, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-11391
(D. Mass., June 21, 2023) alleges that the Defendant deceptively
advertise and sell its Lyme Disease Test, in violation of the
Massachusetts Regulation of Business Practices for Consumers
Protection Act.
LetsGetChecked sells a supposed test for Lyme disease directly to
consumers that it claims will accurately and comprehensively
diagnose the presence of Lyme disease. In reality, the Test is
non-comprehensive, useless, and inaccurate. Accordingly, the
Defendant omits these facts because it wants to sell its Test. Lyme
disease testing is big business. More than a million Americans
contract Lyme disease each year, and the United States healthcare
system spends more than a billion dollars annually on Lyme disease.
Because the Defendant put its own pecuniary interest ahead of all
else, it sacrificed the safety, health, and well-being of consumers
and their families, the Plaintiffs say.
As a result, Plaintiff Kerans and all Class Members suffered losses
in the form of monetary and non-monetary damages, including that
they purchased Defendant's Lyme Disease Test, which they would not
have purchased had they known that the Test was not an accurate and
comprehensive test for Lyme disease, and the Test was not a
substitute for in-person diagnosis by a physician based on physical
symptoms.
Plaintiff Kerans and the Class seek all monetary damages allowed by
law, including the greater of actual damages or statutory damages;
treble and punitive damages; attorneys' fees and costs; and any
other relief that is just and proper.
Plaintiff TruthCures is a Kansas nonprofit committed to the pursuit
and creation of reliable Lyme disease diagnostic. Plaintiff Moira
Kerans is a citizen of the State of Massachusetts and purchased
Defendant's Lyme Disease Test for home use within the applicable
limitations period.
The Defendant advertises, markets, distributes, and sells its Lyme
Disease Test product directly to consumers in Massachusetts and the
United States using the brand name LetsGetChecked.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Philip Y. Brown, Esq.
Amelia R. Gray, Esq.
BROWN COUNSEL
One Marina Park Drive, Suite 1410
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617) 683-1500
Facsimile: (617) 507-4659
E-mail: pbrown@browncounsel.com
agray@browncounsel.com
- and –
Leo B. Oppenheimer, Esq.
OPPENHEIMER LAW, LLC
3145 Broadway Blvd.
Kansas City, MO 64111
Telephone: (816) 631-0611
Facsimile: (816) 631-0730
E-mail: loppenheimer@oppenheimer-law.com
- and –
J. Benjamin King, Esq.
REID COLLINS & TSAI LLP
1601 Elm Street, Suite 4200
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 420-8900
Facsimile: (214) 420-8909
E-mail: bking@reidcollins.com
LIFEMD INC: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Texts, Medina Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS MEDINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIFEMD, INC. d/b/a REX MD, Defendant, Case
No. 4:23-cv-02351 (S.D. Tex., June 27, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant placed telemarketing text
messages to consumers with numbers registered on the Do Not Call
Registry without obtaining prior express written consent. As a
result, the Plaintiff suffered damages including invasion of
privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of daily life,
says the suit.
LifeMD, Inc., doing business as REX MD, is a direct-to-patient
telehealth technology company located in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
LIMBACH HOLDINGS: Annual Meeting Not Valid, Ayers Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK AYERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MICHAEL F. MCNALLY; LINDA G. ALVARADO;
NORBERT W. YOUNG; GORDON G. PRATT; LAUREL J. KRZEMINSKI; CHARLES A.
BACON, III; JOSHUA S. HOROWITZ; and LIMBACH HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendants, and LIMBACH HOLDINGS, INC., Nominal Defendant., Case
No. 70283383 (Del. Ch., June 29, 2023) is a class and derivative
action by the Plaintiff and on behalf of all other Limbach
stockholders, and the Company to rectify the violation of the
Delaware General Corporation Law by Limbach's board of directors
when scheduling an annual meeting of Limbach stockholders held in
2022.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, a Delaware
corporation's board of directors may fix record dates to determine
which stockholders are entitled to receive notice of and vote at a
meeting of stockholders. A record date "shall not be more than 60
nor less than 10 days before the date of such meeting." For the
annual meeting of Limbach stockholders in 2022, the Board fixed
record and meeting dates that violated Section 213(a) because the
former date was 61 days before the latter date. The Board fixed an
April 22, 2022 record date ("Record Date") for the annual meeting
held on June 22, 2022 ("2022 Annual Meeting"), says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks for a judicial declaration that the 2022 Annual
Meeting was held in violation of Delaware law and that all actions
taken at the meeting are invalid.
LIMBACH HOLDINGS, INC. provides mechanical systems solutions. The
Company offers building infrastructure services, with an expertise
in the design, installation, and maintenance of HVAC and
mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems for a diversified
group of commercial and institutional building owners. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Sborz, Esq.
Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
Craig J. Springerm Esq.
David M. Sborz, Esq.
Andrew J. Peach, Esq.
Jackson E. Warren, Esq.
ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
4001 Kennett Pike, Suite 250
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 504-4957
- and -
William J. Fields, Esq.
Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
Samir Shukurov, Esq.
FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP
1441 Broadway, 6th Floor #6161
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 231-1500
- and –
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (484) 324-6800
LOS JALICIENSES: Rocha Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Ascencio Rocha, Isidro Murillo Lopez, Juan Pablo Lopez
Murillo and Luis Alberto Boites Dias, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Los Jalicienses Primos Inc. Dba El
Jimador Bar & Grill and Juan Francisco Hernandez, Case No.
7:23-cv-00098 (W.D. Tex., June 29, 2023), is brought seeking to
redress for the Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") as a collective action to recover unpaid
overtime and/or minimum wages owed to the Plaintiffs employed by
the Defendants.
Many or all laborers, including the Plaintiffs, were required to
work more than 40 hours in a week. Throughout the course of the
Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants; the Defendants
regularly scheduled and directed the Plaintiffs to work in excess
of 40 hours per week. The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiffs not
less than one and a half times the regular rate at which they were
employed during the hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
The Defendant may have failed to keep proper time records tracking
the Plaintiffs' time worked; the Defendant's failure and refusal to
pay the Plaintiffs overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week was a willful violation of the FLSA. The Plaintiff's
unpaid weekly damages are representative of the members of the
proposed collective. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful
conduct, the Plaintiffs and the collective are entitled to actual
and compensatory damages, including any unpaid minimum wages and
overtime that should have been paid not less than one and a half
times the regular rate, but were not paid, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants.
The Defendants operates a restaurant business in the state of
Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James M. Dore, Esq.
JUSTICIA LABORAL LLC
6232 N. Pulaski Road, Suite 300
Chicago, IL. 60646
Phone: 773-415-4898
Email: jdore@justicialaboral.com
MADISON GLOBAL: Quarrato Files Suit Over Alleged Tip Skimming
-------------------------------------------------------------
JEAN CHARLES QUARRATO; SAMMY QUARRATO; and KAWTAR SOUGRATI,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. MADISON GLOBAL LLC d/b/a NELLO; THOMAS MAKKOS; and
MARCIA MAKSYMOWCZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-05594 (S.D.N.Y.,
June 29, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime
wages due to off the clock work, unlawfully retained tips,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiffs Charles Quarrato, Sammy Quarrato, and Sougrati were
employed by the Defendants as floor manager, coat check clerk and
busser, and housekeeper, respectively.
MADISON GLOBAL LLC d/b/a NELLO owns and operates an Italian
restaurant located at New York, NY. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William Brown, Esq.
BROWN, KWON & LAM LLP
521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10175
Telephone: (212) 295-5825
Facsimile: (718) 795-1642
Email: wbrown@bkllawyers.com
MADISON SQUARE: Arnel Sues Over Unlawful Biometrics Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
M. ROSS ARNEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MADISON SQUARE GARDEN ENTERTAINMENT CORP
(N/K/A Sphere Entertainment Co.), Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-05537
(S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2023) alleges claims against the Defendant for
unjust enrichment and for alleged violations of the New York City
Biometric Law and the New York Civil Rights Law Right of Privacy.
The class action arises out of Defendant's possession, use in
trade, and its profiting from the use of Plaintiff's biometric
identifier information and that of class members. The Defendant
allegedly uses facial recognition technology in order to increase
security and ban certain lawyers from attendance at Madison Square
Garden and its other venues to eliminate or to discourage
litigation and other vexatious conduct. The Defendant is also
engaged in the nonconsensual use of Plaintiff's image, and that of
Class Members, for purposes of trade or for use in a manner that
would draw trade to the firm by using a database containing their
images, and by scanning them and comparing to those images and the
facial geometry in its database, the suit alleges.
The Defendant owns well known entertainment venues, including
Madison Square Garden, Radio City Music Hall, the Hulu Theater, and
the Beacon Theater. The Garden is the home of the New York Knicks,
Rangers, professional boxing and college basketball teams. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
Daniel C. Edelman, Esq.
KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
16 Squadron Boulevard, Suite 106
New City, NY 10952
Telephone: (845) 356-2570
Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
dedelman@kgglaw.com
- and -
Lynda J. Grant, Esq.
THE GRANT LAW FIRM, PLLC
521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10175
Telephone: (212) 292-4441
Facsimile: (212) 292-4442
MAN BITES DOG: Fails to Pay Proper and Timely Wages, Ahmed Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EMAROSE AHMED, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAN BITES DOG, INC. d/b/a and a/k/a MADHOUSE
COFFEE; DOES 1 through 50; inclusive, Defendant(s), Case No.
A-23-873062-C (D. Nev., Clark Cty., June 28, 2023) arises out of
the Defendant's violations of the Nevada Revised Statute sections
608.050 and 608.140.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt employee
from March 2022 to September 2022. She has frequently worked over
eight hours in any 24-hour workday. However, the Defendant
allegedly failed to pay daily overtime wages to Plaintiff and to
other non-exempt hourly employees who earn one and a half times
less than the applicable minimum wage. In addition, the Defendant
did not pay Plaintiff for all the wages due on a timely basis, the
Plaintiff asserts.
Man Bites Dog, Inc., based in Nevada, owns and operates Madhouse
Coffee. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christian Gabroy, Esq.
Kaine Messer, Esq.
GABROY | MESSER
The District at Green Valley Ranch
170 South Green Valley Parkway Suite 280
Henderson, NV 89012
Telephone: (702) 259-7777
Facsimile: (702) 259-7704
E-mail: christian@gabroy.com
kmesser@gabroy.com
MANAGED CARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, McIntyre Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
COLBY MCINTYRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MANAGED CARE OF NORTH AMERICA INC. d/b/a
MCNA DENTAL, Defendant, Case No. 0:23-cv-61248-AMC (S.D. Fla., June
29, 2023) is an action alleging the Defendant's failure to properly
safeguard the Private Information entrusted to it, and to remedy
the harms suffered by the Plaintiff and the Class when unauthorized
party was able to access on March 6, 2023 certain of Defendant's
systems.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, by obtaining,
collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of the
Plaintiff and Class Members, the Defendant assumed legal and
equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that
information from unauthorized access and intrusion. Despite its
duties to the Plaintiff and Class Members to secure and safeguard
the PII entrusted to it, the Defendant stored this Private
Information on a database that was negligently and recklessly
configured. Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and
Class Members' Private Information and failed to encrypt or redact
this highly sensitive information, says the suit.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members
suffered ascertainable losses, including but not limited to, a loss
of privacy, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket
monetary losses and expenses, the value of their time reasonably
incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, the
diminished value of their Private Information, and the substantial
and imminent risk of identity theft. Given the theft of information
that is largely static -- like Social Security numbers -- this risk
will remain with Plaintiff and Class Members for the rest of their
lives, the suit alleges.
MANAGED CARE OF NORTH AMERICA INC. doing business as MCNA Dental,
provides dental plans. The Company offers Medicare, long term, and
commercial plans. MCNA Dental serves private employers,
individuals, and families in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan B. Cohen
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
3833 Central Ave.
St. Petersburg, FL 33713
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
Email: jcohen@milberg.com
- and -
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-7300
Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
Email: bbliechner@chestnutcambronne.com
pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com
- and -
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
10800 Financial Centre, Pkwy., Ste. 510
Little Rock, Arkansas 72211
Telephone: (501) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlaw.com
MARRIOTT IRVINE: Hotel Workers Starting to Strike for Better Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hosam Elattar, writing for Voice of OC, reports that hotel workers
throughout Southern California are starting to strike at 18 hotels
in the region while employees at other hotels could walkout at any
time.
Just two days after contracts expired, workers walked out on July 2
as they demand $5 more an hour to help cover rising housing costs,
kicking off the largest hotel strike in recent history.
Ada Briceño, co-president of Unite Here Local 11 -- a union which
represents tens of thousands of hotel workers in Southern
California and Arizona, said in a July 2 phone interview some
employees are couch surfing.
"We're striking because people's livelihood is unaffordable now.
Rents are sky high," she said. "We need to adjust our pay so people
can keep a roof over their heads."
It comes right before the Fourth of July holiday and after union
hotel workers overwhelmingly voted to strike last month.
Briceño said picket lines have formed outside the Laguna Cliffs
Hotel in Dana Point, with workers carrying signs and others banging
drums. She said the strike started at 3 a.m. on July 2.
She adds more could join workers striking at 18 hotels throughout
Southern California at any moment.
The union is trying to secure $5 an hour more for workers during
the first year of the new contract followed by an annual $3 bump in
the second and third year.
The law firms of Keith Grossman, Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP & Ken
Ballard, as well as Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt LLP, issued a
statement on behalf of the bargaining group negotiating for hotels
in OC and Los Angeles.
"From the outset, the Union has shown no desire to engage in
productive, good faith negotiations with this group," reads the
statement. "The Union has not budged from its opening demand two
months ago of up to a 40% wage increase and an over 28% increase in
benefit costs."
According to the statement, hoteliers offered wage increases of
$2.50 per hour in the first 12 months and $6.25 over 4 years.
The Anaheim/Orange County Hotel and Lodging Association did not
respond to a request for comment on July 2.
The strike was authorized in June with a 96% vote.
Workers at other hotels in OC including the Marriott Irvine, Irvine
Hilton, the Balboa Bay Club, Hilton Anaheim, Sheraton Park, Costa
Mesa Hilton, and the Embassy Suites in Irvine may soon join in.
Beyond pay, workers are looking for safer conditions on the job and
the restoration of daily room cleanings after they were eliminated
during the COVID-19 pandemic.
According to union representatives, the average pay for a room
attendant in Orange County is $17.50 an hour.
The strike comes just days after an OC hotel employee filed a class
action lawsuit against the Irvine Hilton for allegedly violating
the city's recently adopted hotel worker protection ordinance.
It also comes the same week city council members in Anaheim -- home
to the Disneyland resort - voted to send a similar ordinance to the
ballot in a $1.6 million special election in October.
That proposed ordinance, spearheaded by Unite Here, would also
guarantee a $25 an hour minimum wage for hotel workers throughout
Anaheim. [GN]
MDL 2262: Fact Discovery in Principal v. BoA Due April 4, 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Principal Financial Group,
Inc., et al., v. Bank of America Corporation et al., Case No.
1:16-cv-00592 (S.D.N.Y., Filed Jan. 26, 2016), 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 Principal 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/3rewoVO at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2262: Fact Discovery in Prudential v. BoA Due April 4, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Prudential Investment
Portfolios v. Bank of America Corporation et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-07975 (S.D.N.Y., Filed Oct. 9, 2015), 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 Cicchini Asbestos 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/3reyyEU at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2262: Fact Discovery in Riverside City v. BoA Due April 4, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as City of Riverside, et al.,
v. Bank of America Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-00597
(S.D.N.Y., Filed Jan. 28, 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 Riverside 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/432odJH at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2573: Nicholson Appeals Dismissal in Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs J. Scott Nicholson, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Order and Judgment dated May 22, 2023, entered in
the lawsuit styled In re London Silver Fixing, Ltd., Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 14-md-2573, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge Valerie E.
