/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230718.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, July 18, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 143
Headlines
3M COMPANY: McGee Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Murphy Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Pritchett Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Rogers Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Shull Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Sinclair Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Wright Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
ACADEMY BUS: Faces Fuller Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Hours
ADVANTAGE FEDERAL: Fracchia Sues Over Illegal Overdraft Fees
ALLEGHENY HEALTH: Discloses Personal Info to 3rd Parties, Says Suit
AMAZON.COM INC: Must Produce Geographic Data in Frame-Wilson Suit
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Himes Claims
AMERICAN HONDA: Larson Sues Over Defective Honda Vehicles
ANNA SUI CORP: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AP OF SOUTH FLORIDA: Balliu Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
APPLE INC: Faces Strong Class Suit Over iPhone 14 ProCharging Block
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Cuyle Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Humphries Says
ARDAGH GLASS INC: Castaneda Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Hoffman Sues Over Misleading Product Labels
ARROW FINANCIAL: Faces Ashe Suit Over Share Price Drop
ASTELLAS PHARMA: Agrees to Settle Aon 401(k) Class Suit for $9.5M
BANNER HEALTH: Williams Sues Over Illegal Wiretapping
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH: Aguilar Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
BEST BUY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Herrera Claims
BRIDGFORD FOOD: Seaway Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
CANADA: Settlement Agreement Reached in Boarding Homes Suit
CASTLE MANAGEMENT: Delgado Files Suit Over Unfair Hiring Policy
CATALENT INC: Employees' Fund Files Shareholder Suit in NJ Court
CDK GLOBAL: Lewis Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
CFIT HOLDING: Selvanathan Files Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
CHEVRON NORTH AMERICA: Class Suit Possible Following Recall
CLEVELAND, OH: Trial on Arbitration Spat in Utility Class Suit Set
CLUBCORP WILLOW CREEK: Shaw Sues Over Delinquently Paid Wages
COCA-COLA CONSOLIDATED: Class Deal in Marshall Suit Wins Prelim. OK
COOK COUNTY, IL: Cross Bids for Sanctions in Clay v. Sheriff Denied
CYRACOM INTERNATIONAL: Chaves Sues Over Interpreters' Unpaid Wages
DANIEL P. MINAHAN: Keegan Files Suit in S.D. Florida
DAVID R. HERNANDEZ: Mountain House Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Suit over Share Sale
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND: Hebert Files Suit in E.D. Louisiana
DESERT CARE: Sued Over Failure to Protect Patients' Health Info
DESIGN BY NIKKI: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Wurm Suit Claims
DEUTSCHE BANK: Class Settlement in Doe 1 Suit Wins Prelim. Approval
DIAZ IRON WORKS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Iniguez Alleges
DOCUSIGN INC: Faces Weston Securities Suit in California Court
DOMO INC: Faces Volonte Securities Suit in Utah
EDGIO INC: Marinelli Sues Over Share Price Drop
EDIBLE ARRANGEMENTS: Hussein Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois
ELECTRONIC COMMODITIES: Valenzuela Suit Removed to C.D. California
ESSEX PROPERTY: Esposito Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Mold
FEDEX CORPORATION: Almonte Sues Over Odometer Fraud Scheme
FIRST REPUBLIC: Collier Sues Over Drop in Securities' Market Value
FOOT LOCKER: Willis Sues Over Deceptive Discount Scheme
FORD MOTOR: Faces EcoBoost Class Suit Over Oil Pumps Failure
FRONTIER AIRLINES: Hamad Sues Over Deceptive Practices at Check-ins
GARY MOTYKIE: One Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information
GEHAN HOMES: Faces Diaz Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
GLO TANNING CENTERS: Prosser TCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
GOSHEN HEALTH: Removes Lamarr Suit to S.D. Indiana
GREAT VALLEY CARDIOLOGY: Faces Class Suit Over 2023 Data Breach
GUARDIAN SAVINGS: Motion to Dismiss in Stamler Class Suit Denied
HAT WORLD INC: Coleman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HILTON WORLDWIDE: Faces Class Suit Over HWP Ordinance Violations
HONEST PP&D: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Gomez Claims
HORIZON THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Tepezza Injections' Side Effects
HYDROVIV LLC: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HYZON MOTORS INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in NY Court
IDT CORP: Faces Breach of Contract Suit Over Settlement Claims
INTRINSIC DESIGNS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mateo Alleges
JAS FORWARDING: Jackson Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
KIRKLAND'S INC: Faces Sicard Labor Suit in New York Court
KIRKLAND'S INC: PA Court Dismisses Gennock Suit
LEXMOD INC: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LISA'S FOOD: Holmes Sues Over Alleged Labor Law Violations
M&T BANK CORPORATION: Brown Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
MAIMONIDES MEDICAL: Rodriguez Sues for Breach of Private Info
MAN STAFFING: Osuna Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MANAGED CARE: Nieblas Sues Over Failure to Protect Customer's Info
MAYFLOWER INTERNATIONAL: Figueroa Suit Hits Gender Discrimination
MEDIBANK PRIVATE: Faces Fourth Class Action Suit Over Cyber Breach
METAVERSE CORPORATION: Hay Files Suit in C.D. California
MGNY CONSULTING CORP: Wills Files Suit in S.D. New York
MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Class Suit Over "Stolen" Users' Personal Data
MISSION PRODUCE INC: Faces Labor Suit in California Court
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Faces Berndt Suit Over Data Breach
MSCRIPTS LLC: Court Appoints Guardian Ad Litem for Kent Robbins
N.S.J CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sobrinho Alleges
NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Hall Balks at Tax Systems' Discriminatory Acts
NATIONSBENEFITS HOLDINGS: Dekenipp Files Suit in S.D. Florida
NATIXIS SA: Objection to EGB Antitrust Suit Deal Sustained in Part
NAVIENT CORP: Student Loan Bankruptcy Class Suit Settlement Ok'd
NEVADA BADGER: Suarez Suit Removed to C.D. California
NHS MANAGEMENT: Wins Griggs Breach Class Suit in N.D. Alabama
NIPPON EXPRESS: Aranda Sues Over Unpaid Wages
NOVO BUILDING: Durkel Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
OFFICE DEPOT: Fitzgerald Sues Over Untimely Payment of Wages
ONE BROOKLYN HEALTH: Francis Sues Over Inadequate Data Security
ONE BROOKLYN: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Jones Alleges
OOMA INC: Faces False Advertising Suit in Canadian Court
OPENAI INC: Faces Awad & Tremblay Class Suit Over Copyright
OPENAI INC: Faces Class Suit Over ChatGPT's Copyright Info
PNC BANK: Fails to Provide Full Disclosures on Fees, Gutierrez Says
POINT32HEALTH INC: Mackey Sues Over Failure to Secure Data
PRABAL GURUNG: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Mitchell Sues Over Data Breach
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Narcisse Files Suit in S.D. New York
PUBLIX SUPER: Griffin Sues Over Mislabeled Cereal Bars
R&B CORPORATION: Moxley Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
RELX GROUP PLC: Wanna Files FCRA Suit in D. Minnesota
RENT THE RUNWAY: Faces Securities Suit in NY Over IPO
RICETEC INC: Louisiana Farmers Sue Over Defective Rice Variety
SAFE HOME SECURITY: Gillenwater Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
SAM BANKMAN-FRIED: Hawkins Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
SAMEDAY HEALTH: Sepulveda Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation
SELENE FINANCE: Cataneo Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
SHADWICK INC: Cuba Seeks to Recover Dishwashers' Unpaid Wages
STATE FARM FIRE: Faces Huskey Class Suit Over Racial Discrimination
STITCH FIX: Faces Shareholder Suit in California Court
TAP PLASTICS INC: Smith Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TEACHERS INSURANCE: Bid for Class Suit Certification 403(b) Denied
TENNESSEE: L. M. Files Suit in E.D. Tennessee
TOM FORD INTERNATIONAL: Hussein Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Chatwin Suit Over Defective Sienna Vehicles
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Connell Sues Over Illegal Collection of Debts
TREBBIANNO LLC: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TRUMP CORP: McKoy Bid to Depose Non-Party Witnesses Partly OK'd
TWITTER INC: Ma Seeks to Compel Arbitration, Pay Arbitrator Fees
UNITY SOFTWARE: Faces Assad Stockholder Suit in Delaware Court
VIKING RIVER: Rodriguez Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
VISION PATH: Africa Suit Removed to C.D. California
VMWARE INC: Securities Suit in California Court Ongoing
WAAWAATESI LLC: Garcia Files Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
WALMART INC: Sells Harmful Toys, Kim Suit Alleges
WALT DISNEY: Faces Class Suit Over Gender Discrimination
WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Suit Over Predatory Lending Program
WELSPUN PIPES: Judge Threatens Defense Counsel for Citing Contempt
WESTERN BAGEL BAKING: Rojas Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
WILTON REASSURANCE: MOVEit Data Breach Affects Customers
*********
3M COMPANY: McGee Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rex McGee, 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-02530-RMG (D.S.C., June 7, 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: Murphy Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Murphy, 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-02531-RMG (D.S.C., June 7, 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: Pritchett Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tammy Pritchett as Surviving Spouse of Willie Earl Pritchett, Jr.,
deceased, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF
CORPORATION; 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. (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.);
ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY
LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY
SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN
MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC., Case
No. 2:23-cv-02295-RMG (D.S.C., May 26, 2023), is brought for
damages for personal injury and death resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear
("TOG") 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. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
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 or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG 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 Tammy Pritchett ("Plaintiff") is an adult resident of
the State of Georgia who is the surviving spouse of Willie Earl
Pritchett Jr., who 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 leukemia 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:
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: Rogers Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason C. Rogers, 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-02680-RMG (D.S.C., June 14, 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 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: Shull Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnnie Shull, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining andManufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARKEMA, INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; Case No. 2:23-cv-02769-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 during the 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
3M COMPANY: Sinclair Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Sinclair, 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-02276-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
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: Wright Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert G. Wright, 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-03099-RMG (D.S.C., June 28, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with prostrate
cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
ACADEMY BUS: Faces Fuller Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Hours
---------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN FULLER, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACADEMY BUS LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 6:23-cv-01168 (M.D. Fla., June 23, 2023) is an action for
damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act for Defendant's alleged
failure to pay Plaintiff's overtime wages.