Caproni entered an order granting a motion for judgment on the
pleadings involving Plaintiffs' allegation that the Fixing Banks
violated the Sherman Act and the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) by
manipulating the Fix and trading on their foreknowledge of the Fix
Price.
Judge Caproni held that this resolved all remaining claims raised
in the Third Amended Complaint (TAC). Accordingly, the case was
dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court was directed to
terminate the open motion and to close the case and all related and
member cases.
To briefly recap the facts most relevant to the motion, TAC, which
is the operative complaint, alleges that the Fixing Banks conspired
to episodically depress the Silver Fix, which set the benchmark
price for London "Good Delivery" silver bars and influenced the
price of silver and silver derivatives worldwide. The Plaintiffs
also allege that the Fixing Banks improperly traded silver
derivates on their advance knowledge of the Fix Price. The Fix
occurs at noon London time, well before U.S. markets open.
After nearly five years of litigation, only claims regarding
Fix-related manipulation against two Fixing Banks, Scotiabank and
HSBC, remain.
The Court has previously decided two motions to dismiss directed at
the second and third amended complaints. In Silver I, the Court
held that the Plaintiffs' Fixing-related allegations contained in
the Second Amended Complaint, which alleged substantially similar
facts to those presently at issue, adequately, albeit barely,
stated claims for violations of the Sherman Act and the CEA.
The appellate case is captioned as In re London Silver Fixing,
Ltd., Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 23-929, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on June 20,
2023.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants J. Scott Nicholson, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by:
Vincent Briganti, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
Defendants-Appellees HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al., are represented
by:
Damien J. Marshall, Esq.
Peter J. Isajiw, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
1185 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 790-5357
- and -
Stephen Ehrenberg, Esq.
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 558-3269
- and -
Robert Allen, -Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
601 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 446-4800
- and -
John Joseph Hughes, III, Esq.
MILBANK LLP
55 Hudson Yards
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 530-5127
- and -
David J. Arp, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 955-8678
- and -
Michael Feldberg, Esq.
REICHMAN JORGENSEN LEHMAN & FELDBERG LLP
750 3rd Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 381-4970
- and -
Jason Robert Vitullo, Esq.
PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP
1133 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 336-2189
- and -
Andrew W. Stern, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
787 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 839-5300
- and -
Adam Selim Hakki, Esq.
SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 848-4924
MEADOW HILL: Singh Sues Over Fraudulent Tax Information Forms
-------------------------------------------------------------
KULWINDER SINGH, and BIKRAMJIT SINGH, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. MEADOW HILL MOBILE INC. d/b/a Meadow
Hill Mobil Mart, MH MOBIL 300 INC. d/b/a Meadow Hill Mobil Mart,
ABUJABER HAZIM, and AHMED GHADEER a/k/a Ahmagh Alghadeer Alkhalaih
a/k/a Alghadeer Alkhalaih, Case No. 7:23-cv-05379 (S.D.N.Y., June
25, 2023) is an action for damages under the Internal Revenue Code,
26 U.S.C. section 7434 for relief, damages and fees because
Defendants willfully filed fraudulent tax information forms with
the Internal Revenue Service.
The Plaintiffs bring their internal Revenue Code claims as a class
action pursuant to FED. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of himself
individually and on behalf of all persons employed by Defendants
during the six-year limitation period (the "IRC Class Period") who
were subjected to the Defendants' unlawful filing of fraudulent
information returns with the IRS. These information returns falsely
stated that taxable income was received by the Plaintiffs and the
IRC Class in the form of wages of which there is no concrete record
of payment. As a result, the Plaintiffs and the IRC Class suffered
increased tax liability, says the suit.
The Defendants' violations of 26 U.S.C. section 7434 entitle
Plaintiffs and the IRC Class to recover damages or the greater of:
$5,000 person each or the actual economic damages sustained as a
proximate result of the filing of the fraudulent information return
(including any costs attributable to resolving the deficiencies
asserted as a result of such filing), plus reasonable attorneys’
fees and costs, the suit asserts.
Plaintiffs Kulwindersingh and Bikramjit were employed by the
Defendants to work as gas station minimart attendants at Meadow
Hill Mobil Mart located in New York from about May 1, 2016 to March
2, 2020 and from October 1, 2018 to March 9, 2020, respectively.
Meadow Hill Mobile Inc. is in the gasoline service stations
business.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
Tiffany Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com
MEMORIAL HEALTH: Valladolid Suit Moved to Los Angeles Super. Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Michelle Valladolid v. Memorial Health Services, Case
No. CV 23-3007-MWF (ASx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald
of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
grants the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.
Valladolid filed the Motion on May 17, 2023. The Defendant filed an
Opposition and unopposed Request for Judicial Notice on June 5,
2023. The Plaintiff filed a Reply June 12, 2023. Judge Fitzgerald
has read and considered the papers filed on the Motion and held a
hearing on June 26, 2023.
The Plaintiff commenced the action in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court on March 7, 2023. She brings three state-law claims
against the Defendant for (1) violations of the California Invasion
of Privacy Act (Cal. Pen. Code Section 631); (2) violations of the
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Cal. Civ. Code Section
56.10); and (3) invasion of privacy under the California
Constitution. On April 20, 2023, the Defendant removed the action
to the federal district court pursuant to the federal-officer
removal statute (28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)). Now, the Plaintiff
moves to remand based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The Plaintiff filed her class action Complaint on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated who have used and accessed the
Defendant's website, www.memorialcare.org. The Defendant is a
nonprofit health system that consists of four hospitals, two
medical groups, surgical centers, and other facilities. It owns and
operates the Website, which offers a patient portal through which
patients may obtain test results, communicate with their doctors,
and check on medical appointments, among other things.
The Plaintiff routinely accessed the Defendant's patient portal for
numerous years. She also has an active Facebook account that she
routinely accesses. She alleges that the Defendant has assisted
Facebook in intercepting her communications on the Website's
patient portal, which consist of protected and personally
identifiable health information. Specifically, she alleges that the
Defendant has implemented Facebook's Tracking Pixel, which is a
piece of code that advertisers, such as Defendant, can integrate
onto their websites.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's use of Facebook Pixel
allowed it to improperly share her personal and private health
information with Facebook for purposes of advertising without her
consent or knowledge. Based on the above allegations, she brings
three state law privacy claims against the Defendant.
The Defendant filed a Request for Judicial Notice ("RJN") in
support of its Opposition. Because the RJN is unopposed and because
the Defendant is entitled to support its claimed jurisdiction with
evidence, the Court has considered the materials in the RJN. The
RJN is therefore granted.
The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff's allegations challenge
its efforts to optimize and monitor traffic on its Website. It
argues it optimized and monitored its Website in furtherance of its
efforts to assist a federal program aimed at creating a unified
system for patient electronic health records and to optimize
patient access to their own health records, and therefore it is
entitled to removal under the federal-officer removal statute.
The Defendant contends that it was among the first health systems
in the U.S. to implement an Electronic Medical Records ("EMR")
system, and it has actively participated in the Meaningful Use
Program largely since the Program's inception. It maintains that
the patient portal on its Website (and its promotion thereof) is a
direct result of the federal initiative to make health care records
available to patients online. The Defendant alleges that since
leveraging the patient portal and other electronic tools for
exchanging health information, it has continually met the
Meaningful Use Program's criteria, and has thus received incentive
payments from the Government.
The Defendant argues that because the Complaint concerns the
technology it has implemented on its Website in an effort to meet
the criteria set forth by the Meaningful Use Program, it has
demonstrated that it was "acting under" the federal Government
(i.e., the National Coordinator) in engaging in the conduct alleged
in the Complaint. Thereby, it contends it is entitled to remove
this action despite the lack of federal-question or diversity
jurisdiction.
The Plaintiff primarily advances a facial attack to the Defendant's
jurisdictional allegations. The parties do not dispute that the
Defendant qualifies as a "person" within the meaning of Section
1442(a)(1) or that it has a colorable defense. However, the
Plaintiff argues that the last element of the federal officer
removal statute is not met, namely that the Defendant fails to
establish that it was acting under a federal officer, and that
those actions bear a causal nexus to her claims. Because Judge
Fitzgerald concludes that the Defendant has not established that it
was "acting under" a federal officer in carrying out the conduct
alleged in the Complaint, he does not reach the issue of
causation.
Judge Fitzgerald states that the Ninth Circuit has identified
several factors that are relevant to assessing whether a private
person is acting pursuant to a federal officer's directions. These
factors include whether the person: (1) is acting on behalf of the
officer in a manner akin to an agency relationship; (2) is subject
to the officer's close direction; (3) is assisting the federal
officer in fulfilling basic governmental tasks that the Government
itself would have had to perform if it had not contracted with a
private firm; and (4) is engaged in activity that is so closely
related to the government's implementation of its federal duties
that the private person faces a significant risk of state-court
prejudice, just as a government employee would in similar
circumstances.
Having independently reviewed the case law and facts set forth by
the Defendant, Judge Fitzgerald joins the majority of district
courts and concludes that implementing the Meaningful Use Program
is insufficient to establish that the Defendant was "acting under"
a federal agency, and therefore removal is improper.
Judge Fitzgerald finds that the government-contractor and
regulator-regulated cases establish that for a private firm to
invoke the removal statute, generally they must demonstrate both
that they are operating as a subordinate and pursuant to the
Government's directions and that their conduct is in furtherance of
a traditional or statutory governmental duty or task. The Defendant
has not established either requirement.
The Defendant has also failed to establish the superior-subordinate
type of relationship required to show it was "acting under" the
National Coordinator in creating its patient portal and
implementing Facebook Pixel.
Judge Fitzgerald concludes that the Defendant fails to demonstrate
that the Complaint concerns conduct it engaged in while "acting
under" a federal officer or agency for purposes of the
federal-officer removal statute. The Defendant has failed to
demonstrate that it is carrying out or assisting the Government
with a traditional duty or task that the National Coordinator would
otherwise do itself. None of the relevant factors appear to suggest
that the Defendant is acting under a federal officer or agency as
required to invoke the federal-officer removal statute. Therefore,
removal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)) is improper. Accordingly,
the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this non-diverse
action containing purely state-law claims and must remand this
action to the Los Angeles Superior Court.
For these reasons, the Motion to Remand is granted and Judge
Fitzgerald directs the Clerk to remands the action to the Los
Angeles Superior Court.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4akn4kvy from Leagle.com.
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidated Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDER SOWA, TENIKA
NEIL, STEPHEN V. CAGGIANO, STEVEN AVERBACH, CHRISTIAN KODOM, LISA
TURNER, MIKE XIE, PASQUALE RUSSOLILLO, EDWARD MICHAEL JACOBS,
THOMAS KOBY, MONIQUE EDWARDS, YAUWEN LIN, STANLEY KING, SAMUEL
ORTIZ, JACK SIMPSON, BRIAN LAASKO, GIUSEPPE GAROFALO, ANTHONY
RUSSELL, RAYMOND ROBINSON, PARK C. THOMAS, CURTIS WILLIS, ALMA
BROWN, AND OWEN LICHT, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC (MBUSA) and
MERCEDES-BENZ GROUP AG f/k/a DAIMLER AG, Case No. 1:23-cv-00636-SEG
(N.D. Ga.), MBUSA requests that the Court grant its motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' consolidated class action complaint with
prejudice.
Though none of the plaintiffs alleges any problem with the subframe
of their vehicles during the four-year / 50,000-mile limits of
their New Vehicle Limited Warranties ("NVLW") -- and one Plaintiff
never alleges an issue at all -- MBUSA has offered all these
plaintiffs and more than one million other affected vehicle owners
a comprehensive extended warranty against corrosion affecting the
rear subframes of their vehicles (the Extended Warranty).
The Plaintiffs have not requested repairs or reimbursement under
the Extended Warranty of the NVLW. Instead, they initiated a
lawsuit. The Consolidated Complaint currently before the Court,
although voluminous, is subject to dismissal on many grounds.
Because of the Extended Warranty, plaintiffs' claims are not ripe.
The Plaintiffs also lack standing to assert claims (1) based on
vehicles they do not own or lease and (2) for injunctive relief.
The Plaintiffs' entire Complaint should be dismissed as an improper
"shotgun pleading. " The Plaintiffs fail to plead facts giving rise
to any "nationwide claim," as for example, none of them alleges a
Georgia transaction of the type necessary to give rise to a named
plaintiffs' claim—much less to bring all claims
nationwide—under Georgia law, the lawsuit says.
Although testing demonstrated that the purported defect does not
create any safety concerns, in February 2023, MBUSA nevertheless
implemented the Extended Warranty that covered C-Class, GLK-Class,
E-Class, SLK-Class, CLS Class, and SL-Class vehicles with model
years ranging from 2005 to 2017.
Mercedes-Benz USA is a Mercedes-Benz Group-owned distributor for
passenger cars in the United States, headquartered in Sandy
Springs, Georgia that sells cars from the Mercedes-Benz brand.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 14, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XvyA7t at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
S. Wade Malone, Esq.
Shaniqua L. Singleton, Esq.
NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
SCARBOROUGH LLP
201 17th St. NW
Atlanta, GA 30363
Telephone: (404) 322-6000
Facsimile: (404) 322-6050
E-mail: wade.malone@nelsonmullins.com
shaniqua.singleton@nelsonmullins.com
META PLATFORMS: Parris Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometrics
------------------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER PARRIS and KAREN JOYCE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. META PLATFORMS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2023LA000672 (Ill. Cir. Ct., 18th Jud. Cir.,
Dupage Cty., June 27, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant
for violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
According to the complaint, Meta collected, stored, and otherwise
used the biometric data of its reportedly more than 100 million
Instagram users, which includes millions of Illinois residents,
without any written notice or informed written consent. The
Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of a
proposed class of Instagram users to recover damages for Meta's
unauthorized collection, storage, and use of their biometric data
in violation of the BIPA.
Meta Platforms, Inc. is a technology company with principal
executive offices at 1601 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: 866.252.0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
3833 Central Ave.
St. Petersburg, FL 33713
Telephone: (813) 699-4056
E-mail: jcohen@milberg.com
- and -
Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
900 W. Morgan St.
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
E-mail: dbryson@milberg.com
METV: Averts Meta Video Privacy Class Action
--------------------------------------------
Skye Witley, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that MeTV won a bid
to dismiss a proposed class action alleging that the classic
television network illegally shared users' private video-viewing
history with Meta Platforms Inc., after a Illinois federal judge
ruled the users weren't covered by the law they sued under.
The plaintiffs' claim that they were "subscribers" because they
opened accounts on MeTV's website unrelated to viewing video
content doesn't qualify them to sue under the Video Privacy
Protection Act, Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins decided on July 6 in the
US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
COURT: N.D. Ill.
TRACK DOCKET: No. 1:22-cv-05963 [GN]
MISSION COMPETITION: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mission Competition
Fitness Equipment LLC. The case is styled as Frank Senior, on
behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v.
Mission Competition Fitness Equipment LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-05606-GHW (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Mission Competition Fitness Equipment LLC is a fitness equipment
developer and manufacturer, based in Austin, Texas.[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
MISTER CANGREJO: Gomez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paula Gomez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
Mister Cangrejo Corp., Mister Cangrejo NY Corp., and Ninfa Vaca
Camacho, Case No. 1:23-cv-04896 (E.D.N.Y., June 29, 2023), is
brought to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages,
spread-of-hours, liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and violations of the New
York State Labor Law ("NYLL") and their supporting New York State
Department of Labor regulations, and the NYLL's Wage Theft
Prevention Act ("WTPA").
The Plaintiff was ostensibly employed as a tipped worker. However,
she was required to spend a considerable part of her workday
performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to
cleaning, and prepping food (collectively, the "non-tipped
duties"). The Defendants employed the policy and practice of
disguising Plaintiff's actual duties in payroll records by
designating her as a tipped worker instead of a non-tipped
employee. This allowed Defendants to avoid paying Plaintiff at the
minimum wage rate and enabled them to pay Plaintiff at or below the
tip-credit rate. However, under both the FLSA and NYLL, Defendants
were not entitled to take a tip credit because these Plaintiff's
non tipped duties exceeded 20% of each workday, or 2 hours per day,
whichever is less in each day, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was ostensibly employed as a server, bartender, and
general worker at the Defendants' restaurant.
The Defendants own, operate and/or control the restaurants located
in Queens, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 792-0046
Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Shields Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SHIELDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MONDELEZ GLOBAL LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03999 (N.D. Ill.,
June 23, 2023) sues the Defendant for its failure to properly
secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that
it collected and maintained, including full names; dates of birth;
Social Security numbers; addresses, marital status, gender, and
employment information.
The PII compromised in the Data Breach was exfiltrated by
cyber-criminals and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals
who target PII for its value to identity thieves, the Plaintiff
alleges. In the Notice of Data Breach letter sent to the Plaintiff
and Class Members, the Defendant asserts that in “on February 23,
2023, the Defendant detected unauthorized access to its systems."
The Defendant subsequently investigated and concluded that the
unauthorized access "occurred from February 23, 2023 until March 1,
2023." As evidenced by the Data Breach's occurrence, the PII
contained in Defendant's network was not encrypted. Had the
information been properly encrypted, the data thieves would have
exfiltrated only unintelligible data, the Plaintiff contends.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and tens of thousands
of Class Members, suffered concrete injury in fact including:
(i) lost or diminished value of their PII;
(ii) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to
mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach,
including but not limited to lost time;
(iii) invasion of privacy;
(iv) loss of benefit of the bargain;
(v) damage to their credit scores; and
(vi) the continued and certainly increased risk to their PII,
which remains unencrypted and available for unauthorized
third parties to access and abuse; and remains backed up
in the Defendant's possession and is subject to further
unauthorized disclosures so long as the Defendant fails to
undertake appropriate and adequate measures.
The Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensatory damages and
injunctive relief including improvements to Defendant's data
security systems, future annual audits, and adequate credit
monitoring services funded by the Defendant.
Plaintiff Shields is and has been at all relevant times a resident
and citizen of Warminster, Pennsylvania. Mr. Shields received the
Notice Letter, via U.S. mail, directly from Defendant, dated June
15, 2023.
Mondelēz is a food retailer limited liability company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
dlietz@milberg.com
MONTANA UNIVERSITY SYSTEM: Niman Files Suit in D. Montana
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Montana University
System, et al. The case is styled as Bethany Niman, Riley Bennett,
Jora Bolena, Kasey Calwell, Ursula Casey, Brian Hagan, Miranda
Starr, Elizabeth Vicencio, Madison Ward, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Montana University System,
University of Montana-Missoula, Clayton Christian, Brianne Rogers,
Todd Buchanan, Joyce Dombrouski, Casey Lozar, Loren Bough, Jeff
Southworth, Norris Blossom, Maria Mangold, Sarah Corbin, Case No.
9:23-cv-00079-DWM (D. Mont., June 29, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Education Civil Rights for the
Civil Rights Act.
The Montana University System (MUS) -- https://mus.edu/ -- is
comprised of sixteen public universities and colleges, enrolling
more than 40,000 students each semester.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Geoffrey C. Angel, Esq.
ANGEL LAW FIRM
803 West Babcock
Bozeman, MT 59715
Phone: (406) 922-2210
Fax: (406) 922-2211
Email: christianangel@hotmail.com
MOSAIC BRANDS: Senior Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mosaic Brands Inc.
The case is styled as Frank Senior, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Mosaic Brands Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-05607-ALC (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Mosaic Brands Ltd (formerly Noni B Limited) --
https://www.mosaicbrandslimited.com.au/ -- has grown to be the
largest specialty fashion retailer group in Australia.[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
NATIONAL TENANT: Clermont Files FCRA Suit in D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Tenant
Network, Inc. The case is styled as Vanessa Clermont, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. National Tenant
Network, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-03545-MCA-LDW (D.N.J., June 30,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
National Tenant Network -- https://ntnonline.com/ -- is focusing on
a single goal—to help property owners and managers make the best
leasing decisions possible.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
LEMBERG LAW
43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor
Wilton, CT 06897
Phone: (203) 653-2250
Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com
NATIONSBENEFITS LLC: Stewart Alleges Layoff Without Advance Notice
------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMEON STEWART, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NATIONSBENEFITS, LLC, Case No. 0:23-cv-61199
(S.D. Fla., June 23, 2023) seeks to recover damages in the amount
of 60 days' compensation and benefits, under the Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act.
On May 15, 2023, the Plaintiff and approximately 300 other
employees of the Defendant were terminated without cause on their
part as part of or as the reasonably expected consequence of the
terminations that occurred on May 15, 2023, or within 30 days
thereof. The Defendant failed to provide Plaintiffs with the 60
days advance written notice that is required by the WARN Act. In
fact, the Defendant provide the Plaintiffs with zero days advance
notice. The Defendant's failure to provide employees with the
legally required advance written notice is a particularly egregious
violation because, apparently, the Defendant is in a strong
financial position, such that it is able to acquire, at least, two
other companies, as recently as late-2022. Such financial
circumstances do not excuse a company from ignoring the WARN Act's
notice requirements, the lawsuit asserts.
As a result of the Defendant's alleged violation of the WARN Act,
each Putative Class Members is entitled to recover an amount equal
to the sum of:
(a) his/her respective wages, salaries, commissions, bonuses
and accrued pay for vacation and personal days for the
work days in the 60 calendar days prior to their
respective terminations and fringe benefits for 60
calendar days prior to their respective terminations; and
(b) his/her medical expenses incurred during the 60-day
period following their respective terminations that would
have been covered and paid under the Defendant's health
insurance plan had that plan provided coverage for such
period.
The Plaintiff, Simeon Stewart, reported to Defendant's Plantation,
Florida, facility.
Nationsbenefits is a provider of supplemental benefits, flex cards,
and member engagement solutions that partners with managed care
organizations to provide innovative healthcare solutions designed
to drive growth, improve outcomes, reduce costs, and delight
members.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 224-0431
Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
lcabassa@wfclaw.com
aheystek@wfclaw.com
NEWELL BRANDS: Harris Sues Over Deceptive Labeling of Pacifiers
---------------------------------------------------------------
NAOMI HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEWELL BRANDS INC. and GRACO CHILDREN’S
PRODUCTS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00784-AMN-CFH
(N.D.N.Y., June 28, 2023), arises out of the Defendants' false and
misleading advertising of its pacifiers. The Defendants have
allegedly violated the New York’s Consumer Protection from
Deceptive Acts and Practices statute.
Through false, misleading, and deceptive advertisements, Defendants
have violated New York's consumer protection statute by
representing that their orthodontic pacifiers promote healthy oral
and orofacial development in children. Moreover, Plaintiff seeks
actual and statutory damages, and costs of suit and reasonable
attorneys' fees, says the suit.
Newell Brands Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located at 221 River Street, Hoboken, NJ. It
manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells a line of
"orthodontic" pacifiers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
328 Barry Avenue South, Suite 200
Wayzata, MN 55391
Telephone: (612) 389-0600
Facsimile: (612) 389-0610
E-mail: mweiner@pwfirm.com
- and -
Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
Michael H. Pearson, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (818) 788-8300
Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
E-mail: dwarshaw@pwfirm.com
mpearson@pwfirm.com
- and -
Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq.
James M. Lamarca, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: ekilpela@lcllp.com
james@lcllp.com
- and -
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
Amy E. Keller, Esq.
Christopher Stombaugh, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
10 North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
Facsimile: (312) 253-1443
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
akeller@dicellolevitt.com
cstombaugh@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Robin Van Der Meulen, Esq.
Johnny Shaw, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 933-1000
Facsimile: (646) 494-9648
E-mail: rvandermeulen@dicellolevitt.com
jshaw@dicellolevitt.com
NFI MANAGEMENT: Faces Navarrete Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
ZUBAN ISIDOR NAVARRETE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NFI MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; OTS
SOLUTIONS, LLC; NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION CENTER, LLC; NFI INDUSTRIES,
INC.; SIDNEY R. BROWN; ALVARO MENDOZA, an individual and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23STCV14980 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 27, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's
Private Attorneys' General Act including failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal
breaks, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to reimburse
business expenses, failure to comply with notice requirements,
failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to provide
sick leave pay, and failure to timely pay wages.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee
from approximately September of 2018 through approximately April of
2022.
NFI Management Services, LLC is a third-party logistics provider
doing business in California.
OTS Solutions, LLC is a digital Technology consulting company
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.
National Distribution Center, LLC is a transportation and logistics
company based in New Jersey.
NFI Industries, Inc. is a third-party logistics provider doing
business in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq.
Sarah H. Cohen, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 438-5555
Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
jeff@tomorrowlaw.com
sarah@tomorrowlaw.com
ON & ON 168 INC: Miao Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chunhua Miao; and other similarly situated person(s) v. On & On 168
Inc., d/b/a Qing Dao Restaurant and/or Citi Food Square and/or "Hua
Qi"; 40-48 MAIN STREET REALTY, LLC; 40-46 MAIN STREET REALTY CORP;
Lihua Jiang; Zenia Yuan aka Zenia Chyi Yuan; Sam Yuan aka Sam Chu
Yuan; Zhaoyue Sun; Case No. 713531/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens
Cty., June 30, 2023), is brought alleging violations of the New
York Labor Law (the "NYLL"), common law claims, and other claims or
allegations against the Defendants, arising from the Defendants'
various illegal or unlawful acts including but not limited to
illegal employment practices, human rights violations, labor law
and minimum wage related violations, illegally creating or
otherwise permitting a hostile work environment, sexual harassment,
sex or gender discrimination, battery, assault, retaliatory actions
against the Plaintiffs), and other illegal or unlawful acts
committed by the Defendants.
The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the New York Labor Law (hereinafter
referred to as NYLL) by engaging in a pattern and practice of
failing to pay employees accurate and timely compensation for all
hours worked, overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40
each workweek, and permitting and encouraging threatening and
hostile work environment in the workplace, to pay Plaintiff as a
manual worker not later than seven days after the end of the week
in which the wages were earned, failing to provide wage notices at
the time of hiring and wage statements, failing reimburse Plaintiff
the costs and expenses for tools of trade in order to deliver
Defendants' orders, and other wrongs and cause of actions, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for her employers as a counter and kitchen
worker, primarily selling food to customers, helping in the
kitchen, loading and unloading products, as well as taking payments
from customers.
The Defendants owned and operated, and still own and operate, a
food service establishment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Yao, Esq.
YAO LEGAL GROUP LLC
15 Canterbury Road Suite A3
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: (212) 392-5828
Fax:(718)550-5780
Email: dvao@vaolawoffice.com
OPENAI INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Theft
------------------------------------------------------
Grit Daily reports that OpenAI, the company behind the popular
ChatGPT app, is being accused of stealing and misappropriating vast
amounts of data from internet users to train its artificial
intelligence algorithms, leading to a proposed class action
lawsuit. The lawsuit, which was filed in a California federal
court, claims that OpenAI improperly obtained extensive user data
without permission, approval, or pay. In this article, we'll take a
closer look at the lawsuit and its potential outcomes, including
the allegations made against OpenAI.
A lawsuit of around 160 pages alleges that OpenAI scraped massive
amounts of personal data from the internet. The complaint alleges
that OpenAI illegally spied on practically all internet traffic
without the knowledge or consent of its users. Hundreds of millions
of people, including children, who use the internet have accused a
large firm of illegally harvesting their personal data through a
process called "data mining."
OpenAI put everyone in an incalculable risk zone by
misappropriating personal data of millions and using it to develop
an unstable, untested technology, according to Timothy K. Giordano,
a partner at Clarkson, the law firm behind the suit.
It is made clear throughout the case how extensive OpenAI's claimed
data theft actually was. The company has been accused of stealing
sensitive information from individuals across the internet without
their knowledge or consent, and then selling or giving away that
information. Concerns have been raised about OpenAI's dedication to
data protection and use given the possibility that the business
used this data to train its artificial intelligence technology.
n the planned class action case, the plaintiffs are asking for an
injunction barring any further sales of OpenAI software. As a kind
of monetary recompense, the lawsuit requests "data dividends" for
everybody whose data was used in the training and development of
OpenAI's technology. The lawsuit was brought to ensure that the
victims be adequately reimbursed by OpenAI for the stolen data.
Microsoft, a major funder of OpenAI, is also named as a defendant
in the lawsuit. The IT behemoth has not yet responded to the
allegations. Some in the IT community are worried about Microsoft's
image because of the company's close relationship with OpenAI,
which has been tied to data harvesting allegations.
Media and user curiosity were piqued by the debut of OpenAI's
ChatGPT tool. The tool's popularity stems from the "AI arms race"
that ensued when its capacity to mimic human behavior attracted
users. The class action lawsuit threatens OpenAI's reputation and
calls into question the company's data security practices. The
outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for
OpenAI's future intentions.
The case brought against OpenAI shows how vitally important it is
to conduct AI research and development in an ethical manner. As AI
matures, it will become increasingly important for companies to
prioritize the ethical collection of data and the safeguarding of
customers' personal information. This could serve as a model for
future cases involving data theft and exploitation by AI companies.
[GN]
OPENAI LP: Collects Personal Data Without Consent, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
P.M.; K.S.; B.B.; S.J.; N.G.; C.B.; S.N.; J.P.; S.A.; L.M.; D.C.;
C.L.; C.G,; R.F.; N.J.; and R.R., individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OPENAI LP; OPENAI
INCORPORATED; OPENAI GP LLC; OPENAI STARTUP FUND I, LP; OPENAI
STARTUP FUND GP I, LLC; OPENAI STARTUP FUND MANAGEMENT LLC;
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-03199 (N.D.
Cal., June 28, 2023) is an action arising from the Defendants'
unlawful and harmful conduct in developing, marketing, and
operating their AI products, including ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4.0,4
Dall-E, and Vall-E (the "Products"), which use stolen private
information, including personally identifiable information, from
hundreds of millions of internet users, including children of all
ages, without their informed consent or knowledge.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants continue
to unlawfully collect and feed additional personal data from
millions of unsuspecting consumers worldwide, far in excess of any
reasonably authorized use, in order to continue developing and
training the Products.
The Defendants secretly harvest massive amounts of personal data
from the internet, including private information and private
conversations, medical data, information about
children—essentially every piece of data exchanged on the
internet it could take—without notice to the owners or users of
such data, much less with anyone's permission, says the suit.
OPENAI is an AI research and deployment company that conducts
research and implements machine learning. The research organization
is dedicated to advancing artificial intelligence safely and
beneficially. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Yana Hart, Esq.