Plaintiff Fuller began working for Defendant as a bus driver in
October 2022, and he continues to work in this capacity. He asserts
that Defendant pays him and the Members of the Class at their
straight hourly rate for all overtime hours rather than the
overtime premium required by the FLSA.
Academy Bus LLC operates a charter bus company headquartered in
Hudson County, New Jersey. Plaintiff worked for Defendant in Orange
County, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA P.A.
1110 N. Florida Avenue Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 224-0431
Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
E-mail: aheystek@wfclaw.com
rcooke@wfclaw.com
ADVANTAGE FEDERAL: Fracchia Sues Over Illegal Overdraft Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
SUSANNE FRACCHIA AND GENADY MALTSEV d/b/a AQUARIASCAPE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. ADVANTAGE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No.
6:23-cv-06344-EAW (W.D.N.Y., June 22, 2023) arises from the
Defendant's routine practices of (1) assessing $36 fees and $34
overdraft fees on transactions that did not actually overdraw
checking accounts and (2) multiple fees on an item in violation of
the New York General Business Law.
The complaint alleges that Defendant misleadingly and deceptively
misrepresents its fee practices including, upon information and
belief, in its take-it-or-leave-it form adhesion contract. The
Defendant's improper scheme to extract funds from account holders
has victimized Plaintiffs and hundreds of other similarly situated
consumers. Unless enjoined, Defendant will continue to engage in
these schemes and will continue to cause substantial injury to its
consumers including the Plaintiffs, says the suit.
Advantage Federal Credit Union is a credit union with over $480
million in assets with headquarters in Monroe County, New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
700 Broadway
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 558-5500
E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com
- and -
Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq.
Winston S. Hudson, Esq.
JOHNSON FIRM
610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 372-1300
E-mail: chris@yourattorney.com
tyler@yourattorney.com
winston@yourattorney.com
ALLEGHENY HEALTH: Discloses Personal Info to 3rd Parties, Says Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
W.W., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Allegheny Health Network, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-01163-CCW (W.D. Pa., June 23, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping
and Electronic Surveillance Control Act; invasion of privacy;
breach of implied contract; unjust enrichment; breach of fiduciary
duty; violations of the Electronics Communication Privacy Act; (7)
breach of confidence; (8) negligence; and (9) violation of the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.
The Plaintiff, who has been a patient of Allegheny Health Network,
seeks to address Defendant's alleged unlawful practice of procuring
the interception of and disclosing Plaintiff's and Class Members'
confidential personally identifiable information and protected
health information to third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc.
d/b/a Meta, without consent. The Plaintiff and other Class Members
who used Defendant's Website understandably thought they were
communicating only with their trusted healthcare provider.
Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class Members, however, Defendant had
embedded the Facebook Tracking Pixel into its Website,
surreptitiously forcing Plaintiff and Class Members to transmit
their private information to Facebook, says the suit.
As a result of Defendant's alleged conduct, Plaintiff and Class
Members have suffered numerous injuries, including: (i) invasion of
privacy; (ii) loss of benefit of the bargain, (iii) diminution of
value of the private information, (iv) statutory damages, and (v)
the continued and ongoing risk to their private information.
Allegheny Health Network is a private hospital network in Western
Pennsylvania and New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randi Kassan, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 741-5600
E-mail: rkassan@milberg.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, 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
- and -
Glen L. Abramson, Esq.
Alex M. Honeycutt, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
800 South Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gabramson@milberg.com
ahoneycutt@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
E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com
- and -
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
Dylan J. Gould, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 E. Court St., Ste. 530
Cincinnati, Ohio 4502
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com
dgould@msdlegal.com
- and -
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
THE LYON LAW FIRM
2754 Erie Ave.
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Telephone: (513) 381-2333
Facsimile: (513) 766-9011
E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Must Produce Geographic Data in Frame-Wilson Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEBORAH FRAME-WILSON, et al., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM, INC.,
a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. C20-424RSM (W.D.
Wash.), Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Compel Production of Geographic Data.
Amazon opposes the motion. The Court has determined that oral
argument is unnecessary.
Amazon is the world's largest online retailer. The Plaintiffs are
consumers from 19 states, including Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona,
California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Nevada, New
Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont,
Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, who purchase consumer goods
online.
The Plaintiffs bring this proposed class action against Amazon for
violations of the Sherman Act. They allege there are binding
agreements between Amazon and third-party sellers that sell on
Amazon Marketplace that restrain competition and enable Amazon to
create or maintain its online retail monopoly. Specifically, they
allege that Amazon's Price Parity Provision (in effect in the
United States until March 2019), and its Marketplace Fair Pricing
Policy (enforced by Amazon from 2017 through the present) are
designed to and have the intended effect of preventing the
third-party sellers from selling their goods on other online sites
at prices that are lower than the price of their goods on Amazon
Marketplace.
The Plaintiffs allege that Amazon's policies inflated prices of
goods offered for sale at online retailers other than Amazon,
damaging them. They also allege in the Amended Complaint that
Amazon had similar policies in Europe but withdrew them under
pressure from British and German regulators.
The instant Motion deals with the Plaintiffs' attempts to obtain
data on Amazon's sales outside the United States, specifically in
the United Kingdom and Germany. The relevancy of such data is not
immediately obvious, given that the putative class definition
encompasses only those who purchased through any other retail
e-commerce channel in the United States other than Amazon.
On Sept. 23 and 28, 2022, the Plaintiffs served Amazon with their
first and second sets of Requests for Production, the following of
which are the subject of the instant Motion:
RFP NO. 89(c): All historical transaction-level sales (and
sales adjustment) data (in digital, computer readable format) from
the following categories... Transaction data covering historical
transactions on UK and German storefronts, Amazon.co.uk and
Amazon.de beginning no later than January 2010 and continuing to
the present, with continuous coverage of the intervening period.
RFP NO. 90: Any documents or data sufficient to show totals,
aggregated to a daily, monthly, or quarterly basis for all years at
least since 2010, or as far back as financial records are available
and separately for the Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk, and Amazon.de
storefronts, of:
a. Sales revenues and shipping charges of all Third-Party
Sellers on Amazon;
b. Total fees and commissions accruing to Amazon on the
basis of Third-Party Sellers' sales, broken down by fee;
c. Total revenues accruing to Amazon from any other
services provided to Third-Party Sellers, including logistics and
fulfillment;
d. Total revenues accruing to Amazon from Prime
subscription members;
e. Total sales revenues of all Third-Party Sellers made
through the buy box, and sales of all Third-Party Sellers not made
through the buy box;
f. Total first-party sales revenues earned by Amazon
through the Amazon Marketplace split into sales made through the
buy box, and sales made not through the buy box;
g. Total costs incurred by Amazon in the operation of
Amazon Marketplace, broken out by cost center; and
h. Total costs incurred by Amazon in the provision of
logistic services to Third-Party Sellers, broken out by cost
center.
RFP NO. 91: With respect to the data requested in Request Nos.
86-90:
a. Data dictionaries, decoding documents, lists and
definitions for each transaction code, abbreviation, or other field
or entry code or value, and indicating whether quantity values for
each transaction type should be included in calculating net
quantity sold, or should be ignored because they do not affect net
quantity sold;
b. A key or identification of a set of variables that
allows for the correct merging and combining of the data you
produced; and
c. To the extent that codes or values have changed over
time as the result of a database platform shift, redesign, etc.,
mapping Documents or datasets connecting values in previous periods
to their equivalent counterparts.
Amazon responded to each of the requests with essentially the same
objections. In response to RFP NO. 89, Amazon objects that the
request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not proportionate to the
needs of the case, and not relevant to the claims or defenses of
any party, to the extent it seeks (a) information that predates the
relevant limitations period, (b) data for foreign transactions,
which are not relevant to Plaintiffs' claims, and (c) data
pertaining to Amazon's own first-party sales, rather than the
third-party sales that are the subject of this lawsuit. It objects
to the extent the request seeks data or data in formats that are
not maintained in the ordinary course of business.
Amazon also objects that the request is vague to the extent it uses
the term transaction datasets which is undefined and does not
identify with sufficient clarity the information sought. Subject to
and without waiving its objections, it will identify, in accordance
with the ESI Protocol, responsive data concerning transactions by
third-party sellers in the United States for the time period 2016
to the present. Prior to the production of responsive data, Amazon
will provide the Plaintiffs a sample of such data.
The Plaintiffs assert that they need the above information for
their experts to conduct comparative analyses and to prepare
methodologies for analyzing class-wide impact and damages.
Judge Martinez finds that Amazon's arguments against compelling
this discovery fall into two buckets: relevancy and undue burden.
Although this case concerns only damages from overpaying for
purchases at any other retail e-commerce channel in the United
States other than Amazon, he says the Plaintiffs make a credible
and meritorious argument that the data from Amazon sales in the
United Kingdom and Germany are relevant and important to resolving
certain issues.
First, the Plaintiffs assert that to assess impact or damages in
antitrust cases, it is common to use data from a period or
geography that is not subject to the allegedly anticompetitive
practice. Second, they point to previous research on the impact of
Amazon's Price Parity Provision that relied on comparing Amazon's
sales data from different countries, including the United Kingdom.
Third, they point to other antitrust cases where foreign data was
produced.
Amazon has failed to convince the Court that this information is
too irrelevant to be produced. Although Amazon questions whether
the UK and German markets are relevant "benchmarks" for the
Plaintiffs' expert analysis, the Plaintiffs do not currently have
the burden of proving such and Amazon is free to attack any expert
opinions formed from this data later in the case.
Turning to the burden question, Amazon begins by pointing out just
how much data has already been produced related to U.S.
transactions. It is also preparing to produce data sets reflecting
offers. Amazon has its data engineering manager declare that it
does not store transaction-level sales data in one central
location. Instead, they are stored in "data lakes" with different
data tables managed by different Amazon teams.
The Plaintiffs state in their Reply brief that Amazon's arguments
and evidence spend far more time discussing discovery efforts that
have already occurred about U.S. data while obfuscating and
under-describing what will need to occur for the data at issue in
this Motion. They assert in a footnote that Amazon's U.S. net sales
from 2014-2022 were $356 billion, compared to $33.6 and $30 billion
for Germany and the UK, respectively. They state that they have
attempted to work with Amazon to reduce the amount of data that
needs to be collected.
Judge Martinez holds that the production of the requested
information will doubtlessly take a significant effort and cost a
substantial amount of time and money. But this is a significant,
substantial case. Ultimately, Amazon succeeds only in demonstrating
that it has already produced a lot of data in the case, not that
the requested discovery here will be disproportional. The data from
external markets has a critical role to play in determining
damages.
Taking into consideration everything presented by the parties, and
Amazon's failure to offer more, Judge Martinez concludes that the
requested discovery is proportional to the needs of the case
considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action,
the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant
information, the parties' resources, the importance of the
discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or
expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
Having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the
record, Judge Martinez grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel
Production of Geographic Data. The Defendant will provide the
Plaintiffs with full and complete responses to RFPs No. 89 through
91 in a timely fashion. The parties are directed to meet and confer
within 14 days about the timing of this discovery production and
any other remaining issues. The Court will issue a Minute Order
granting the nearly identical Motion in the related case, De Coster
et al. v. Amazon, C21-693RSM, consistent with the stipulation of
the parties to share discovery and the Court's Order at Dkt. #123.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4v545jke from Leagle.com.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Himes Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON HIMES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-04892 (E.D.N.Y., June 29, 2023) alleges claims against the
Defendant for violations of the New York Labor Law.
Plaintiff Himes was employed by Defendant as a Flight Attendant
based out of New York City airports (LaGuardia and JFK) from
approximately December 2017 through July 2022. Throughout this
employment period, he was compensated on a semi-monthly basis
despite being a manual worker. Moreover, in this class action,
Plaintiff seeks to recover untimely wage compensation on behalf of
all similarly situated employees who work or have worked as Flight
Attendants for American Airlines, Inc. with their base in New York
State. Allegedly, the Defendant violated NYLL by failing to
properly pay wages within seven calendar days after the end of the
week in which these wages were earned, the Plaintiff asserts.
Headquartered in Texas, American Airlines is the largest airline in
the world when measured by scheduled passengers carried and revenue
passenger mile. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
Josef Nussbaum, Esq.
JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
32 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 688-5640
Facsimile: (212) 981-9587
AMERICAN HONDA: Larson Sues Over Defective Honda Vehicles
---------------------------------------------------------
TERRI LARSON; JAMESON JAUKEN; CHARLES KADLUBOWSKI; GEORGE WERNER;
MARTHA VELASQUEZ; DAVID JOSEPHSON; CAROL HARDIFER; CARMINE D'AMATO;
CAROL ALLEN; CATHERINE DAVIS; STACY REISER; SUNGWON HAN, ARIKA
KUHLMANN; and RIC HEATON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY,
INC.; and HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, LTD, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-01238-L-BGS (S.D. Cal., July 5, 2023) is an action by the
Plaintiff and the Class who purchased or leased a defective
2012-2014 Honda CR-V vehicle with a 2.4 liter engine, 2012 Honda
Accord vehicle with an L4 engine, or 2012-2015 Honda Crosstour
vehicle with an L4 engine (collectively, the "Class Vehicles") that
were designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed, sold, and
leased by Defendants.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants knew
that the Class Vehicles contain one or more defects in their
Variable Timing Control ("VTC") Actuator, Honda part no.
14310-R44-A01 (the "R44"), that can cause internal engine damage,
including, inter alia, the stretching of the vehicle's timing chain
and failure of the timing chain tensioner, which can result in
catastrophic engine failure ("VTC Defect"). The VTC Defect often
causes Class Vehicles to emit a grinding and/or rattling noise at
start-up.
The Defendants knew the Class Vehicles were defective and not fit
for their intended purpose of providing consumers with safe and
reliable transportation at the time of the sale and thereafter.
Defendants have actively concealed the true nature and extent of
the VTC Defect from Plaintiffs and the other Class Members, and
failed to disclose it to them, at the time of purchase and
thereafter. Had Plaintiffs and Class Members known about the VTC
Defect, they would not have purchased the Class Vehicles or would
have paid less for them.
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC. develops and manufactures
automobiles. The Company offers passenger cars, trucks,
motorcycles, ATVs, generators, marine engines, lawn and garden
equipment, parts, and accessories. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark S. Greenstone, Esq.
Benjamin N. Donahue, Esq.
GREENSTONE LAW APC
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9156
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
Email:mgreenstone@greenstonelaw.com
- and -
Kevin F. Ruf, Esq.
Marc L. Godino, Esq.
David J. Stone, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
Email: kruf@glancylaw.com
mgodino@glancylaw.com
dstone@glancylaw.com
ANNA SUI CORP: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anna Sui Corp. The
case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Anna Sui Corp., Case No.
1:23-cv-04830-JHR-GWG (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Anna Sui Corp. -- https://annasui.com/ -- was founded in 1981. The
company's line of business includes the manufacturing of womens and
misses blouses and shirts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
AP OF SOUTH FLORIDA: Balliu Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kleva Balliu, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AP of South Florida, LLC, Case No.
23-11148CIDL was removed from the 7th Judicial Circuit for Volusia
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida on June 1, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:23-cv-01023-WWB-DCI to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated Other Personal Property.
AP of South Florida LLC is a Safeco independent agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO PA
401 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 400-4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Michael Eisenband, Esq.
EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
515 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 533-4092
Email: meisenband@eisenbandlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Ian M. Ross, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
1101 Brickell Bay, Suite 900
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 391-5218
Email: iross@sidley.com
APPLE INC: Faces Strong Class Suit Over iPhone 14 ProCharging Block
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Bucher of Top Class Actions reports that Apple Inc. failed to
notify consumers its iPhone 14 Pro did not come with a charging
block, making the device unusable unless the buyer purchases
separate charging devices, according to an iPhone class action
lawsuit filed June 25 in New York federal court.
Plaintiff Montana Strong says she purchased an iPhone 14 Pro,
expecting that it would come with an Apple charging block that
would allow her to use the smartphone without purchasing another
product.
"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," the iPhone class action says.
iPhone class action says Apple fails to adequately disclose that
the product does not come with charger
Strong asserts the only notice about the lack of an Apple charging
block was listed in small print on the back of the box that states:
"Includes: iPhone 14 Pro and USB-C to Lightning cable; power
adapter and headphones sold separately."
She notes many iPhone buyers do not have compatible iPhone chargers
from prior iPhones or other Apple devices. Even if they had a
compatible charger from a previous device, they may no longer have
it or it may have become non-functional due to age, according to
the plaintiff.
"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," the iPhone class
action says.
"Since the utility of the iPhone 14 Pro depends upon a charging
cable and wall plug, the failure to include the wall plug renders
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," Strong claims.
Because the iPhone 14 Pro is sold without an Apple charging block,
Strong says, purchasers cannot use the device as intended because
the device requires charging before use.