Tiara Avaness, Esq.
Valter Malkhasyan, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Email: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com
tavaness@clarksonlawfirm.com
vmalkhasyan@clarksonlawfirm.com
- and -
Tracey Cowan, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
95 3rd St., 2nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94103
Email: tcowan@clarksonlawfirm.com
- and -
Timothy K. Giordano
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
590 Madison Ave., 21st Floor
New York, NY 10022pr
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Email: tgiordano@clarksonlawfirm.com
PAM TRANSPORT: Cross Sues Over Age Discrimination in Hiring Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT CROSS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. P.A.M. TRANSPORT, INC., Domestic For-Profit
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-05104-TLB (W.D. Ark., June
28, 2023) arises out of the Defendant's violations of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Allegedly, the Defendant has policies and practices that were
intentionally put in place to achieve the goal of hiring younger
truck drivers as opposed to applicants over the age of 40.
P.A.M. TRANSPORT is an Arkansas corporation formed under the laws
of the state of Arkansas with its principal place of business
located at 297 West Henri de Tonti Blvd., Tontitown, AR. According
to its website, P .A.M. TRANSPORT provides nationwide dry van
truckload, expedited truckload, intermodal, and logistics services
to the manufacturing, retail, and automotive industries. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew R. Gunter, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange, Ste. 1600
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (407) 867-4791
E-mail: mgunter@forthepeople.com
rsaragih@forthepeople.com
ceffron@forthepeople.com
- and -
Gregory R. Schmitz, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N.Orange Avenue, Ste. 1600
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 204-2170
Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
E-mail: gschmitz@forthepeople.com
mbarreiro@forthepeople.com
PARAGON MECHANICAL: Solomianko Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Krzysztof Solomianko individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated as members of the Collective as permitted under
the Fair Labor Standards Act; v. Paragon Mechanical, Inc. and Kevin
Polka as an employer, Case No. 1:23-cv-04045 (N.D. Ill., June 26,
2023) seeks payment for all hours worked and time and half for all
hours worked over 40 hours per week pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.
Specifically, the Defendants failed to pay for any travel time if
the Plaintiff or collective member were going to maintenance
service "pm", a contract job (a job scheduled in advance), any
service call to a client on Preventative service Maintenance
contract list, and warranty service (either Plaintiff's or
anyone’s in the company). All of these types of service calls
happened frequently, weekly or many times per week, the suit
alleges. Additionally, the Defendants has a policy that for travel
time if a service call had "chargeable travel/service fee" then the
Plaintiff would be clocked at one (1) hour paid regardless if
driven 20 minutes or 2 hours resulting in shortages of hours of
work.
The Defendants also fail to pay the Plaintiff and the Collective
for time at the end of the work day, rather Defendants "punches
out" Plaintiff and Collective upon the last job of the day and/or
upon starting of the service vehicle at the end of the day, but
before the Plaintiff and Collective have completed work and/or
Plaintiffs and Collective travel from the work site, the suit
claims.
The Plaintiff also brings a separate and individual claim for
violation of the Internal Revenue Code, Section 7434, 26 U.S.
section 7434 based on a year end bonus of $29,000 which the
Defendants processed as regular pay and ended up paying 46% tax on
that bonus pay but after the Plaintiff left employment the
Defendants lied and changed the bonus to a "private loan" with no
repayment. This is a false statement to the IRS as the payment was
a bonus not a loan and resulted in a huge tax payment that was
incorrectly assessed based on the Defendants lies to the IRS.
Plaintiff Krzysztof Solomianko was an hourly (non-exempt) employee
of the Defendants. The Plaintiff was paid some of his overtime
wages but not all of his overtime wages.
Paragon is a provider/installer/servicer of heating equipment and
air conditioners in the Chicago area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John C. Ireland, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND
636 Spruce Street
South Elgin ILL 60177
Telephone: (630) 464-9675
Facsimile: (630) 206-0889
E-mail: attorneyireland@gmail.com
PARATRANSIT INC: Brown Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paratransit, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Alexis T. Brown, individually, and on
hehalf of all others similarly situated v. Paratransit, Inc., Does
1 through 10, Case No. 23CV003960 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento
Cty., June 29, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Paratransit, Inc. -- https://paratransit.org/ -- is a private
nonprofit corporation dedicated to providing transportation
services to individuals with disabilities, the elderly, and related
agencies throughout the Sacramento County area.[BN]
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Aug. 8
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on July 1 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Peloton Interactive, Inc. ("Peloton" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: PTON), and certain officers. The class action,
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York and docketed under 23-cv-04279, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired Peloton securities between May 10,
2022 and May 10, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company
and certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired
Peloton securities during the Class Period, you have until August
8, 2023 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.
Peloton operates an interactive fitness platform in North America
and internationally. The Company manufactures, markets, and sells,
inter alia, its Peloton Bike, which is an exercise bike equipped
with a touch screen for streaming live and on-demand fitness
classes. The Company markets and sells its Peloton Bikes nationwide
through Peloton and Dick's Sporting Goods stores, as well as online
at Onepeloton.com, Amazon.com, and Dicksportinggoods.com.
In 2021, Peloton was mired in controversy after the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission ("CPSC") issued an urgent warning to stop
using the Company's treadmill products because of risks of injury
and death posed to children and pets in the vicinity of those
products. At first, Peloton vehemently denied the CPSC's claims,
but was ultimately forced to recall the treadmill products while
publicly apologizing for attempting to refute the agency's
warnings. Peloton has since assured investors, consumers, and the
overall market that the Company has worked cooperatively with the
CPSC to further enhance the safety of its products, while signaling
a decrease in the need to book additional reserves for potential
future product recall expenses, in an attempt to regain the
public's trust and repair its damaged brand and reputation.
The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the seat posts for certain of
the Company's Peloton Bikes were prone to break or otherwise detach
during use, rendering them unsafe for users; (ii) as a result, the
Company was likely to recall millions of Peloton Bikes; (iii)
accordingly, Peloton overstated its efforts to enhance the safety
of its products, understated its estimated future returns, and
downplayed the Company's need to book additional reserves for
future product recall expenses; (iv) all the foregoing, once
revealed, was likely to negatively impact the Company's business
and financial results and reputation; and (v) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
On May 11, 2023, the CPSC issued a product recall affecting roughly
2.2 million Peloton Bikes, stating that "[t]he bike's seat post
assembly can break during use, posing fall and injury hazards to
the user."
On this news, Peloton's Class A common stock price fell $0.67 per
share, or 8.9%, to close at $6.86 per share on May 11, 2023.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members.
See www.pomlaw.com.
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]
PHARMERICA CORPORATION: Baca Sues Over Failure to Secure PII/PHI
----------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip C'de Baca, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PHARMERICA CORPORATION, d/b/a PHARMERICA,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00335-RGJ (W.D. Ky., June 29, 2023), is brought
against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information and
personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's
information network, including without limitation names, addresses,
dates of birth, Social Security numbers, medications and health
insurance information (these types of information, inter alia,
being thereafter referred to, collectively, as "protected health
information" or "PHI" and "personally identifiable information" or
"PII").
With this action, the Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible
for the harms it caused and will continue to cause the Plaintiff
and, at least, 5,815,591 other similarly situated persons in the
massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by
Defendant on March 14, 2023, by which cybercriminals infiltrated
Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and accessed
highly sensitive PHI/PII which was being kept unprotected (the
"Data Breach"). The Plaintiff further seeks to hold Defendant
responsible for not ensuring that his PHI/PII was maintained in a
manner consistent with industry, the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA").
While Defendant claims to have discovered the breach as early as
March 14, 2023, Defendant did not begin informing victims of the
Data Breach until May 12, 2023 and failed to inform victims when or
for how long the Data Breach occurred. Indeed, the Plaintiff and
Class Members were wholly unaware of the Data Breach until they
received letters from Defendant (the "Notice") informing them of
it. The Notice received by The Plaintiff was dated June 8, 2023.
The Defendant acquired, collected and stored the Plaintiff's and
Class Members' PHI/PII. Therefore, at all relevant times, Defendant
knew or should have known that the Plaintiff and Class Members
would use Defendant's services to store and/or share sensitive
data, including highly confidential PHI/PII.
The Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class
Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly and/or negligently
failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure that the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII was
safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an
unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable,
required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures
regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a
result, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII was compromised
through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party—an
undoubtedly nefarious third party seeking to profit off this
disclosure by defrauding the Plaintiff and Class Members in the
future. The Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing interest
in ensuring their information is and remains safe and are entitled
to injunctive and other equitable relief, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a victim of the Data Breach.
The Defendant is one of the leading providers of pharmacy services
in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laura Van Note, Esq.
Molly Munson Cherala, Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th Street, Suite 1725
Oakland, CA 94607
Phone: (510) 891-9800
Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
Email: lvn@colevannote.com
mmc@colevannote.com
- and -
Kyle R. Salyer, Esq.
MORGAN, COLLINS, YEAST & SALYER
455 2nd St.
Paintsville, KY 41240
Phone: (606) 268-2077
Email: kyle.salyer@kentuckycourage.com
PICKERING VALLEY: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pickering Valley
Store, Inc. The case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Pickering Valley
Store, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-05647 (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Pickering Valley Feed and Farm Store --
https://www.pickeringvalleyfeed.com/ -- is the top-rated pet supply
store and farm store in Exton, selling popular pet supplies in
Exton such as dog food, cat food, toys for dogs, dog bandanas, cat
bells, dog grooming, aquariums, general pet supplies and more.[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
PIERRE FABRE: Bid to Dismiss Bojko Class Complaint Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MAGDALENA BOJKO AND COURTNEY HEEREN, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. PIERRE
FABRE USA INC., Defendant, Case No. 22 C 6728 (N.D. Ill.), Judge
Thomas M. Durkin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, grants in part and denies
in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss.
The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action relating to the
Defendant's dry shampoo products that allegedly contain benzene.
The Defendant moves to dismiss on several grounds.
The Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells dry shampoo products
throughout the United States under the Klorane brand. Bojko and
Heeren are Illinois citizens who purchased certain of the Products
from retailers in August 2021 and May 2022.
In October 2022, Valisure, an independent analytical laboratory,
filed a Citizen Petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") regarding levels of benzene in dry shampoos. Valisure
tested for benzene in 34 brands of dry shampoo and found that 10
brands had benzene levels of 2 parts per million ("ppm") or higher.
Specifically, it detected benzene concentrations between 0.20 and
5.72 ppm in four out of the seven samples of the Products tested.
The Defendant has not voluntarily recalled the Products to date.
The Plaintiffs allege that benzene is a carcinogen, and exposure in
any amount is potentially harmful. The FDA has advised that benzene
should not be used in manufacturing drug products because of its
unacceptable toxicity. If its use is unavoidable to produce a drug
product that has a significant therapeutic effect, then its benzene
levels must be restricted to 2 ppm. But according to the
Plaintiffs, because dry shampoos are not drugs, any level of
benzene is unacceptable. Thus, they allege that the presence of
benzene renders the Products misbranded, adulterated, and illegal
to sell under federal and state law. And had they known that the
Products contained or risked containing benzene, the Plaintiffs
allege they would not have purchased them or would have paid less
for them.
The Plaintiffs bring claims for violations of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act ("ICFA"), other States' consumer fraud acts, breaches of
express and implied warranties, and unjust enrichment. The
Defendant has moved to dismiss on several grounds, including
standing, express preemption, safe harbor provisions, pre-suit
notice and privity for the warranty claims, and failure to state a
claim.
First, the Defendant facially challenges the Plaintiffs' standing
based on the allegations in the Complaint. It argues that they fail
to plausibly allege an injury in fact. It also contends that the
Plaintiffs lack both Article III and "statutory standing" to bring
claims under the consumer fraud acts of other States because they
do not live and did not purchase the Products outside of Illinois.
The Defendant further argues that Plaintiffs forfeited the issue of
"statutory standing" by failing to discuss it or cite pertinent
authority in their response.
Judge Durkin opines that at this stage, the Plaintiffs have
adequately pleaded standing to pursue each of their claims. He
finds that because the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the
Products they purchased had benzene, they have adequately alleged
an injury in fact. He also agrees and joins numerous other courts
in this District in finding that the best course is to defer the
issue on whether the Plaintiffs can satisfy the requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 to the class certification
stage. Lastly, the Plaintiffs refer to standing generally, not
limited to Article III.
Next, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' claims are
expressly preempted by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA").
The FDCA expressly preempts any state law requirement for labeling
or packaging of a cosmetic that is different from or in addition
to, or that is otherwise not identical with, a requirement
specifically applicable to a particular cosmetic or class of
cosmetics under this chapter.
Judge Durkin finds that the Defendant does not explain how the
Plaintiffs' claim that the Products' labels fail to warn consumers
about the presence of benzene is different from or in addition to
the requirement in 21 C.F.R. Section 740.1(a). Therefore, claims
based on the lack of warning on the Products' labels about the
presence of benzene are not expressly preempted. And because the
Plaintiffs' claims based on the sale of allegedly adulterated
Products do not rely on a state law requirement that is different
from or in addition to federal requirements, they are not also
expressly preempted.
The Defendant further argues that the ICFA's safe harbor provision
bars the Plaintiffs' claims. In view of the Complaint, Judge Durkin
cannot conclude that federal law specifically authorizes the
alleged conduct at issue. The Defendant's sale of allegedly
adulterated Products is not "specifically authorized." Nor is the
lack of any warning about the presence of benzene in the Products
"specifically authorized." The fact that federal law allows for the
omission of benzene from the ingredients list does not implicitly
provide specific authorization not to make any additional
disclosures on the labels about its presence in the Products. As
such, the safe harbor provision does not warrant dismissal of the
ICFA claim.
The Defendant also challenges the plausibility of the Plaintiffs'
allegations with respect to several elements of the ICFA claim. To
state a claim under the ICFA, a plaintiff must allege (1) a
deceptive act or unfair practice occurred, (2) the defendant
intended for plaintiff to rely on the deception, (3) the deception
occurred in the course of conduct involving trade or commerce, (4)
the plaintiff sustained actual damages, and (5) such damages were
proximately caused by the defendant's deception.
Judge Durkin finds that (i) the Plaintiffs have sufficiently
pleaded actual damages; (ii) the Plaintiffs' allegations are not
vague accusations about inadequate disclosures but specific alleged
omissions; (iii) the Plaintiffs do not adequately plead an ICFA
claim based on the lack of warning about the presence of benzene on
the Products' labels; and (iv) the Plaintiffs have not yet had the
opportunity to address the plausibility of their unfair practice
claim.
The Defendant then challenges the Plaintiffs' claims under nine
other States' consumer fraud acts. Judge Durkin opines that (i) the
Plaintiffs have failed to establish privity for either warranty
claim, so their breach of express warranty claim is inadequately
pleaded; (ii) the Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that the
statements on the website were the basis of their bargain so they
have not adequately pleaded their express warranty claim; and (iii)
the Plaintiffs have not shown that an exception to privity applies
for their breach of implied warranty claim.
Finally, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' unjust
enrichment claim should be dismissed because it is predicated on
the same conduct as the claims under the ICFA and other States'
consumer fraud statutes. Because the Plaintiffs have adequately
pleaded claims under the ICFA and States' consumer fraud acts based
on the alleged adulteration of the Products with benzene, the
unjust enrichment claim remains viable.
For the reasons he stated, Judge Durkin grants in part and denies
in part the Defendant's motion. He grants the motion to dismiss
claims that rely on the alleged misrepresentations and omissions on
the Products' labels and the warranty claims. He denies the motion
to dismiss claims that rely on the alleged sale of adulterated
Products and the unjust enrichment claim. If the Plaintiffs believe
they can remedy the defects identified in this Opinion and Order,
they may file a proposed amended complaint and redline showing the
changes made, as well as a memorandum no greater than five pages
explaining why the amended complaint cures the defects, by July 18,
2023. Otherwise, the Defendant must answer the surviving claims by
July 25, 2023.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3a5zmrdc from
Leagle.com.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Payne Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Planned Parenthood:
Shasta-Diablo, Inc. The case is styled as Jasmine Payne,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Ciminocare, Does 1-10, Inclusive, Case No. CGC23607359 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Sacramento Cty., June 29, 2023).
The case type is stated "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Planned Parenthood Shasta-Diablo Inc. --
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/ -- operates as a non-profit
organization. The Organization provides a range of reproductive and
general health services including birth control, abortion, prenatal
care, pregnancy testing, sterilization, and counseling.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John G. Yslas, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wishire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: 213-255-3937
Email: jyslas@wilshirelawfirm.com
POINT32HEALTH INC: Sapienza Suit Removed from State Ct. to D. Mass.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE SAPIENZA, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. POINT32HEALTH, INC. and HARVARD PILGRIM HEALTH CARE, INC., Case
No. 23CV549 (Filed June 14, 2023) was removed from Massachusetts
Superior Court, Norfolk County Division, to the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on June 23, 2023.
The Court Clerk of the District of Massachusetts assigned Case No.
1:23-cv-11416-NMG to the proceeding.
The suit asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, unjust
enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty in Massachusetts Superior
Court, Norfolk County Division.
On April 17, 2023, Point32Health identified a cybersecurity
ransomware incident that impacted its systems, including systems
that support Harvard Pilgrim. Nine putative class actions have now
been filed, including this State Court action and six cases filed
directly in federal court.
The Plaintiff alleges a putative class of "all persons residing in
the United States whose personally identifiable information or
protected health information was impacted by the Data Breach,"
consisting of "over 2.5 million individuals." And Plaintiff alleges
that each of those putative class members has supposedly incurred
"monetary losses, lost time, anxiety, and emotional distress."
Point32Health is a not-for-profit health services organization
comprised of a family of companies, including Harvard Pilgrim.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kurt J. Hagstrom, Esq.
HAGSTROM LAW GROUP
66 North Second St.
New Bedford, MA 02740
E-mail: kurt@hagstromlawgroup.com
- and -
Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
Montvale, NH 07645
E-mail: memert@kgglaw.com
ggraifman@kgglaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael T. Marcucci, Esq.
Jenna L. LaPointe, Esq.
JONES DAY
100 High Street, 21st Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 960-3939
E-mail: mmarcucci@jonesday.com
jlapointe@jonesday.com
PORSCHE CARS: Gearhart Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Porsche Cars North
America, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Stephen Gearhart,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Dr. Ing. H.C.F. Porsche AG, Case
No. 1:23-cv-02929-ELR (N.D. Ga., June 30, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Product Liability.
Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (PCNA) -- http://www.porsche.com/
-- based in Atlanta, Georgia, is the exclusive importer of Porsche
vehicles for the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Demet Basar, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN ET AL
218 Commerce St.
PO Box 4160
Montgomery, AL 36103-4160
Phone: (334) 269-2343
Fax: (334) 954-5777
Email: demet.basar@beasleyallen.com
- and -
Dylan T. Martin, Esq.
James Mitchell Williams, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.-M.
AL
218 Commerce St.
Montgomery, AL 36104
Phone: (334) 269-2343
Fax: (334) 954-7555
Email: dylan.martin@beasleyallen.com
Mitch.Williams@beasleyallen.com
- and -
H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq.
Thomas P. Willingham, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
Overlook II, 2839 Paces Ferry Rd. SE, Suite 400
Atlanta, GA 30339
Phone: (334) 269-2343
Fax: (334) 954-7555
Email: clay.barnett@beasleyallen.com
tom.willingham@beasleyallen.com
PRECISION IMAGING: Luttrell Files Suit in M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Precision Imaging,
Inc. The case is styled as Natalie Luttrell, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Precision Imaging, Inc.,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00772-MMH-LLL (M.D. Fla., June 30, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Precision Imaging Centers --
https://www.precisionimagingcenters.com/ -- specializes in MRI
scan, 3D mammography, bone densitometry, digital ultrasound, and
digital x-ray services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N Pennsylvania Ave
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Phone: (405) 235-1560
Fax: (405) 239-2112
Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com
- and -
Robert Henry Goodman, Esq.
PARRISH & GOODMAN, PLLC
13031 McGregor Blvd., Suite 8
Fort Myers, FL 33919
Phone: (813) 643-4529
Fax: (813) 315-6535
Email: rgoodman@parrishgoodman.com
PRO-TEK SECURITY: Grant Sues Over Labor Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------
XAVIONDRE GRANT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRO-TEK SECURITY SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:23-cv-00859-NJ (E.D. Wis., June 28, 2023), arises out of
the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws.
In approximately June 2022, Defendant hired Plaintiff as an
hourly-paid, non-exempt employee in the position of security
officer working at Defendant's Milwaukee, Wisconsin location. The
Plaintiff and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees regularly
worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. However, the Defendant
allegedly operated an unlawful compensation system that deprived
and failed to compensate them for all hours worked and work
performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for
each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek by shaving
time via electronic timeclock rounding and simply failing to
compensate said employees with overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 in a workweek, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL,
says the suit.
Pro-Tek Security Solutions, LLC is a security company with a
principal office address of 408 West Florida Street, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL: Tate Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progress Residential
LLC. The case is styled as Mitchell L. Tate, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Progress Residential LLC, Case
No. 2:23-cv-01203-ASB (D. Ariz., June 30, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Progress Residential, LLC -- https://rentprogress.com/ -- operates
as a real estate owner and developer. The Company serves customers
in the State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathan Charles Volheim, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LIMITED
2500 S Highland Ave., Ste. 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 568-3056
Email: nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Anastasio Sues Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT ANASTASIO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION and
PENSION BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC d/b/a PBI RESEARCH SERVICES,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-11442 (D. Mass., June 27, 2023)
alleges claims against the Defendants for negligence, breach of
third-party beneficiary contract, negligence per se, and unjust
enrichment.
Allegedly, Defendants breached their duties and obligations by
failing, in one or more of the following ways: (i) failing to
design, implement, monitor, and maintain reasonable software and/or
network safeguards against foreseeable threats; (ii) failing to
design, implement, and maintain reasonable data retention policies;
(iii) failing to adequately train staff on data security; (iv)
failing to comply with industry-standard data security practices;
(v) failing to warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendants'
inadequate data security practices; (vi) failing to encrypt or
adequately encrypt the Private Information; (vii) failing to
recognize or detect that its network had been compromised and
accessed in a timely manner to mitigate the harm; (viii) failing to
utilize widely available software able to detect and prevent this
type of attack, and (ix) otherwise failing to secure the software
and hardware using reasonable and effective data security
procedures free of foreseeable vulnerabilities and data security
incidents.
As a result of Defendants' unreasonable and inadequate data
security practices that resulted in the Data Breach, Plaintiff and
Class Members are at a current and ongoing risk of identity theft
and have suffered numerous actual and concrete injuries and
damages. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but
not limited to, compensatory damages, reimbursement of
out-of-pocket costs, future costs of identity theft monitoring,
injunctive relief including improvements to Defendants' data
security systems, and future annual audits, says the suit.
Progress Software Corporation is a for-profit Delaware corporation
headquartered in Burlington, MA. It offers a wide range of software
products and services to corporate and governmental entities
throughout the US and the world, including cloud hosting and secure
file transfer services such as MOVEit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
1 Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 482-3700
Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
E-mail: kristen@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Sean R. Matt, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
sean@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (513) 345-8291
Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
- and –
Charles Schaffer, Esq.
Nicholas J. Elia, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
nelia@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
THE LYON FIRM
2754 Erie Ave.
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Telephone: (513) 381-2333
Facsimile: (513) 766-9011
E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Diggs Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHAVONNE DIGGS, BRADY BRADBERRY, and CHRISTINA BRADBERRY, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-11370-NMG (D. Mass., June 20, 2023) seeks to remedy harm
caused by the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all
similarly situated individuals whose private information was
accessed and/or compromised during a data breach.
On May 31, 2023, PSC posted a notice on its website confirming a
recently discovered SQL injection vulnerability related to its
MOVEit Transfer and MOVEit Cloud file transfer services resulting
from a breach in its network and systems that Clop may have been
exploiting as far back as 2021. In its website notice, it states
that the vulnerability in the MOVEit Transfer and Cloud web
application resulting from the Data Breach "could lead to escalated
privileges and potential unauthorized access to the environment."
The Plaintiffs bring this class action complaint to address PSC's
inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that
it maintained through its MOVEit secure file transfer web
application, and its failure to provide timely and adequate notice
to Plaintiffs and Class Members of the types of information that
were accessed, and that such information was subject to
unauthorized access by cybercriminals. The Plaintiffs' and Class
Members' identities are now at risk because of PSC's negligent
conduct as the private information that PSC collected and
maintained is now in the hands of data thieves and other
unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs are residents of the State of Louisiana and have
each been issued a Louisiana Driver's License and/or identification
card through the Louisiana Department of Motor Vehicles, a customer
of PSC utilizing PSC's secure file transfer products and services.
Progress Software Corporation is a secure file transfer services
software company headquartered in New Bedford, Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christina Xenides, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
1005 Congress Avenue, Suite 925-C36
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 265-5622
E-mail: cxenides@sirillp.com
- and -
Mason A. Barney, Esq.
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com
tbean@sirillp.com
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Tenner Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBRENA TENNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Case No.
1:23-cv-11412-NMG (D. Mass., June 23, 2023) sues the Defendant for
its failure to properly secure and safeguard personally
identifiable information that it collected and maintained.
According to the complaint, the PII includes the Plaintiff's and
Class Members' names, Social Security numbers, birthdates,
demographic information, driver's license numbers, vehicle
registration numbers, and other financial information. Despite its
duties to the Plaintiff and Class Members related to and arising
from its cloud hosting and secure file transfer services, the
Defendant PSC stored, maintained, and/or hosted Plaintiff's and
Class Members' Private Information on a database that was
negligently and/or recklessly configured and maintained so as to
contain security vulnerabilities that resulted in a breach of its
network and systems, the Plaintiff alleges.
On May 31, 2023, the Defendant PSC posted a notice on its website
stating that it had found an SQL injection vulnerability in its
MOVEit Transfer application dating as far back as 2021 that allowed
an unauthorized third party to access Plaintiff's and Class
Member's Private Information. The Defendant has allegedly not yet
sent direct notice to those impacted by the Data Breach, though
many of its customers, such as the Louisiana Office of Motor
Vehicles, have begun notifying individuals, including the Plaintiff
and Class Members, that their Private Information has been
compromised because of the PSC Data Breach, says the suit.
The Plaintiff also brings this class action lawsuit for failing to
provide adequate notice to the Plaintiff and other Class Members
that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access
of an unknown third party; and for failing to identify precisely
what specific type of information was accessed. The Plaintiff seeks
remedies including compensatory damages, reimbursement of
out-of-pocket costs, future costs of identity theft monitoring,
injunctive relief including improvements to Defendant's data
security systems, and future annual audits. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff seeks redress for its unlawful conduct and asserts claims
for negligence; breach of third-party beneficiary contract;
negligence per se; unjust enrichment; and declaratory judgment.
Plaintiff Subrena Tenner is an individual citizen of the State of
Louisiana.
PSC is a Massachusetts based software company that offers a wide
range of software products and services to corporate and
governmental entities throughout the United States and the world,
including cloud hosting and secure file transfer services such as
MOVEit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Sean R. Matt, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
1 Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 482-3700
Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
E-mail: kristen@hbsslaw.com
steve@hbsslaw.com
sean@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (513) 345-8291
Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
- and -
Charles Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
THE LYON FIRM
2754 Erie Ave.
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Telephone: (513) 381-2333
Facsimile: (513) 766-9011
E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: McAdam Files Suit in E.D. Louisiana
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progress Software
Corporation. The case is styled as Annie McAdam, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Progress Software
Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-02295-SM-DPC (E.D. La., June 30,
2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for the
Federal Trade Commission Act.
Progress Software Corporation -- https://www.progress.com/ -- is an
American public company that offers software for creating and
deploying business applications.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Dugan, II, Esq.
David Scott Scalia, Esq.
DUGAN LAW FIRM PLC
365 Canal St., Suite 1000
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 648-0180
Fax: (504) 648-0181
Email: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com
dscalia@dugan-lawfirm.com
- and -
TerriAnne Benedetto, Esq.
THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, LLC
269 S. 3rd Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: (215) 620-2447
Email: tbenedetto@dugan-lawfirm.com
QUALITY SHEET: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Lopez Rios Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR IVAN LOPEZ RIOS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUALITY SHEET METAL, INC.; and
NARENDRA LACHMANSINGH, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-05509 (S.D.N.Y.
June 28, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for failure to
pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals, and
provide accurate wage statements.
Plaintiff Rios was employed by the Defendants as a warehouse
assistant.
QUALITY SHEET METAL INC. is headquartered in the United States. The
Company's line of business includes the operation of
nonclassifiable establishments. [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) 792-0048
Email: Jason@levinepstein.com
RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN: Anderson Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BEVERLY ANDERSON on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN LLC, RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN
OF THE GREATER TWIN CITIES, RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN OF THE TWIN CITIES,
Defendants, Case No. 0:23-cv-01886 (D. Minn., June 21, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants for their failure to adequately
and reasonably protect customer data and to employ reasonable and
appropriate measures to protect against unauthorized access to
confidential consumer data pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission
Act.
In 2023, Renewal discovered it had lost control over its computer
network and the highly sensitive private information stored on the
computer network in a data breach perpetuated by cybercriminals.
Following an internal investigation, Defendant learned that its
systems had been unsecured between January 2018, and January 19,
2023, allowing cybercriminals unfettered access to former and
current customers' personally identifiable information, including
but not limited to their names, Social security number, driver's
license number, address, banking account number, routing number,
and credit card number, for an appalling five years, says the
suit.
The complaint asserts that Defendant's failure to timely detect and
report the data breach made its customers, including Plaintiff,
vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their
financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of
their PII. Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, brings this
lawsuit seeking injunctive relief, damages, and restitution,
together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, the calculation
of which will be based on information in Defendants'
possession.
Renewal By Andersen LLC is a company specializing in window and
door replacement.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson St., Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
E-mail: raina@turkestrauss.com
sam@turkestrauss.com
REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE: Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jane Doe, Individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE ASSOCIATES OF
PHILADELPHIA, P.C., Case No. 230502846 was removed from the Court
of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 30,
2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02540.
In her seven-count Complaint, Plaintiff claims that RMA's alleged
practice of configuring its publicly-available website to collect
certain information about the activities of users browsing that
website, and sharing some of that information with third parties
such as Meta Platforms/Facebook, Google, and Microsoft, violated
the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
("HIPAA") and, by extension, violated Pennsylvania statutory and
common law in various ways. More specifically, Plaintiff's
Complaint includes counts for common law negligence, invasion of
privacy, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and breach
of fiduciary duty, along with alleged violations of Pennsylvania's
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and Wiretapping
and Electronic Surveillance Control Act.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Lesli C. Esposito, Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
500 North Capitol Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001-1531
Phone: (202) 756-8000
Facsimile: (202) 756-8087
Email: lesposito@mwe.com
- and -
David Quinn Gacioch, Esq.