She says she would not have purchased the iPhone 14 Pro, or would
not have paid as much for it, had she known it did not come with a
charger.
Strong filed the iPhone class action lawsuit on behalf of herself
and a proposed class of persons in the state of New York who
purchased an iPhone 14 Pro within the applicable statute of
limitations.
The iPhone class action lawsuit asserts claims for violations of
New York General Business Law, breach of contract, breach of
express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability
and unjust enrichment.
Apple is facing at least one other iPhone class action lawsuit that
alleges the tech giant fails to adequately disclose that its
chargers are sold separately.
Strong is represented by Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan & Associates
PC.
The Apple charging block class action lawsuit is Montana Strong v.
Apple Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00774-AMN-ML, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of New York. [GN]
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Cuyle Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apria Healthcare,
LLC. The case is styled as Suzanne Cuyle, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Apria Healthcare, LLC,
Case No. 1:23-cv-01042-JPH-KMB (S.D. Ind., June 15, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Apria -- https://www.apria.com/ -- is a leading US provider of home
medical equipment delivery and clinical support, with services for
COPD, sleep apnea, wound therapy, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan F. Neumann, Esq.
Jordan Jacobson, Esq.
Joseph Meltzer, Esq.
Melissa L. Yeates, Esq.
Tyler Graden, Esq.
Varun Elangovan, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Phone: (610) 667-7706
Email: jneumann@ktmc.com
jjacobson@ktmc.com
jmeltzer@ktmc.com
myeates@ktmc.com
tgraden@ktmc.com
velangovan@ktmc.com
- and -
Russell B. Cate, Esq.
Sundeep Singh, Esq.
William N. Riley, Esq.
RILEYCATE, LLC
11 Municipal Drive, Suite 200
Fishers, IN 46038
Phone: (317) 588-2866
Fax: (317) 458-1785
Email: rcate@rileycate.com
ssingh@rileycate.com
wriley@rileycate.com
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Humphries Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HEATH PATRICK HUMPHRIES, MARK POBLETE AND JANE CHARBONEAU, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. APRIA HEALTHCARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01147-JRS-MG
(S.D. Ind., June 29, 2023) alleges claims against the Defendant for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of
confidences, breach of an implied contract, unjust enrichment, and
declaratory judgment and seeks to recover actual and putative
damages, with attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and appropriate
injunctive and declaratory relief.
The class action arises from the Defendant's failure to maintain
reasonable and appropriate data security for its patients'
sensitive personal information. On May 22, 2023, the Defendant
announced that it experienced a security incident disrupting access
to its systems and that approximately 1869,598 of individuals with
information stored on its system had their sensitive personal
information breached.
Headquartered in Indianapolis, Apria Healthcare LLC provides home
medical equipment, pharmaceuticals and services to patients
suffering from sleep apnea and diabetes and those in need of wound
care. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert J. Schuckit, Esq.
SCHUCKIT & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
4545 Northwestern Drive
Zionsville, IN 46077
Telephone: (317) 363-2400
Facsimile: (317) 363-2257
E-mail: rschuckit@schuckitlaw.com
- and -
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street, Suite N300
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (215) 867-2399
E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com
- - and -
Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
David A. Goodwin, Esq.
Joseph E. Nelson, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
E-mail: dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
jnelson@gustafsongluek.com
ARDAGH GLASS INC: Castaneda Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ardagh Glass Inc. The
case is styled as Alex Castaneda, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Ardagh Glass Inc., Case No. 23CV035665
(Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., June 9, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Ardagh Group -- http://www.ardaghgroup.com/-- is a
Luxembourg-based producer of glass and metal products that has
"grown in the past two decades into one of the world's largest
metal and glass packaging companies."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
LEBE LAW, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
777 S Alameda St., Fl. 2
Los Angeles, CA 90021-1657
Phone: 213-444-1973
Website: www.lebelaw.com
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Hoffman Sues Over Misleading Product Labels
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hoffman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Arizona Beverages USA LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 6:23-cv-01213 (M.D. Fla., June 29, 2023) alleges claims against
the Defendant for false and misleading advertising, breach of
express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust
enrichment, and for violations Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act in connection with a Defendant's beverage product.
Plaintiff Hoffman claims that the product label "Lite" misleads
consumers with respect to the product's calorie and sugar contents.
In addition, Hoffman also asserts that the Defendant mislead the
consumers in its declarations of serving size in the Nutrition
Facts section of the packaging label.
Based in New York, Arizona Beverages manufactures and sells
beverage products, including a combination of iced tea and
lemonade, known as an "Arnold Palmer." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Wright, Esq.
THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A.
515 N Flagler Dr Ste P300
West Palm Beach FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 514-0904
E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com
- and -
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
ARROW FINANCIAL: Faces Ashe Suit Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT C. ASHE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARROW FINANCIAL CORPORATION, THOMAS J.
MURPHY, PENKO K. IVANOV, and EDWARD J. CAMPANELLA, Defendants, Case
No. 1:23-cv-00764-AMN-DJS (N.D.N.Y., June 23, 2023) is a federal
securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired Arrow securities between March 12,
2022 and May 12, 2023, both dates inclusive, 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 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly 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) Arrow maintained defective disclosure controls
and procedures and internal controls over financial reporting; (ii)
the foregoing increased the risk that the Company could not timely
file one or more of its periodic financial reports with the
Securities and Exchange Commission as required by the NASDAQ's
listing requirements; (iii) accordingly, Arrow was at an increased
risk of being delisted from the NASDAQ; (iv) following the
disclosure of deficiencies in the Company's disclosure controls and
procedures and internal controls over financial reporting, Arrow
downplayed the severity of these issues and the associated risks;
and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On this news, Arrow's stock price fell $0.53 per share, or 2.71%,
to close at $19.06 per share on May 15, 2023, says the suit.
As a result of Defendants' alleged 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.
Arrow Financial Corporation is a bank holding company that provides
commercial and consumer banking, as well as financial products and
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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
ASTELLAS PHARMA: Agrees to Settle Aon 401(k) Class Suit for $9.5M
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille of Bloomberg Law reports that a $9.5 million
settlement benefiting current and former Astellas Pharma Inc.
employees received preliminary court approval, paving the way for
resolution of their challenge to a 401(k) plan redesign that
introduced funds from an Aon PLC unit,
The deal is expected to benefit about 4,000 people who were covered
by the Astellas 401(k) plan between October 2016 and March 2023. It
requires subsidiary Astellas US LLC to use a competitive bidding
process for the plan's investment advisory services and to instruct
the plan's recordkeeper that it can't use participant data to
market unrelated products and services. [GN]
BANNER HEALTH: Williams Sues Over Illegal Wiretapping
-----------------------------------------------------
DIANNA WILLIAMS; and ALICIA BELL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BANNER HEALTH; and META
PLATFORMS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01228-JFM (D. Ariz.,
July 3, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf
of all persons, users, prospective patients and current patients
who visited the Healthcare Defendant's website at
https://www.bannerhealth.com, and utilized the Website for its
various intended purposes, and who unwittingly and without their
consent had their private health conditions, identities, actual or
potential medical treatments they sought, and the hospitals they
visited or may visit disclosed to Facebook, violating the Federal
Wiretap Act.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, by visiting the
Website, Plaintiffs and Class Members entrusted Healthcare
Defendant with their PHI. Plaintiffs and Class Members had a
reasonable expectation that their PHI would be kept safe from
unauthorized disclosure. In violation of that trust, Healthcare
Defendant disclosed Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PHI with
Facebook without authorization or consent to further Healthcare
Defendant's own commercial interests, says the suit.
Banner Health operates as a non-profit organization. The
Organization offers healthcare services such as bariatric surgery,
behavior health, cancer care, hospice, medical imaging,
orthopedics, transplant, wound care, and rehabilitation. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin D. Neal, Esq.
William F. King, Esq.
Kenneth N. Ralston, Esq.
GALLAGHER & KENNEDY, P.A.
2575 East Camelback Road
Phoenix, AZ 85016-9225
Telephone: (602) 530-8000
Facsimile: (602) 530-8500
Email: kevin.neal@gknet.com
bill.king@gknet.com
kenneth.ralston@gknet.com
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH: Aguilar Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Aracely Aguilar, an individual, on behalf of herself, all aggrieved
employees, and the State of California as a Private Attorneys
General v. BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., a California
non-profit corporation and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
23STCV13377 Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 9, 2023), is
brought pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004
("PAGA") on a representative basis as a result of the Defendants'
failure to pay for all hours worked, including overtime hours
worked.
The Defendant has had a consistent policy and/or practice of:
failing to pay for all hours worked, including overtime hours
worked; failing to pay all wages owed twice per month; failing to
pay wages due upon termination; failing to provide rest breaks;
failing to provide uninterrupted meal breaks; failing to reimburse
for required business expenses; failure to pay split shift pay;
failing to properly accrue and pay for unpaid vacation; failure to
comply with California sick pay requirements; failing to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked as an employee for the Defendant.
The Defendant is a healthcare organization.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
KOUL LAW FIRM
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 761-5484
Facsimile: (818) 561-3938
Email: nazo@koullaw.com
- and -
Sahag Majarian, Esq.