200 Clarendon Street, Floor 58
Boston, MA 02116-5021
Phone: (617) 535-4478
Email: dgacioch@mwe.com
RISE DEVELOPMENT: Wave Seeks to Recover $37,896 Subcontract Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
WAVE CONSTRUCTION GROUP LLC, v. RISE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LLC, and
BARRY CALDWELL, and JOHN and JANE DOES 1-10 and others similarly
situated, Case No. 518117/2023 (N.Y. Sup., June 21, 2023) alleges
that Rise failed to pay Wave in accordance with the Subcontract a
sum of $37,896.71.
On January 7, 2021, and January 28, 2021, Wave provided to Rise two
proposals or estimates for work at 670 Union Street, Brooklyn, N.Y.
112155 (Premises). The proposals were accepted by Rise, and the
parties entered into contracts or subcontracts based on these two
proposals for brick and for Concrete Masonry Units (CMU) work for
improvements at or to the Premises. The Plaintiff fully performed
its obligations pursuant to the terms of the Subcontract.
Accordingly, the defendant Barry Caldwell improperly diverted
project trust funds belonging to Rise suppliers and laborers,
including the Plaintiff Wave. The defendant Barry Caldwell as an
officer of the Defendant Rise received payment for work performed
by the Plaintiff Wave, that he did not pay or cause to be paid to
the Plaintiff and improperly and illegally diverted such funds for
non-trust fund uses.
As a result of the improper diversion of trust funds, Rise's
suppliers and laborers, and others similarly situated, including
the Plaintiff Wave have been damaged in a sum that will be
established at trial of this action, plus an additional amount for
interest at the statutory rate, the suit alleges.
Wave is in business as a masonry contractor.
Rise is in business as a contractor and/or construction manager for
contruction work.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter M. Kutil, Esq.
KING & KING, LLP
Sanborn Map Building
629 Fifth Avenue
Pelham, N.Y. 10803
Telephone: (914) 380-5970
ROBLOX CORP: August 10 Cash Claim Form Submission Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
IF YOU USED ROBLOX AND YOUR VIRTUAL ITEMS WERE REMOVED FROM YOUR
ACCOUNT, YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO CASH OR ROBUX UNDER A CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT
Review this website carefully and show it to a parent or guardian
if you are under 18 years old.
Roblox Corporation has settled a class action that claimed Roblox
should have refunded Roblox users who spent Robux on virtual items
that were later removed (moderated) from the Roblox platform. As
part of this settlement, Roblox is establishing a $10 million
settlement fund from which users will automatically receive a
credit of Robux to their Roblox account. Alternatively, eligible
users can submit a claim to receive their share of the settlement
fund as a cash payment if that share exceeds a value of $10. Roblox
has also agreed to maintain a policy of automatically crediting
users for Robux spent on items that are later moderated for at
least four more years.
With some exceptions (provided in FAQ 5), those included in this
class settlement are all individuals in the United States who had a
Roblox account prior to May 11, 2023, from which content was
moderated and removed by Roblox. The Court in charge of this case
has not yet made a final decision to approve the Settlement.
Payments of Robux and/or cash will be made only if the Court grants
final approval to the Settlement and that decision is not reversed
by appeal.
If you are a class member, your legal rights are affected whether
you act or not, so please read the Notice carefully.
YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT
Do Nothing
You will automatically receive a Robux credit to your account
determined by your individual share of the settlement. You will
release your right to individually sue Roblox for the issues in
this lawsuit.
See FAQ 12 for more information.
Fill Out a Claim Form
If your individual share of the settlement is worth more than $10,
you can elect to receive a cash payment instead of Robux credit by
submitting a cash claim form by August 10, 2023.
See FAQ 9 for more information.
Object
Write to the Court about why you do not like something about the
Settlement by August 10, 2023.
Ask to be excluded from the Class
If you don't want to be a part of the Settlement, you must submit a
request to be excluded. You won't get any money, Robux, or other
benefits, but you will keep any rights to sue Roblox yourself for
the same legal issues in this lawsuit.
See FAQ 15 for more information.
Go to a hearing on September 27, 2023
You can ask to speak to the Court about your opinion of the
Settlement, including the amount of lawyers' fees. Written requests
to speak must be received by the Court by August 10, 2023.
See FAQ 22 for more information.
A copy of the Notice is available at:
https://docs.simpluris.com/websites/2fe11f0e-f0ca-4152-9592-fb8c07c6876b/documents/66207f6f-07b4-44ed-9b1d-faba3dc7d792/Roblox_Doe_Long%20Form%20Notice_v2.pdf
[GN]
ROCK SPRINGS: Fails to Pay Drywall Finishers' OT, Rosales Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Guillermo Perez Rosales, Belkis Vanessa Banegas Lainez, and Javier
Fernandez-Martinez, Individually on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. ROCK SPRINGS LLC, EAGLE HOME
IMPROVEMENTS LLC, BROTHERS RC CONTRACTORS LLC, and COWBOYS
CONTRACTORS LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00407-RCY (E.D. Va., June 23,
2023) sues the Defendants for failing to pay their employees in
accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act and Virginia Overtime
Wage Act.
The Defendants allegedly misclassified their employees as
independent contractors in violation of Virginia Misclassification
Law. The Plaintiffs and the Putative Class/Collective Members,
which includes drywall mechanics, drywall finishers and associated
laborers, were individually hired to work for the Defendants on the
QTS construction project located at 6000 Technology Boulevard,
Sandston, VA (the "Project"). Although Mr. Rosales, Mr. Fernandez
and the Putative Class/Collective Members worked more than 40 hours
for the Defendants in one or more weeks, they received only flat
rate, and not, overtime compensation, the lawsuit claims.
Plaintiffs Rosales and Lainez, and others similarly situated, are
entitled to damages caused by such misclassification, including
wages, salary, employment benefits, including expenses incurred by
the employee that would otherwise have been covered by insurance,
and impermissible chargebacks or deductions or other compensation
lost, plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in
bringing this action, the lawsuit asserts.
Mr. Rosales is a resident of Virginia and was employed as a drywall
finisher from October 11, 2022, to November 11, 2022, in Sandston,
Virginia by Rock Springs, Eagle and Brothers. Plaintiff Lainez was
employed as a drywall finisher from October 11, 2022, to November
4, 2022, in Sandston, Virginia by Rock Springs, Eagle and Brothers.
Plaintiff Fernandez was employed as a drywall mechanic from
February 15, 2023, to March 3, 2023, in Sandston, Virginia.
Rock Springs is a sub-contractor who contracts with general
contractors on specific projects.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
Samantha R. Galina, Esq.
Butler Curwood, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 648-4848
Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
E-mail: craig@butlercurwood.com
zev@butlercurwood.com
samantha@butlercurwood.com
RUGSUSA LLC: Briggs Files Suit in W.D. Washington
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RugsUSA, LLC. The
case is styled as Tawney Briggs, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Astor Wines & Spirits, Inc., Case No.
2:23-cv-00982 (W.D. Wash., June 30, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
RugsUSA -- https://www.rugsusa.com/ -- is a retailer of indoor and
outdoor area rugs, plus furniture, lighting, and other home
decors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Wright A. Noel, Esq.
CARSON & NOEL PLLC
20 Sixth Avenue Northeast
Issaquah, WA 98027
Phone: (425) 395-7786
Email: wright@carsonnoel.com
SCRANTON CARDIOVASCULAR: Counterman Sues Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
MARY COUNTERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SCRANTON CARDIOVASCULAR PHYSICIAN SERVICES,
LLC d/b/a GREAT VALLEY CARDIOLOGY, Defendant, Case No.
3-23-cv-01015-MEM (M.D. Pa., June 21, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract,
breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and declaratory and
injunctive relief arising from its failure to properly protect
Plaintiff's and Class members' personally identifiable information
and personal health information.
On April 13, 2023, Defendant knew that an unauthorized party
accessed Defendant's computer network. The Defendant investigated
the data breach and confirmed that unauthorized third parties
gained access to Defendant's network on or between February 2,
2023, and April 14, 2023. The unauthorized actor accessed files
that contained the private information of Defendant's patients and
customers, including but not limited to their names, addresses,
phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, medical
record numbers, and medical information. The Defendant began
notifying Plaintiff and Class Members of the data breach via
letters around June 12, 2023.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose
private information was compromised as a result of Defendant's
failure to: (i) adequately protect the private information of
Plaintiff and Class Members; (ii) warn Plaintiff and Class Members
of Defendant's inadequate information security practices; and (iii)
effectively secure hardware containing protected private
information using reasonable and effective security procedures free
of vulnerabilities and incidents. The Defendant's conduct amounts
to negligence and violates federal and state statutes, says the
suit.
Scranton Cardiovascular Physician Services, LLC d/b/a Great Valley
Cardiology, is a healthcare provider operating in the greater
Scranton, Pennsylvania area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randi Kassan, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
E-mail: rkassan@milberg.com
- and -
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
Dylan J. Gould, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 E. Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com
dgould@msdlegal.com
SCRANTON CARDIOVASCULAR: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT SCHULTE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SCRANTON CARDIOVASCULAR PHYSICIAN SERVICES, LLC, doing
business as GREAT VALLEY CARDIOLOGY, Case No. 3:23-cv-01050-MEM
(M.D. Pa., June 23, 2023) alleges that the Defendant failed to
properly secure, safeguard, and adequately destroy the Plaintiff's
and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that
it had acquired and stored for its business purposes.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's data security failures
allowed a targeted cyberattack in February 2023 to April 2023 to
compromise Defendant's network that contained personally
identifiable information (PII) and protected health information
(PHI) of the Plaintiff and other individuals.
According to the Department of Health and Human Services Office for
Civil Rights, this Data Breach was a Hacking/IT incident and
included the Private Information of 181,764 individuals, including
the Plaintiff and Class. Despite learning of the Data Breach, the
Defendant did not begin sending notices of the Data Breach until
June 12, 2023, the Plaintiff alleges. The Private Information
compromised in the Data Breach included certain personal or
protected health information of individuals whose Private
Information was maintained by the Defendant, including the
Plaintiff, says the suit.
As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members are
now at a current, imminent, and ongoing risk of fraud and identity
theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and for years into
the future closely monitor their medical and financial accounts to
guard against identity theft. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings
this action against the Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful
conduct, and asserting claims for: negligence and negligence per
se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidences; violation of
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law,
and declaratory relief, the suit further asserts.
The Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensatory damages,
reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief
including improvements to Defendant's data security systems, future
annual audits, as well as long-term and adequate credit monitoring
services funded by Defendant, and declaratory relief.
Plaintiff Robert Schulte is an adult individual who at all relevant
times has been a citizen and resident of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.
GVC is a healthcare provider with physicians principally located at
746 Jefferson Ave, Ste. 305 in Scranton, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
Kevin Fay, Esq.
GOLOMB SPIRT GRUNFELD P.C.
1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 346-7338
Facsimile: (215) 985-4169
E-mail: KGrunfeld@GolombLegal.Com
KFay@GolombLegal.com
SHUTTERSTOCK INC: Davis Sues Over Subscription's Renewal Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRIDGETTE DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHUTTERSTOCK, INC., a Delaware corporation;
and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-at-00624
(E.D. Cal., June 28, 2023) arises from the Shutterstock's alleged
deceptive advertising practices that violated the California's
Automatic Renewal Law, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
and the California Unfair Competition Law.
Allegedly, Shutterstock enrolls consumers in automatic renewal and
continuous service subscriptions without providing clear and
conspicuous disclosures about the program or the associated
charges; (b) charges consumers' credit and debit cards without
first obtaining their "affirmative consent" to the charge; and (c)
fails to provide a cost-effective, timely, and easy-to-use
mechanism for cancellation.
The Plaintiff signed into an automatic renewal
subscription--automatically charging her another $29.99 on March
19, 2022--without providing the clear and conspicuous disclosures
required by California law. When Plaintiff attempted to cancel her
subscription on March 29, 2023, she was charged $40.00 as an "Early
Cancellation Fee," says the suit.
Shutterstock is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in New York, NY. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Tauler, Esq.
TAULER SMITH, LLP
626 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 510
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (310) 590-3927
E-mail: rtauler@taulersmith.com
SN SERVICING: Pyke Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Brian Pyke, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. SN SERVICING CORPORATION, Case No.
MID-L-003015-23 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Middlesex County, to the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey on June 30, 2023, and assigned Case
No. 2:23-cv-03543.
The Complaint asserts a cause of action under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (the "FDCPA," which is a federal law
enacted by Congress). The Plaintiff's two derivative claims include
claims under the New Jersey Declaratory Judgment Act and the New
Jersey Truth-In Consumer Contract ("TCCWNA").[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Colleen Fox, Esq.
SAUL EWING LLP
650 College Road East, Suite 4000
Princeton, NJ 08540
Phone: (609) 452-3145
Fax: (609) 452-3122
Email: Colleen.fox@saul.com
- and -
Jonathan A. Singer, Esq.
1001 Fleet Street, Suite 900
Baltimore, Maryland 21209
Phone: (410) 332-8690
Fax: (410) 332-8862
Email: Jon.singer@saul.com
SYSCO CORPORATION: Crooks Files Suit in S.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sysco Corporation.
The case is styled as Angela Crooks, and all others similarly
situated v. Sysco Corporation, Case No. 4:23-cv-02388 (S.D. Tex.,
June 29, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Sysco -- https://www.sysco.com/ -- delivers exceptional produce,
custom cuts of meat, high-quality seafood, and imported foods
offering global flavors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
212 W. Spring Valley Road
Richardson, TX 75081
Phone: (214) 696-1100
Fax: (214) 740-0114
Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Valerie Anne Henderson, Esq.
BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
1301 McKinney Street, Suite 3700
Houston, TX 77010
Phone: (713) 650-9700
Fax: (713) 650-9701
Email: vhenderson@bakerdonelson.com
TAB RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kaciak Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
KAEDEN KACIAK; ZOIYAH MATHIS; CHRISTOPHER CLEMONS; JORGE IBARRA-
MENDOZA; CLIFFORD ROBINSON; KERSTIN BARRETT; LISSELLE ANDERSON;
TRINITY SHAIN; ADAM ACOINE; JONATHAN GIL; and NICOLAS GARCES,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. TAB RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, d/b/a Twisted Root Burger Co.,
Defendant, Case No. 6:23-cv-01200-CEM-LHP (M.D. Fla., June 28,
2023) seeks to recover from the Defendant 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 kitchen staff.
TAB RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC operates a restaurant business in Winter
Park, Florida under the moniker the "Twisted Root Burger Co." [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kevin K. Ross-Andino, Esq.
ECLAT LAW, PA
307 Cranes Roost Blvd., # 2010
Altamonte Springs, Fl 32710
Telephone: (407) 636-7004
TC ENERGY: Irvine Housekeepers File Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
TC Energy Corporation (TSX, NYSE: TRP) (TC Energy or the Company)
on July 2 disclosed that the Delaware Chancery Court (the "Court")
issued a ruling against TC Energy in a class action lawsuit brought
on behalf of the former shareholders of Columbia Pipeline Group
Inc. ("Columbia") related to the acquisition of Columbia by TC
Energy in July 2016. TC Energy strongly disagrees with the Court's
ruling and is evaluating its options for appeal once final judgment
is entered. The same Delaware Chancery Court had previously
confirmed, after trial in an appraisal rights action filed in 2016,
that the $25.50 per share that TC Energy paid Columbia shareholders
was fair value.
The lawsuit, filed by plaintiffs in July 2018, alleged that
Columbia's then CEO and CFO breached their fiduciary duties to
Columbia shareholders and that there were material omissions in
Columbia's proxy statement and that TC Energy aided and abetted the
fiduciary duty breaches and the disclosure violations. The
plaintiffs claimed damages in excess of US$3 billion. Columbia's
former executives settled with plaintiffs prior to trial for US$79
million. TC Energy disputed the allegations at trial.
The Court determined the former Columbia executives breached their
fiduciary duties and made material disclosure omissions and that TC
Energy was aware and took advantage of those breaches. The Court
awarded shareholders damages in the amount of US$1 per share. The
final award is yet to be determined but is expected to be in the
range of US$400 million, plus interest at the statutory rate.
Liability for this award will be allocated between Columbia's
former executives and TC Energy in a subsequent proceeding before
the Court that will determine proportionate responsibility and
account for the prior settlement.
TC Energy will not be responsible for the full amount of the award,
but its proportionate share will not be known until the allocation
hearing is completed and a decision rendered, likely later in 2023.
TC Energy is disappointed with this decision and disputes many of
the findings of fact and law. TC Energy intends to appeal once the
final allocation is determined and anticipates an appeal will take
upwards of one year.
About TC Energy
We're a team of 7,000+ energy problem solvers working to move,
generate and store the energy North America relies on. Today, we're
taking action to make that energy more sustainable and more secure.
We're innovating and modernizing to reduce emissions from our
business. And, we're delivering new energy solutions -- from
natural gas and renewables to carbon capture and hydrogen -- to
help other businesses and industries decarbonize too. Along the
way, we invest in communities and partner with our neighbours,
customers and governments to build the energy system of the future.
[GN]
TECHNIQUE FITNESS: Faces Selvanathan Suit Over Collection Letter
----------------------------------------------------------------
MAYAN SELVANATHAN, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated V. TECHNIQUE FITNESS INC. D/B/A CLUB OS, Case
No. CACE-23-015010 (Fla. Cir., June 23, 2023) sues the Defendant
for violating the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.
On May 30, 2023, the Defendant sent an electronic mail
communication to the Plaintiff. The Communication was sent from
campaigns@campaigns.club-os.com and delivered to the Plaintiff's
personal e-mail address. The Communication advised that "you are
receiving this message because there is a past due balance on your
account and your account is in collections." The Communication was
sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff at 3:45:53 AM in the
Plaintiff's zone, and was received by the Plaintiff at 3:45:53 AM
in the Plaintiff's zone. The Defendant did not have the consent of
the Plaintiff to communicate between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00
AM, the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent a FCCPA Class defined as:
The "FCCPA Class" consists of [l] all persons with Florida
addresses [2] that Defendant or someone on Defendant's
behalf [3] sent an electronic mail communication to [4]
between 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM [5] in connection with the
collection of a consumer debt.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Florida, residing in
Broward County.
Technique Fitness, Inc., doing business as Club OS, provides
software solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
Shannon E. Gilvey, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
shannon@jibraellaw.com
TESLA INC: Faces Black Workers' Class Action Over Extreme Racism
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ethan Baron, writing for East Bay Times, reports that complaint
after complaint alleging anti-Black racism at Tesla's factory in
Fremont has not stopped such abuse and discrimination, with Black
workers segregated into the hardest, most dangerous, lowest-paid
jobs and subjected to a barrage of racist treatment, language and
images, according to claims in recent court filings and employee
interviews.
Black workers at the plant -- Tesla's biggest California facility,
which employs thousands to build its four electric car models --
alleged such abuse often began soon after they started, excited at
landing a job at the famed automotive pioneer. In declarations
filed by more than 200 current and former workers at the factory in
connection with an Alameda County lawsuit against Tesla that now
seeks class-action status, workers said they quickly learned that
working for Tesla meant facing rampant, extreme racism. [GN]
TREE JUICE MAPLE SYRUP: Wahab Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tree Juice Maple
Syrup, LLC. The case is styled as Angela Wahab, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Tree Juice Maple
Syrup, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-05622-JHR (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Tree Juice Maple Syrup -- https://www.treejuicemaplesyrup.com/ --
is traditionally made from the Catskills Mountains.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ara Vahe Naljian, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 584-5575
Email: analjian@steinsakslegal.com
UNITED AUTO: Faces Selvanathan Class Suit Over Collection Letter
----------------------------------------------------------------
MAYAN SELVANATHAN, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. UNITED AUTO INSURANCE AGENCY, INC, Case No.
CACE-23-015136 (Fla. Cir., June 26, 2023) sues the Defendant for
violating the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act..
On October 4, 2022, the Defendant sent an electronic mail
communication to the Plaintiff. The Communication was sent from
noreply@unitedautoinsurance.comand delivered to the Plaintiff's
personal e-mail address. The Communication advised the Plaintiff
that "Your Car Insurance Is Past Due, But We Can Help . . . Don't
let your auto insurance be cancelled because of a late, or missed
payment."
The Communication was received by the Plaintiff at 6:50:11 AMEDT in
the Plaintiff's zone, the lawsuit says. The Defendant did not have
the consent of the Plaintiff to communicate with the Plaintiff
between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8 :00 AM, the lawsuit contends.
The "FCCPA Class" consists of [l] all persons with Florida
addresses [2] that the Defendant or someone on Defendant's behalf
[3] sent an electronic mail communication to [4] between 9:00 PM
and 8:00 AM [5] in connection with the collection of a consumer
debt. The Defendant and its employees or agents are excluded from
the Class.
The Plaintiff is the alleged debtor of the Consumer Debt. The
Subject Service was primarily for personal, family, or household
purposes.
UNITED AUTO INSURANCE AGENCY provides automobile insurance
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
Shannon E. Gilvey, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street,Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
shannon@jibraellaw.com
VENUS LABORATORIES: Court Narrows Claims in 1st Amended Lizama Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DELIA DE SANTIAGO LIZAMA, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. VENUS
LABORATORIES, INC., d/b/a Earth Friendly Products, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 4:22-CV-841 RLW (E.D. Mo.), Judge Ronnie L. White of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern
Division, grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion
to dismiss and strike allegations in the First Amended Complaint.
Venus Laboratories moves to dismiss claims brought by Plaintiff
Michelle Olsen for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). It also moves to dismiss any claims related to
products the Plaintiffs did not purchase, for lack of standing. In
addition, Venus Laboratories moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
claims brought under Missouri's and California's consumer
protection statutes and state common law for failure to state a
claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Finally, it moves to
strike the nationwide class allegations pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(f). Plaintiffs Delia De Santiago Lizama and Michelle Olsen
oppose the motion.
Lizama and Olsen allege in their First Amended Complaint that Venus
Laboratories has misled and continues to mislead consumers into
believing its products are "green," in other words, that they are
safe and not harmful to the environment. The Plaintiffs contend
they and other environmentally conscious consumers paid a premium
price for Venus Laboratories' products based on its representations
that its products are non-toxic, safe, and environmentally
friendly. According to the Complaint, however, the Defendant's
products contain toxic and harmful ingredients.
The Plaintiffs seek to represent consumers who were allegedly
misled into purchasing Venus Laboratories' products at premium
prices under false representations that the products were
non-toxic, safe, and environmentally friendly, when they are not.
Lizama and Olsen seek to bring this suit on behalf of themselves
and those similarly situated.
Venus Laboratories manufactures a variety of household cleaning and
personal care products under the name ECOS(R), which are sold in
retail stores nationwide. Lizama, who is a citizen of Missouri,
alleges she purchased Venus Laboratories' products from Whole Foods
Market in St. Louis County, Missouri. More specifically, she
alleges she bought ECOS(R) Hypoallergenic Laundry Detergent -
Lavender, ECOS(R) Hypoallergenic Dish Soap - Free & Clear, and
ECOS(R) Hypoallergenic Laundry Detergent - Magnolia & Lily. Olsen,
who is a citizen of California, alleges she purchased Venus
Laboratories' products from Whole Foods Market in Pasadena,
California. More specifically, she alleges she bought ECOS(R)
Hypoallergenic Laundry Detergent - Free & Clear.
Both Plaintiffs allege they purchased Venus Laboratories' products
because they saw labeling, advertising, the Defendant's website,
and read the packaging, all of which represented that its products
were "non-toxic," "safer," "made without known carcinogens,
reproductive toxins, or endocrine disruptors," "climate positive,"
"Earth Friendly," and/or "sustainable." The Plaintiffs allege they
understood these representations to mean that Venus Laboratories'
products were non-toxic, safe, and environmentally friendly and
would not cause harm to humans, animals, and/or the environment.
Further, both Plaintiffs allege they would not have purchased Venus
Laboratories' products at all or would have been willing to pay a
substantially reduced price for the products, had they known that
the products were toxic, harmful, dangerous, and environmentally
damaging. The Plaintiffs also allege they would purchase
Defendant's products in the future if the Defendant changed the
composition of its products so that they conformed to their
"non-toxic," "safer," "made without known carcinogens, reproductive
toxins, or endocrine disruptors," "climate positive," "Earth
Friendly," and/or "sustainable" packaging and labeling, or if the
packages and labels were corrected and the Plaintiffs could trust
that they are accurate.
In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs list 51 ECOS(R) products they
contend fail to conform to Venus Laboratories' representations that
its products are "non-toxic," "safer," "made without known
carcinogens, reproductive toxins, or endocrine disruptors,"
"climate positive," "Earth Friendly," and/or "sustainable," because
the products allegedly contain toxic, harmful, dangerous, and
environmentally damaging ingredients. They purchased 4 of the 51
products in the list.
The Complaint also lists 38 ingredients that can be found in the
Defendant's products, and there are allegations purporting to show
why each of the 38 ingredients are toxic, harmful, dangerous,
and/or environmentally damaging. In the Complaint is a table
listing the 51 ECOS(R) products with the allegedly toxic, harmful,
dangerous, and environmentally damaging ingredients they contain.
None of the 51 products contain all 38 ingredients. Each product
contains a combination of between 2 to 12 allegedly toxic, harmful,
dangerous, and environmentally damaging ingredients. The Plaintiffs
allege they and other consumers have been unlawfully misled by
Defendant's representations, because Venus Laboratories' products
contain these ingredients.
In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs bring 13 counts against Venus
Laboratories pursuant to state law. In Counts I-V, Lizama asserts
Defendant has violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act,
Mo. Rev. Stat. Sections 401.010, et seq. ("MMPA"). In Counts
VI-VIII, Olsen brings claims for violations of the California
Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices Law, Cal. Bus & Prof. Codes
Section 17200 et seq. ("CUDAP") (Count VI); the California
Deceptive Advertising Practices Law, Cal. Bus & Prof. Codes Section
17500 et seq., ("CDAP") (Count VII); and the California Consumers
Legal Remedy Act, Cal. Civ. Codes Section 1750, et seq. ("CLRA")
(Count VIII). In Counts IX-XIII, both Plaintiffs assert common law
claims for breach of express warranty (Count IX); breach of implied
warranty of merchantability (Count X); unjust enrichment (Count
XI); negligent misrepresentation (Count XII); and fraud (XIII).
Lizama seeks to bring claims on behalf of herself and a class of
Missouri consumers. Olsen seeks to bring claims on behalf of
herself and a class of California consumers. Both Plaintiffs seek
to bring common law claims on behalf of a nationwide class. They
also ask the Court to enter an order declaring that Venus
Laboratories' conduct violates Missouri's and California's
statutory laws, as well as state common laws. They seek
compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees.
In sum, Judge White agrees with Venus Laboratories that personal
jurisdiction does not exist for Olsen's claims. He says the
Plaintiffs fail to identify a case where a court has held that
Bristol-Myers does not apply to a named plaintiff seeking to
represent members of a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. He
dismisses these claims without prejudice.
Judge White finds that Lizama adequately alleges facts showing that
some of the products she did not purchase are substantially similar
to those she did purchase, and the misrepresentations made about
these products are also substantially similar. Based on the
allegations in the Complaint and without a more complete record, he
finds that the Plaintiff adequately alleges facts showing that some
of the products she did not purchase are substantially similar to
those she did, and the misrepresentations made about these products
are also substantially similar. He finds Lizama has standing to
bring claims on behalf of unnamed class members related to ECOS(R)
laundry detergents and dish soaps, even the varieties she did not
purchase.
Therefore, Judge White denies Venus Laboratories' motion to dismiss
for lack of standing claims Lizama seeks to bring on behalf of
unnamed class members related to the Defendant's laundry detergents
and dish soaps. He grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss for
lack of standing claims related to all other products she did not
purchase.
Judge White also denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim with regard to Lizama's claims under the
MMPA, for breaches of warranties, unjust enrichment, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, and for injunctive relief. Among other
things, he finds that (i) the Defendant is not entitled to
dismissal of the MMPA claims based on its argument that the
Plaintiff fails to sufficiently "establish" damages with evidence;
(ii) the Complaint adequately allege the Defendant's
representations about its products are likely to mislead a
reasonable consumer; (iii) the Complaint states a claim for the
breach of implied warranty under Missouri law; (iv) the Defendant
fails to demonstrate that the Complaint does not state a claim for
negligent misrepresentation; and (v) the Defendant fails to support
its argument that Lizama has not sufficiently pleaded that it knew
its statements were false, or that it intended "green' consumers
would rely on those statements and purchase its products at a
premium price.
Finally, Judge White declines to strike the nationwide class
allegations pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). He finds that there
is insufficient briefing on both the choice of law issue, as well
as the laws of the various states for the five common law claims in
the Complaint. Consequently, deciding the issues of predominance
and superiority would be premature at this time. He declines to
strike the Plaintiff's nationwide class allegations pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).
Accordingly, Judge White grants in part and denies in part Venus
Laboratories' Motion to Dismiss and strike allegations in the First
Amended Complaint. The motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction is granted as to Olsen. Judge White dismisses Olsen's
claims against the Defendant without prejudice. He further
dismisses for lack of standing claims Lizama seeks to bring on
behalf of unnamed class members to the extent the claims are
related to products that are not laundry detergents or dish soaps.
In all other respects, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and strike
allegations in the First Amended Complaint is denied.
Judge White will issue a separate Order of Partial Dismissal.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ysx5fbw9 from Leagle.com.
VIRGINIA AGRICULTURAL: Santamaria Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Juan Jose Carachure Santamaria and Cesar Antonio Ramos Jaime,
individually on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VIRGINIA AGRICULTURAL GROWERS
ASSOCIATION, INC., BASKERVILLE FARMS, INC., AND DUSTY ROAD FARMS,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00396-RCY (E.D. Va., June 20,
2023) arises from the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week in violation of the
Virginia Overtime Wage Act.
The Plaintiffs and similarly situated class members are indigent
migrant workers whom VAGA brought to the United States on temporary
H-2A work visas. All the Plaintiffs and putative class members are
non-English speakers, who have little if any understanding of their
rights while working in Virginia as farmworkers. The Defendants
took full advantage of the Plaintiffs' and other class members'
indigence, inability to speak or understand English, and their lack
of understanding of the laws of the United States in order to forgo
paying overtime payments, says the suit.
Plaintiff Santamaria worked for VAGA and VAGA grower-member Edward
Baskerville of Baskerville Farms Inc. in McKenney, Virginia for
approximately eight or nine years on an H-2A visa while Plaintiff
Jaime worked for VAGA and VAGA grower-member Dusty Road Farms, Inc.
in Ringgold, Virginia in 2021 and 2022 on H-2A visas.