Garen Majarian, Esq.
MAJARIAN LAW GROUP, APC
18250 Ventura Blvd.
Tarzana, CA 91356
Phone: (818) 609-0807
Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
Email: sahagii@aol.com
garen@majarianlawgroup.com
BEST BUY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Herrera Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BEST BUY CO., INC, Defendant, Case No.
HUD-L-002236-23 (N.J. Super., Hudson Cty., June 23, 2023) is a
civil rights action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated, seeking redress for Defendant's
actions which violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff, like approximately 2.0 million other people in the
United States, is visually impaired and legally blind. Upon
visiting Defendant's website, https://www.bestbuy.com/, Plaintiff
quickly became aware of Defendant's failure to maintain and operate
its website in a way to make it fully accessible for himself and
for other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial
of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of
its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under ADA, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Best Buy Co. Inc. is an American multinational consumer electronics
retailer headquartered in Richfield, Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Zemel, Esq.
ZEMEL LAW LLC
660 Broadway
Paterson, NJ 07514
Telephone: (862) 227-3106
E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com
BRIDGFORD FOOD: Seaway Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Gregory Seaway, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Bridgford Food Processing Corporation,
Case No. 2023CH03193 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Chancery Department, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on June 7, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-03615 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Constitutional - State Statute.
Bridgford Foods -- https://www.bridgford.com/ -- manufactures
frozen bread dough, biscuits, cinnamon roll doughs, sandwiches,
beef jerky, snack, deli foods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Courtney Ross, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
519 W. 7th St.
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: (501) 312-8500
Email: cross@cbplaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
James David Duffy, Esq.
Dremain Taylor Moore, Esq.
THOMPSON COBURN LLP
55 East Monroe Street, 37th Floor
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 346-7500
Email: dduffy@thompsoncoburn.com
dmoore@thompsoncoburn.com
CANADA: Settlement Agreement Reached in Boarding Homes Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
CNW Group of Yahoo! Finance reports that on June 29, 2023, the
Honourable Marc Miller, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, and
court-appointed representative plaintiffs Reginald Percival and
Kenneth Weistche announced that a proposed settlement agreement has
been reached in the Federal Indian Boarding Homes (Percival) class
action.
Beginning in the 1950s, approximately 40,000 Indigenous children
were part of boarding home placements with private families for the
purpose of attending school. A significant number of these
placements were overseen by the federal government until control of
program delivery was slowly devolved to Indigenous governing
bodies. This proposed settlement agreement marks a significant
advancement for thousands of Indigenous children and youth who
suffered cultural loss and abuse while placed in a boarding home
between approximately 1951 until at least 1992. The Indian Boarding
Home Program was a program in which the Government of Canada placed
children from First Nations communities and Inuit villages in other
communities (usually non-Indigenous) to stay with private families
for their education.
With this settlement agreement, Canada agrees to provide individual
compensation for having been placed in a boarding home and
compensation for incidents of physical and sexual or other abuse,
with an investment of $50 million to support commemoration,
healing, language and culture.
From now until August 25, 2023, class members will have an
opportunity to review the proposed settlement agreement and provide
their comments to the Federal Court.
The parties will seek approval of the proposed settlement from the
Federal Court from September 12 to 14, 2023. The Court will
consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the
best interest of the class. Once approved by the Court,
compensation and other benefits will be available to eligible class
members.
The Government of Canada will continue to work with Survivors to
address past harms, as it is at the heart of reconciliation, and
essential to renewing and building relationships with Indigenous
Peoples, governments, and all Canadians.
Quotes
"I was taken from my family and community in 1968 when I was 13
years old. The impact on me, and on other kids like me, was
devastating. I have spent decades since then, working to heal, to
help others, and to explain to the broader community what happened.
It has been a long journey but I am gratified by the steps we are
now taking, as a country, to acknowledge past wrongs and to move
forward together."
Reginald Percival
Court-appointed representative plaintiff
"I was in a boarding home after I was in Indian residential school.
This has always been a missing part of the process. It is like a
cut with a bandage, but half the cut is not covered, and that half
is the boarding home experience. We never dealt with the whole
experience. I am really pleased that we reached this agreement."
Kenneth Weistche
Court-appointed representative plaintiff for the Quebec sub-class
"We are determined to heed the words of Survivors who suffered
abuse while residing in boarding homes for which the Government of
Canada was responsible. To truly advance reconciliation, we must
work, as we have in this case, to address the cultural loss and
abuse experienced in these institutions."
The Honourable Marc Miller
Minister of Crown–Indigenous Relations [GN]
CASTLE MANAGEMENT: Delgado Files Suit Over Unfair Hiring Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRAULIO DELGADO, DERWOOD LESH, BRENDA ALVAREZ, TIMOTHY INGERSOLL,
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CASTLE MANAGEMENT,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-015025 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial,
Broward Cty., June 23, 2023) is brought against the Defendant
pursuant to Florida Statute, for a claim for retaliatory adverse
employment action for not hiring the Plaintiffs after discovering
that Plaintiffs had previously filed a claim for workers
compensation benefits against a prior employer.
The complaint alleges that Defendant had, and, upon information and
belief, continues to have, a policy and practice of not hiring any
applicant who had previously filed a claim for worker's
compensation benefits against a former employer within the past
seven years.
Each of the Plaintiffs submitted applications for employment with
Defendant for job opportunities at properties managed by the
Defendant.
Castle Management provides property management services and
staffing to homeowners' and condominium associations throughout the
State of Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Dana M. Gallup, Esq.
GALLUP AUERBACH
4000 Hollywood Boulevard
Presidential Circle-Suite 265
South Hollywood, FL 33021
Telephone: (954) 894-3035
E-mail: dgallup@gallup-law.com
CATALENT INC: Employees' Fund Files Shareholder Suit in NJ Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Catalent, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended May 5, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 12, 2023, that in February 2023, an alleged
shareholder filed a Complaint styled "City of Warwick Retirement
System v. Catalent, Inc., et al.," No. 23-cv-01108 in New Jersey
federal court against the company and three of its then-officers
purportedly on behalf of a putative class consisting of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Company securities between August
30, 2021 and October 31, 2022.
The complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and the related
regulations, alleging that unbeknownst to investors, Defendants
purportedly engaged in accounting and channel stuffing schemes to
pad Catalent's revenues and failed to disclose adverse facts that
purportedly were known to or recklessly disregarded by Defendants.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that (i) Catalent overstated
revenue and earnings by prematurely recognizing revenue in
violation of U.S. GAAP; (ii) Catalent had material weaknesses in
its internal controls over financial reporting related to revenue
recognition; (iii) Catalent falsely represented demand for its
products while it knowingly sold more product to its direct
customers than could be sold to healthcare providers and end
consumers; (iv) Catalent cut corners on safety and control
procedures at key production facilities; (v) Catalent disregarded
regulatory rules at key production facilities in order to rapidly
produce excess inventory that was used to pad the Company's
financial results through premature revenue recognition in
violation of U.S. GAAP or stuffing its direct customers with this
excess inventory; and (vi) Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for
their positive statements about the Company's financial
performance, outlook, and regulatory compliance during the Class
Period.
Catalent, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company based in New Jersey.
CDK GLOBAL: Lewis Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Annette Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CDK GLOBAL LLC a Delaware registered corporation, Case
No. 1:23-cv-03796 (N.D. Ill., June 15, 2023), is brought against
the Defendant to stop the Defendant from violating the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by making telemarketing calls
without consent to consumers whose phone numbers are registered on
the National Do Not Call registry ("DNC") and to consumers who have
expressly requested that the calls stop.
CDK places solicitation calls to consumers through their GoldDigger
program. GoldDigger is a customer relationship management (CRM)
system sold by CDK in which CDK employees place solicitation calls
to consumers on behalf of auto dealerships. As part of its service,
GoldDigger solicits consumers by phone to trade in a vehicle so the
consumer can purchase a new one, as per Plaintiff's experience.
Unfortunately, some of these calls from CDK are being placed to
consumers without consent, including to consumers that registered
their phone numbers on the DNC, as per Plaintiff's experience. To
make matters worse, CDK lacks a sufficient opt-out system to ensure
that a consumer who notifies CDK to stop calling them will be
removed from their calling list. Plaintiff Lewis has specifically
told the CDK callers to stop calling her cell phone number to
solicit her and asked them to remove her number from their contact
list. However, despite these stop requests, the calls continued,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Lewis registered her cell phone number on the DNC on
April 2, 2009.
CDK provides retail technology and software solutions to automotive
dealerships throughout the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Juneitha Shambee, Esq.
SHAMBEE LAW OFFICE, LTD.
701 Main St., Ste. 201A
Evanston, IL. 60202
Phone: 773-741-3602
Email: juneitha@shambeelaw.com
- and -
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 S Dixie Hwy, Floor 4
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
CFIT HOLDING: Selvanathan Files Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MAYAN SELVANATHAN, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CFIT HOLDING CORPORATION DBA CFX,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-015008 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial,
Broward Cty., June 23, 2023) arises from the Defendant's violation
of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent an electronic
communication to Plaintiff in connection with the collection of the
consumer debt. The electronic communication was sent to Plaintiff
between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the time zone of
Plaintiff. The Defendant did not have the consent of Plaintiff to
communicate with Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00
AM. As such, by Defendant sending the electronic communication
referenced therein, Defendant violated the FCCPA, says the suit.