Virginia Agricultural Growers Association, Inc. is an agricultural
association based in Halifax, Virginia, that employs primarily
Mexican-national farmworkers alongside its Virginia-based
grower-member farms by way of H-2A visas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
Samantha Galina, Esq.
BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 648-4848
Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
E-mail: craig@butlercurwood.com
zev@butlercurwood.com
samantha@butlercurwood.com
- and -
Rachel C. McFarland, Esq.
Jason B. Yarashes, Esq.
Kristin Donovan, Esq.
LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER
1000 Preston Avenue, Suite A
Charlottesville, VA 22903
Telephone: (434) 529-1813
Facsimile: (434) 977-0558
E-mail: rmcfarland@justice4all.org
jasony@justice4all.org
kristin@justice4all.org
VORO INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Voro, Inc. The case
is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Voro, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-05615 (S.D.N.Y.,
June 30, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Voro's -- https://vororealestate.com/ -- cloud platform automates
real estate agent operations, and helps streamline real estate
transactions for our clients, and for our agents.[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
WAG LABS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Pinkerton Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
MIKE PINKERTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WAG LABS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
23STCV15102 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 28, 2023) is an
action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide
accurate wage statements.
Plaintiff Pinkerton was employed by the Defendant as a pet sitter.
WAG LABS, INC. provides software solutions. The Company offers dog
walking and dog sitting application for busy dog owners to connect
community they can hire on-demand for dog walking, sitting, and
boarding services. Wag Labs serves customers in the United States.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
Jamie Serb, Esq.
Brandon Brouillette, Esq
CROSNER LEGAL, PC
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (866) 276-7637
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
Email: zach@crosnerlegal.com
jamie@crosnerlegal.com
bbrouillette@crosnerlegal.com
WALT DISNEY: Wage Discrimination Suit May Become $300MM Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Snellgrove, writing for Giant Freakin Robot, reports that a
Disney lawsuit filed in California alleging wage discrimination may
become a class-action suit worth $300 million.
These days, it seems like Disney is involved in one lawsuit after
another. Even as the House of Mouse takes Florida governor and
presidential hopeful Ron DeSantis on in the Southeast, the company
is facing a gender discrimination lawsuit in California. That
lawsuit has been going on since 2019, and Deadline now reports that
attorneys for the original women involved are looking to turn this
into a class-action lawsuit that could cause Disney more than $150
million dollars.
The original Disney lawsuit in this matter was filed by former
Disney staffers LaRonda Rasmussen and Karen Moore back in 2019. The
two women alleged that they were paid less than their male
colleagues simply on the basis of their sex, and they are seeking
compensation from Disney to make up for lost wages.
One of the reasons the lawsuit has remained active for so long is
that Disney has been doing everything it can with its army of
lawyers to make the case disappear entirely.
Disney was unsuccessful in making the lawsuit disappear, and the
lawyers for the two original plaintiffs now want to turn this into
a class-action lawsuit. The new filing alleges that the pay
disparity for all women working at Disney for the last eight years
comes to more than $150 million.
Furthermore, the lawyers argue that this must become a class action
lawsuit because an entire class of workers has been allegedly
discriminated against, and the only way for them to get justice is
to get justice as a collective.
So far, Disney hasn't said much about this attempt to change the
current lawsuit into a class action suit besides insisting that no
such pay gap exists and that they will prove so in court. We'll be
interested to see what Disney's defense looks like because the
proposed class-action lawsuit looks very mathematically sound right
now.
It alleges a 2.5 percent pay gap between women and men that, spread
across 12,511 women who worked at Disney for an average of 4.38
years during this period, adds up to more than $150 million in lost
wages.
Right now, a proposed hearing date for this lawsuit is November 15,
and things might go sideways for Disney in a big way at that time.
Because this lawsuit has been filed in California, the state's
Equal Pay Act could potentially increase the financial liability of
the mega-corporation if this turns into a class-action lawsuit.
Specifically, the lawsuit could jump to more than $300 million, and
that's not counting any other sanctions or damages that a judge
could add if he sees fit to do so.
While only time will tell what the outcome of this Disney
class-action lawsuit will be, the combination of Disney slowing the
original suit down plus COVID-related delays means that this
proposed change to the suit is coming at the worse possible time.
Superhero fatigue and bad writing turned Quantumania into a bomb
and Secret Invasion into a dud, and now Disney is getting rocked by
everything from the writer's strike to the legal troubles of
Jonathan Majors. Ultimately, Disney is a company once thought too
big to fail, but they might have to soon wish upon a star for their
luck to turn around. [GN]
WE PUSH FOR PEACE: Carter Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Carter and Robert Lumpkin, on behalf of themselves, and all
other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. WE PUSH
FOR PEACE AND TREHERN POLLARD, INDIVIDUALLY, Case No. 1:23-cv-04201
(N.D. Ill., June 29, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid minimum
and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law, and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance ("CMWO").
The Plaintiffs worked more than 40 hours per week in certain work
weeks and did not receive any additional compensation for such
hours, including overtime premiums for overtime eligible hours
worked over 40 individual work weeks. However, because the
Defendants did not have a clock in/clock out option/policy for the
Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class, the additional hours worked by
the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff class, were not compensated at
all. The Defendants only paid Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class
based on their 'work schedule' as established by Defendants. When
either of the Plaintiffs' worked in excess of 40 hours per week,
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs any compensation for the
additional work hours at the proper minimum wage or overtime wage
of one and one-half his regular rate of pay in workweeks they
exceeded 40 hours of work, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff were employed by Defendants, said employment being
integral and indispensable to Defendants' business.
WE PUSH FOR PEACE ("WPFP") presents itself as a non-profit
organization promoting community engagement.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John W. Billhorn, Esq.
Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
BILLHORN LAW FIRM
53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 853-1450
WELLS ELECTRICAL: Sierra Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Electrical,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Victor Sierra, an individual, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Wells
Electrical, Inc., Does 1 To 50, Case No. CGC23607388 (Cal. Super.
Ct., San Francisco Cty., June 30, 2023).
The case type is stated "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Wells Electrical, Inc. -- https://wellselectricalinc.com/ -- is a
full-service electrical contractor supplying the greater San
Francisco Bay Area with new construction, electrical system
upgrades, and maintenance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hannah Becker, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP P.C.
1801 Century Park E, Ste. 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2346
Phone: 310-824-3828
Fax: 310-862-6851
Email: jm@melmedlaw.com
WELLS FARGO & COMPANY: Morris Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Anthony Morris, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo & Company, Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., Case No. CGC-23-606682
was removed from the San Francisco Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on June 30,
2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-03277 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Wells Fargo & Company -- http://www.wellsfargo.com/-- is an
American multinational financial services company with a
significant global presence.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendants are represented by:
Amanda L. Groves, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 615-1700
Fax: (213) 615-1750
Email: agroves@winston.com
WESTERN WATER: Mendoza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Western Water
Features Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jose Mendoza, other
members of the general public similarly situated v. Western Water
Features Inc., Does 1-25, Case No. 23CV003977 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., June 30, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Western Water Features, Inc. --
https://www.westernwaterfeatures.com/ -- offers construction
services. The Company designs and builds swimming pools, water
parks, and aquatic features.[BN]
NOTE: There are no professionals stated in the doc.
XPONENTIAL FITNESS: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Xponential Fitness,
LLC. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Xponential Fitness,
LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-05674 (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Xponential Fitness, Inc. -- https://www.xponential.com/ -- is the
largest global franchisor of boutique fitness brands.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
[*] Class Action Lawsuits on Growth Trajectory in New Zealand
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chapman Tripp on July 3 disclosed that class actions are on a
growth trajectory in New Zealand, fuelled by a mix of factors
including increased interest from offshore funders, growing share
market activism, increasing data security risk, and a stronger
consumer focus in commercial regulation, says Chapman Tripp in a
publication released on July 3: Class Actions in New Zealand.
"This trend was anticipated by the Law Commission which recommended
in June 2022 that New Zealand establish a statutory class action
regime supported by a formal litigation funding framework," said
Chapman Tripp Partner Laura Fraser.
"But, although the Government has endorsed the Commission's report
and indicated that it will be progressed, we seem now to be idling
at the lights with the prospect of a green light seeming to
diminish the closer we get to the elections."
"The courts are stepping in to fill the gap, but there is an urgent
need for greater clarity, particularly to provide appropriate
protections for self-reporting entities and parties entering into
settlements, as well as leniency applicants," Laura said.
Litigation funders will typically seek out cases with a potentially
large plaintiff class where each plaintiff's claim may be small but
the aggregate amounts will be material; where the unlawful conduct
is clear or easily proved or must be reported to the regulator,
with the outcome made public; and where the defendants have deep
pockets.
"New Zealand has yet to have a class action triggered by a data
breach but they are already becoming well-established in Australia
and research by the Privacy Commissioner's Office shows that
anxiety around data security in New Zealand is emerging as a hot
button issue."
The risks for data holders are large -- they will feel the heat
from consumers if their privacy is breached; they are increasingly
likely to be the victims of cybercrime; and insurance cover for
data breaches can be tricky.
"While we endure the long wait for reform, it is timely to take
stock of the class action landscape in New Zealand and to identify
key trends and future risk areas for business. We hope our analysis
will make a useful contribution to the debate and will assist
businesses to develop appropriate management and mitigation
strategies." [GN]
[*] Law on Class Actions by Litigants Needs to Be Tightened Up
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Frykberg, writing for interest.co.nz, reports that the law on
class actions by litigants needs to be tightened up, according to
law firm Chapman Tripp.
It says recommendations to sort out legal uncertainties about class
actions were made by the Law Commission last year, but moves to
implement them appear to be "idling at the lights", to quote the
law firm's litigation and disputes resolution partner, Laura
Fraser.
Her comments come as a huge class action looms against the ANZ and
ASB banks, but is bogged down in interlocutory arguments that are
delaying the substantive hearing. Chapman Tripp is not involved in
that case.
Class Actions are law suits taken collectively by large numbers of
plaintiffs who all have the same claim against a defendant. They
happen frequently in the United States and have been developing in
New Zealand since the 1980s.
But in its report last year, the Law Commission said New Zealand
does not have any legislation designed for the administration of
class actions. Furthermore, the High Court Rules used to govern
class actions were intended for something slightly different.
"As a result, there has been extensive litigation on procedural
issues, which has caused delay for parties and required
considerable court resources," the Commission wrote
"We have concluded that a statutory class actions regime will be
clearer, more certain and more accessible."
In its recommendations, the Law Commission said a class action
should need certification by a court before it can proceed. In
addition, any concurrent action would have to be filed within 90
days. And an out-of-court settlement would have to be approved by a
court.
In a response, the Government expressed agreement with many of the
Law Commission's recommendations, but so far nothing has happened.
Information on this matter has been sought from the Minister of
Justice Kiri Allan. Moves to improve New Zealand's class action
laws date back to 2009, after the finance company sector's
collapse.
Class actions in the United States have become famous for the size
of their awards. In one case, the tobacco industry was ordered to
pay $US206 billion for health costs incurred in 46 US states. In
another case, BP incurred a $US20 billion bill for its Deepwater
Horizon oil spill.
Class actions are also blamed for a wave of lawsuits in America for
lesser, but still substantial sums, which can sometimes reduce a
defendant to bankruptcy.
But an expert on litigation at Auckland University, Nikki
Chamberlain, says that is unlikely to happen here.
"We live in a very different environment from the United States. In
the United States, court costs lie where they fall. That is called
the American Rule. In New Zealand the losing party pays a scaled
cost. So already, there is a deterrent against unmerited legal
action," she says.
""And in any event, with unmerited claims, you have still got the
interlocutory applications like strike-out of causes-of-action and
summary judgement if you say there is no arguable case – those
can stop the proceedings."
One of the big issues for class actions is the problem of opt-in
versus opt-out litigation. Opt-in suits are sometime seen as having
more merit, since they are joined by people who clearly feel
strongly about their case. Opt-out lawsuits, by contrast, are more
controversial, since they temptingly dangle the prospect of
thousands of dollars of damages to people who were not exercised
enough to actively take a case in the first place.
The case against ASB and ANZ is an opt-out lawsuit, and this forms
the basis of an appeal by the defendants in an interlocutory case
being brought to the Court of Appeal. The case concerns alleged
over charging of interest and fees to customers.
In her appeal to politicians, Fraser says class actions are growing
in number all the time, and they could easily attract the attention
of offshore litigation funders.
"This trend was anticipated by the Law Commission . . . . .which
recommended a statutory class action regime," Fraser writes.
"Yet the future of class actions in New Zealand remains at a
crossroads," she says.
"The Law Commission's report, comprising of 121 recommendations,
was regarded as a landmark piece of work and was endorsed by the
Government. But we seem now to be idling at the lights with the
prospect of a 'green light' seeming to diminish as the election
comes closer."
In the meantime she says "class actions are on a growth
trajectory".
Chamberlain adds this means judges are having to come up with a
proper procedure for class actions as they go along.
"They are having to look overseas for guidance on their class
action regimes and that creates a lot of ambiguity," she says.
"And it means that these cases have a lot of scope for
interlocutory appeals and that causes lots of delay and lots of
expense." [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Faces Product Liability Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits in
which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing
asbestos manufactured more than 35 years ago, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "The plaintiffs generally bring these lawsuits
against multiple defendants and seek damages (both actual and
punitive) in very large amounts. In many cases, plaintiffs are
unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable
injuries or that the injuries suffered were the result of exposure
to products manufactured by us. We are typically dismissed as a
defendant in such cases without payment. If the plaintiff presents
evidence indicating that compensable injury occurred as a result of
exposure to our products, the case is generally settled for an
amount that reflects the seriousness of the injury, the length,
intensity and character of exposure to products containing
asbestos, the number and solvency of other defendants in the case,
and the jurisdiction in which the case has been brought.
"A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in
asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including
indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement
under which we acquired a business from a third party. Currently,
this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under
a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to
the third party.
"In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third
parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide coverage
for asbestos liabilities, including defense costs. Historically,
insurers have paid a significant portion of our defense costs and
settlements in asbestos-related litigation. However, certain of our
insurers are insolvent. We have entered into cost-sharing
agreements with our insurers that provide for the allocation of
defense costs and settlements and judgments in asbestos-related
lawsuits. These agreements require, among other things, that we
fund a share of settlements and judgments allocable to years in
which the responsible insurer is insolvent."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://t.ly/a7j_
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Strong Global Entertainment Defends PI Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Strong Global Entertainment, Inc., and certain of its subsidiaries
are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
A majority of the cases involve product liability claims based
principally on allegations of past distribution of commercial
lighting products containing wiring that may have contained
asbestos. Each case names dozens of corporate defendants in
addition to the Company. In the Company's experience, a large
percentage of these types of claims have never been substantiated
and have been dismissed by the courts. The Company has not suffered
any adverse verdict in a trial court proceeding related to asbestos
claims and intends to continue to defend these lawsuits. As of
March 31, 2023, the Company has a loss contingency reserve of
approximately $0.2 million, which represents the Company's estimate
of its potential losses related to the settlement of open cases.
During 2022 and the first quarter of 2023, the Company settled
three cases, which resulted in payments totaling $53,000. When
appropriate, the Company may settle additional claims in the
future. The Company does not expect the resolution of these cases
to have a material adverse effect on its combined financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://t.ly/5SpNR
*********
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 ***