CFIT Holding is a debt collector with its principal place of
business located in Burr Ridge, Illinois.[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
CHEVRON NORTH AMERICA: Class Suit Possible Following Recall
-----------------------------------------------------------
DTLA Law Group reports that Chevron North America is recalling
around 85,000 hedge trimmers as of June 1, 2023 due to a failure
with the rear trigger switch. The recall is for the EGO Power+
Model HT2410 Cordless Brushless Hedge Trimmer, which was sold in
black, gray, and green, with a yellow blade. To identify the
product, look for the digits HT2410, along with the manufacturing
date code on one side of the trimmer housing. Models with date
codes between September 2017 and March 2019 are included in the
recall.
The manufacturer is offering a free repair of the trigger switch,
but is this enough when there have been 8 reports already of people
being injured by this product? If you are one of these victims,
compensation may be available to you from a personal injury claim
against the manufacturer. If you would like to learn more about
your rights and legal options, contact us to schedule a free
consultation.
Hedge Trimmer Accident Injuries
As we've previously stated, these products put the user at risk of
a laceration injury due to a defect with the rear switch trigger.
Though many objects can cause cuts to the skin, these incidents can
be very serious when they involve a metal blade that's meant to cut
through bushes and hedges. Injuries include deep cuts that go right
through the bone, as well as the nerves and muscles. Even cuts that
seem relatively minor can expose you to infections, such as tetanus
and sepsis. You are also likely to end up with permanent scars and
other disfiguring injuries.
Make sure to see a doctor right away to give yourself the best
possible chance of recovery. Afterwards, please give us a call to
discuss your right to compensation with a product recall lawyer.
Tips on What to Do after an Accident
Each accident is unique in the elements that will determine your
right to monetary compensation. However, you can increase your
chances for success by taking the steps we've listed below as soon
as you've been injured by a defective hedge trimmer:
Take photos of the injuries you've sustained, the product that
caused the injury, and the scene of the accident.
Go to a hospital right away to receive medical treatment and to
have your injuries documented through medical records.
Call the manufacturer to report the incident, but immediately say
no if they ask for a recorded statement. In addition, say no to any
offers of a refund, free repair, or any other remedy, which can
take away your right to a lawsuit.
Gather evidence related to the incident, like witness statements,
medical bills, and items that were damaged during the incident.
Talk to an experienced product liability lawyer as soon as
possible.
Yes, a class action lawsuit is possible when there is a recall, due
to the potential for injury to many victims. At this point, we are
just days from the recalled being issued by the manufacturer, so a
class action claim or mass tort has not been formed on these cases.
But these lawsuits are likely as more victims contact us. For more
information on how to join with others to sue for a defective
product, contact our law firm to speak with a class action lawyer.
Schedule a Free Case Evaluation
Manufacturers have a legal responsibility to ensure the safety of
their products and make restitution to those who have been injured
when there is a defect that has the potential to cause harm. If you
or your loved one was injured by a recalled Chevron North America
brushless hedge trimmer, please take some time to speak with an
accent injury lawyer at our office.
If a lawsuit against the manufacturer is in your best interest, you
won't have to worry about the cost of hiring an attorney. We only
get paid by bring you compensation from a successful lawsuit,
meaning we don't make a penny until the end of your case. In the
event we don't win your case, you owe us absolutely nothing under
the Zero Fee Guarantee.
Our lawyers are ready to assist you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,
so don't hesitate to contact us if a defective product has caused
injury to you or your loved one. [GN]
CLEVELAND, OH: Trial on Arbitration Spat in Utility Class Suit Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Heisig of Bloomberg Law reports that an Ohio appeals court
said on June 29, 2023 that a judge presiding over a
multi-million-dollar class action against the city of Cleveland
over allegedly improper electric customer fees must hold a trial on
whether the dispute should be arbitrated.
The Cuyahoga County Common Pleas judge who presides over the case
was required under Ohio law to hold the trial because there is a
genuine dispute over whether there is an enforceable arbitration
agreement, a three-judge panel from the Eighth District Court of
Appeals ruled.
The Cleveland-based appeals court sent the case back down for a
trial that focuses solely on the arbitration. [GN]
CLUBCORP WILLOW CREEK: Shaw Sues Over Delinquently Paid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Shaw and Kadeem Mcfarlane, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. CLUBCORP WILLOW CREEK, LLC; CLUBCORP
WINDWATCH, LLC; CLUBCORP HAMLET, LLC; CLUBCORP EEC, LLC; SEQUOIA
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; and CLUBCORP USA, INC., Case No.
609331/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., June 13, 2023), is brought
pursuant to New York Labor Law ("Labor Law") and 12 New York Codes,
Rules and Regulations ("NYCRR") Part 146 to recover damages for
delinquently paid wages, owed to Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated persons, who are current or former non-exempt manual
workers who worked for Defendants.
In addition, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated persons (to wit, all current or former hourly
front-of-the house banquet employees of Defendants) seek to recover
unlawfully retained tips and gratuities pursuant to the above
referenced New York Laws and Codes, Rules and Regulations, and the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
Beginning in January 2016 and continuing through July 21, 2021
(hereinafter "the Relevant Period"), Defendants have engaged in a
policy and practice of unlawfully retaining employees' gratuities
at each of Defendants' country clubs listed above in the State of
New York.
The Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of failing to
pay the Mandatory Charge to Plaintiffs and similarly situated
employees and instead retained the money for their own benefit in
violation of Labor Law. Additionally, throughout the Relevant
Period, Defendants have compensated their workers on a semi-monthly
basis, regardless of whether said employees qualified as manual
laborers under Labor Law and as such should have been paid not less
frequently than weekly.
The Plaintiffs have initiated this action seeking for themselves,
and on behalf of all similarly situated employees, compensation,
including gratuities that they were deprived of – plus interest,
attorneys' fees, and costs, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in food service
capacities.
The Defendants employed, in furtherance of their private event,
banquet and catering business, numerous individuals including
Plaintiffs and putative class members, in trades including as
servers, bartenders, food runners, bussers, and in various other
related customarily-tipped trades.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Phone: (516) 873-9550
COCA-COLA CONSOLIDATED: Class Deal in Marshall Suit Wins Prelim. OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TAITUM MARSHALL, Plaintiff v. COCA-COLA CONSOLIDATED
INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00214-RJC-SCR (W.D.N.C.), Judge
Robert J. Conrad, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, grants the
Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement
Agreement.
The Plaintiff asks the Court to preliminarily approve the
Settlement Agreement that has been negotiated. Because the
Settlement Agreement satisfies the standard for preliminary
approval, Judge Conrad grants the motion.
Judge Conrad preliminarily approves the Class and Collective Action
Settlement Agreement attached as Exhibit A to the Plaintiff's
Motion for Preliminary Approval. This is based on his determination
that, pursuant to applicable law, the Settlement is fair and
reasonable and within the range of possible final approval.
Accordingly, for settlement purposes, Judge Conrad certifies the
following Settlement Class: All current and former non-exempt
employees employed by Defendant or its subsidiaries in North
Carolina during the time period from Nov. 28, 2021 through Feb. 6,
2022, who were impacted by the Kronos Outage.
For purposes of the Agreement, an employee was impacted by the
Kronos Outage if that employee received inaccurate compensation at
any time during the Kronos Outage regardless of whether that
employee's compensation paid during the Kronos Outage as compared
to compensation owed from the Kronos Outage time period resulted in
a net overpayment or net underpayment to that employee.
In addition, a FLSA Collective Action is further conditionally
certified for settlement purposes only under the Fair Labor
Standards Act pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) for a group of
allegedly similarly situated individuals consisting of: All current
and former non-exempt employees employed by Defendant or its
subsidiaries in the United States during the time period from Nov.
28, 2021 through Feb. 6, 2022, who were impacted by the Kronos
Outage.
For purposes of this Agreement, an employee was impacted by the
Kronos Outage if that employee received inaccurate compensation at
any time during the Kronos Outage, regardless of whether that
employee's compensation paid during the Kronos Outage as compared
to compensation owed from the Kronos Outage time period resulted in
a net overpayment or net underpayment to that employee.
The Parties' proposed resolution of FLSA claims as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement is preliminarily approved as it was reached
because of contested litigation to resolve a bona fide dispute.
Judge Martinez provisionally appoints Matthew Parmet of Parmet, PC,
and Kimberly De Arcangelis of Morgan & Morgan, P.A. as the Class
Counsel; Taitum Marshall as the Settlement Class Representative;
and Atticus Administration, LLC as the Settlement Administrator.
The Parties are authorized to send notice of the proposed
settlement pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and Rule 23 to all
Settlement Class and Collective Action members. Notice will be sent
in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Parties'
Settlement Agreement.
Judge Martinez approves, as to form and content, the proposed
notices attached to the Settlement Agreement as Exhibit A. The
deadline for Settlement Class Members to opt out of the Settlement
or to file objections and/or comments to the Settlement Agreement
will be 45 days after the Notice of Settlement is initially
mailed.
A Final Approval Hearing will be held before the Court on Oct. 17,
2023, at 11 a.m. in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, 401 W. Trade St., Charlotte, NC 28202,
Courtroom 4A. At the hearing, the Court will hear arguments
concerning whether the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable and should be finally approved by the Court.
The Court will further consider whether to approve the Plaintiff's
attorneys' fees and costs, the payment to the Named Plaintiff in
exchange for a general release, and the expenses of the Settlement
Administrator. All papers in support of final approval and the
Plaintiff's unopposed motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and a
payment to the Named Plaintiff will be filed with the Court no
later than 14 days in advance of the Final Approval hearing.
The Court reserves the right to adjourn or continue to the date of
the Final Approval Hearing and all dates provided for in the
Agreement without further notice to Settlement Class or Settlement
Collective members, and retains jurisdiction to consider all
further applications arising out of or connected with the proposed
Settlement.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mwma3xzr from Leagle.com.
COOK COUNTY, IL: Cross Bids for Sanctions in Clay v. Sheriff Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIE CLAY, Plaintiff v. THOMAS DART, Sheriff of Cook
County, and COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, Defendants, Case No. 19 CV 2412
(N.D. Ill.), Magistrate Judge Jeffrey L. Cummings of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denies the
dueling motions for sanctions filed by Clay and Cook County.
Before the Court are dueling motions for sanctions filed by Clay
and Cook County, surrounding the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Dr.
Jorelle Alexander.
Plaintiff Clay, a former inmate of Division 6 at Cook County Jail,
brings the class action against defendants Sheriff Thomas Dart and
Cook County alleging he was denied urgent dental care in violation
of his constitutional rights. According to the allegations of the
Second Amended Complaint, the Division 6 dental clinic suffered
from gross deficiencies in staffing and systemic deficiencies with
the scheduling of inmates. Specifically, Clay alleges that after
submitting a Health Service Request Form ("HSRF") on Nov. 6, 2018
complaining of a toothache with a pain level of "8," and another
HSRF on Nov. 21, 2018, he waited until Dec. 3, 2018 to be scheduled
and transported to the Division 6 dental clinic for evaluation.
Clay alleges that he continued to experience delays in treatment
after his initial evaluation.
On Dec. 23, 2022, the Court granted the parties' agreed motion to
take the deposition of Dr. Alexander, the Chair of the Department
of Oral Health for Cook County Health. Pursuant to that motion, the
parties agreed that Dr. Alexander would serve as the County's Rule
30(b)(6) designee to discuss the timing between collection of the
health service request forms, the scheduling of appointments and
the dental evaluations for plaintiffs and various exemplars.
Moreover, the parties were of the understanding that the testimony
regarding the timing between collection of the health service
request form and the dental evaluation will be consistent with Dr.
Alexander's testimony in the related matter of Martinez v. Dart,
19-cv-4348. Accordingly, although the parties agreed that Dr.
Alexander would sit for a maximum of ten hours of testimony, the
Plaintiff's counsel was "hopeful" that the deposition would be
completed more quickly.
After the Court granted the motion, the Plaintiff issued his Rule
30(b)(6) notice to Dr. Alexander, identifying 41 inmates about
which the Plaintiff intended to elicit testimony regarding the
following representative topic: After collection of Derrick
Silket's HSRF on Aug. 11, 2018 complaining of a toothache with a
pain level 8 circled, explain why he waited until Sept. 7, 2018 to
be evaluated by a dentist.
Following service of this notice, the counsel for the parties
exchanged e-mails to discuss how to best streamline Dr. Alexander's
deposition. Dr. Alexander eventually sat for her deposition on Jan.
10 and 12, 2023. Both parties now seek sanctions pursuant to Rule
30(d)(2) because of that deposition and the counsel's
communications that followed.
Citing to a few small portions of Dr. Alexander's ten-hour
deposition testimony, the Plaintiff contends that Dr. Alexander was
unprepared to testify as Cook County's Rule 30(b)(6) designee on
the topics set forth in the notice.
Judge Cummings opines that Dr. Alexander was properly prepared to
testify as Cook County's designee regarding the topics set forth in
the Plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) notice and sanctions are not
warranted. The Plaintiff will be free to attack Dr. Alexander's
testimony as he sees fit, but any decision as to the weight to
afford that testimony is for the finder of fact. And of course, to
the extent that Cook County ever attempted to provide a reason for
treatment delays at summary judgment or trial based on evidence not
properly disclosed during discovery, the Plaintiff could take
appropriate measures to seek to bar defendant's reliance on such
evidence.
For its part, Cook County seeks sanctions pursuant to Rule 30(d)(2)
for the Plaintiff's counsel's conduct at Dr. Alexander's
deposition. The Defendant also seeks sanctions pursuant to the
Court's inherent authority for what it views as misrepresentations
in the Plaintiff's counsel's descriptions of the parties' meet and
confer efforts before the initial motion for sanctions was filed.
It requests sanctions in the way of fees and costs incurred in
responding to the motion and an order directing the Plaintiff to
compensate Dr. Alexander for her 16 hours of testimony in this
matter and Martinez.
Judge Cummings declines the Defendant's request for sanctions. He
says the Plaintiff's counsel's conduct at Dr. Alexander's
deposition and in his representations to the Court regarding the
parties meet and confer efforts do not warrant sanctions. First,
although the parties' initial intent and hope was to streamline Dr.
Alexander's deposition based on her prior testimony in Martinez, at
a minimum, the parties agreed that her deposition would be
completed in ten hours, which it was. Second, the Defendant is
correct that courts possess an inherent authority to sanction
litigants for misconduct.
Lastly, the parties' submissions illustrate that counsel have
perhaps reached the end of their tether in this protracted
discovery process. But for the sake of their clients in the matter,
and any related matters, the counsel are reminded of the civility
expected of them as members of the bar and must proceed with good
faith and open communication in any discovery disputes going
forward.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Cummings denies the Plaintiff's
motion for sanctions and the Defendant's cross-motion for
sanctions.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2023 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4fyrfenz from
Leagle.com.
CYRACOM INTERNATIONAL: Chaves Sues Over Interpreters' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
EDWIN CHAVES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CYRACOM INTERNATIONAL, INC. and CYRACOM,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 518200/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., June
22, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid wages, statutory penalties,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law for Plaintiff and
similarly situated workers.
According to the complaint, the Defendants willfully violated the
FLSA and the NYLL by failing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly
situated workers for overtime and all hours worked, failing to
provide wage notices, and failing for furnish accurate wage
statements.
Plaintiff Chaves was employed by the Defendants as an interpreter
in Queens, New York from approximately November 2019 to December
2019.
CyraCom International, Inc. is a Tucson, Arizona-based company
which provides language interpreting services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Molly Brooks, Esq.
Rebecca L. Pattiz, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 245-1000
Facsimile: (212) 977-4005
- and -
Pooja Shethji, Esq.
1225 New York Avenue NW Suite 1200B
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 847-4400
Facsimile: (202) 847-4410
DANIEL P. MINAHAN: Keegan Files Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Daniel P. Minahan.
The case is styled as Brian Keegan, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. Daniel P. Minahan, Case No.
0:23-cv-61148-RNS (S.D. Fla., June 14, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harold M. Hoffman, Esq.n
240 Grand Avenue
Englewood, NJ 07631
Phone: (201) 410-8223
Email: hoffman.esq@verizon.net
- and -
Michael S. Hoffman, Esq.
HOFFMAN, LARIN & AGNETTI, P.A.
909 N. Miami Beach Blvd., Suite 201
N. Miami Beach, FL 33162
Phone: (305) 653-5555
Fax: (305) 940-0090
Email: mshoffman@hlalaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
David K. Markarian, Esq.
Jessica Rose Glickman, Esq.
THE MARKARIAN GROUP
2925 PGA Blvd., Suite 204
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
Phone: (561) 626-4700
Email: dave@forbusinessandlife.com
jessica@forbusinessandlife.com
DAVID R. HERNANDEZ: Mountain House Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against David R. Hernandez,
Trustee of the David R. Hernandez Revocable Trust Dated May 22,
2002, et al. The case is styled as Mountain House Partners LP, a
Nevada limited partnership v. David R. Hernandez, Trustee of the
David R. Hernandez Revocable Trust Dated May 22, 2002, David R.
Hernandez individually and others similarly situated, All Persons
Unknown Claiming Any Legal or Equitable Right, Title , Estate,
Lien, or Interest in the Property Described in the Complaint
Adverse to Plaintiff's Title, or Any Cloud of Plaintiff's Title
Thereto, Case No. STK-CV-URP-2023-0005832 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Joaquin Cty., June 7, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Real
Property."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Hart, Esq.
HART LAW
3814 N. Main Street Columbia, SC 29203
Phone: 803-771-7701
Fax: 803-771-7668
DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Suit over Share Sale
--------------------------------------------------------
Dell Technologies disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended May 5, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 12, 2023, that class action complaints were
filed against the company with regards to a December 28, 2018
transaction in which it paid $14.0 billion in cash and issued
149,387,617 shares of its Class C Common Stock to holders of its
Class V Common Stock in exchange for all outstanding shares of
Class V Common Stock. As a result of the Class V transaction, the
tracking stock feature of the company's capital structure
associated with the Class V Common Stock was terminated.
Certain stockholders of the company subsequently brought class
action complaints arising out of the Class V transaction in which
they named as defendants Michael S. Dell and certain other
directors serving on the company's board of directors at the time
of the Class V transaction, certain stockholders of the company,
consisting of Mr. Dell and Silver Lake Group LLC and certain of its
affiliated funds and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, which served as
financial advisor to the company in connection with the
transaction.
The plaintiffs generally alleged that the director defendants and
the stockholder defendants breached their fiduciary duties under
Delaware law to the former holders of the Class V common stock in
connection with the Class V transaction by offering a transaction
value that was allegedly billions of dollars below fair value.
Dell Technologies is a technology provider that designs, develops,
manufactures, markets, sells, and supports solutions, products, and
services based in Texas.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND: Hebert Files Suit in E.D. Louisiana
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Department of
Homeland Security, et al. The case is styled as Russell Hebert,
Jr., Margaret Hebert, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated v. Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro
Mayorkas, in his official capacity as Secretary of Department of
Homeland Security; Federal Emergency Management Agency, Deanne
Criswell, in her official capacity as Administrator of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency; Federal Insurance and Mitigation
Administration; Case No. 2:23-cv-01869-DJP-JVM (E.D. La., June 3,
2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutes: Administrative
Procedures Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision.
The United States Department of Homeland Security --
http://www.dhs.gov/-- is the U.S. federal executive department
responsible for public security, roughly comparable to the interior
or home ministries of other countries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony D. Irpino, Esq.
Louise Crouchet Higgins, Esq.
IRPINO, AVIN & HAWKINS (NEW ORLEANS)
2216 Magazine Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 525-1500
Email: airpino@irpinolaw.com
lhiggins@irpinolaw.com
- and -
Anna Marie Singleton, Esq.
James McClendon Williams, Esq.
Matthew Arthur Sherman, Esq.
CHEHARDY SHERMAN WILLIAMS, LLP
One Gallera Boulevard, Ste. 1100
Metairie, LA 70001
Phone: (415) 819-0557
Email: asingleton@chehardy.com
james@thetrialteam.com
mas@chehardy.com
DESERT CARE: Sued Over Failure to Protect Patients' Health Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
B.K., N.Z., and R.P., individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DESERT CARE NETWORK, DESERT
REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., JFK MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., PALM
BEACH HEALTH NETWORK, PALM BEACH GARDENS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC.
D/B/A PALM BEACH GARDENS MEDICAL CENTER, TENET HEALTHCARE CORP.,
and TENET HEALTHSYSTEM MEDICAL, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-05021 (C.D. Cal., June 23, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for invasion of privacy, negligence, breach of
implied contract, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the
California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, California
Invasion of Privacy Act, California Unfair Competition Law, Florida
Security of Communications Act, Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act, and California Penal Code.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have disregarded the
privacy rights of millions of visitors to and users of their
websites by intentionally, willfully, recklessly and/or negligently
failing to implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure
that that the users' personally identifiable information and
protected health information was safeguarded. Instead, Defendants
allowed unauthorized third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc.
d/b/a Facebook to intercept the users' clicks, communications on,
and visits of Defendants' websites, including
https://www.desertcarenetwork.com/ and
https://www.palmbeachhealthnetwork.com/, and their "My Health Rec"
Patient Portal, available via Tenet Health at
https://cernerhealth.com/. Unbeknownst to users and without users'
authorization or informed consent, Defendants installed Facebook's
Meta Pixel and other third-party tracking technology, in their Web
Properties in order to intercept and send private information to
third parties such as Facebook and/or Google LLC, says the suit.
As a result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiffs and similarly
situated patients have suffered numerous injuries, including: (i)
invasion of privacy; (ii) lack of trust in communicating with
doctors online; (iii) emotional distress and heightened concerns
related to the release of private information to third parties;
(iv) loss of the benefit of the bargain; (v) diminution of value of
the private information; (vi) statutory damages and (vii) continued
and ongoing risk to their private information, alleges the suit.
Desert Care Network is a non-profit medical foundation with its
principal place of business in Dallas, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan 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
Facsimile: (231) 788-4070
DESIGN BY NIKKI: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Wurm Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHARMUNG WURM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DESIGN BY NIKKI, LLC, Defendant,
CACE-23-015322 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., July 3, 2023) seeks to
stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.
DESIGN BY NIKKI, LLC sells various goods through online store.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Telephone: (202) 709-5744
Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollective.com
DEUTSCHE BANK: Class Settlement in Doe 1 Suit Wins Prelim. Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-CV-10018 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge
Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York grants the Class Representative's motion for an order
preliminarily approving the Settlement of the Litigation.
The Settlement Class Representative made a motion pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) for an order preliminarily
approving the Settlement of the Litigation, in accordance with an
Amended Stipulation of Settlement, dated June 16, 2023, which,
together with the Exhibits annexed thereto, sets forth the terms
and conditions for a proposed Settlement of the Litigation between
the Settling Parties and for dismissal of the Litigation with
prejudice upon, and subject to, the terms and conditions set forth
therein.
The Settlement will resolve the claims of all women and girls who
were sexually abused or trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and/or his
associates from Aug. 19, 2013 to Aug. 10, 2019, including, but not
limited to: (1) girls under the age of 18 who engaged in sexual
contact with Epstein and/or a person associated with Epstein, and
received money or something else of value in exchange for engaging
in that sexual contact (even if the sexual contact was perceived to
be consensual); (2) women aged 18 or older who were forced,
coerced, or defrauded into engaging in sexual contact by Epstein
and/or his associates by, for example, using physical force,
threatening serious harm or legal action, making a false promise,
or causing them to believe that not engaging in sexual contact
would result in serious harm, and who received money or something
else of value in exchange for engaging in that sexual contact; and
(3) girls or women of any age whom Epstein and/or a person
associated with Epstein engaged in sexual contact without consent
(even if the sexual contact was perceived to be consensual provided
that the girl or woman was under the age of 18 at the time of
engaging in that contact).
The Settling Parties have consented to the entry of the Order.
Judge Rakoff has reviewed the Stipulation and preliminarily
approves the Stipulation and the Settlement set forth therein as
fair, reasonable, and adequate, subject to further consideration at
the Settlement Hearing.
A hearing will be held before the Court on Oct. 20, 2023, at 4:00
p.m. (the "Settlement Hearing"), at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY
10007. The Court may adjourn or change the date and time of the
Settlement Hearing without further notice to the Class.
Judge Rakoff approves the form, substance, and requirements of the
Notice and the form of the Summary Notice of the Proposed
Settlement of Class Action.
Simone Lelchuk (the "Claims Administrator") is appointed to
supervise and administer the notice procedure as well as the
processing of Claims as more fully set forth below.
The Claims Administrator was to cause a copy of the Notice, Tier
One Faun, and Tier Two Questionnaire and Release by June 28, 2023,
to be mailed by First-Class Mail to all Class Members who can be
identified with reasonable effort and to be posted on the
case-designated website. For all Notices returned as undeliverable,
the Claims Administrator will use her best efforts to locate
updated addresses.
The Claims Administrator was to cause the Summary Notice to be
published once in USA Today and Gazeta Wyborcza by July 11, 2023.
At least 45 calendar days prior to the Settlement Hearing, or Sept.
5, 2023, the Class Counsel will serve on the Defendants' Counsel
and file with the Court proof, by affidavit or declaration, of such
mailing and publishing.
All fees, costs, and expenses incurred in identifying and notifying
the Class Members will be shared equally by the Class and the
Defendants, with the Class' portion to be reimbursed from the
Global Settlement Amount.
To receive funds from the Settlement, the Class Members (or the
Class Counsel, on their behalf) must submit a Tier One Form. Unless
the Court orders otherwise, all Tier One Forms must be postmarked
or submitted electronically no later than 45 calendar days from the
Notice Date, or Aug. 12, 2023. If deemed eligible by the Claims
Administrator, such Claimants ("Eligible Class Members") will
receive $75,000. Eligible Class Members who wish to receive an
additional Allocated Amount up to $5 million (inclusive of the
$75,000 available to all Eligible Class Members) from the Net
Settlement Fund will complete and submit a Tier Two Questionnaire
and Release in accordance with the instructions contained therein.
Unless the Court orders otherwise, all Tier Two Questionnaires and
Releases must be postmarked or submitted electronically no later
than 60 calendar days from the Notice Date, or Aug. 27, 2023. Any
Class Member who does not submit a Tier Two Questionnaire and
Release within the time provided will be barred from sharing in any
additional distribution of the proceeds of the Net Settlement Fund,
unless otherwise ordered by the Court, but will in all other
respects be bound by the terms of the Stipulation and by any final
judgment entered by the Court.
Any Class Member may enter an appearance in the Litigation, at his,
her, or its own expense, individually or through counsel of his,
her, or its own choice. If any Class Member does not enter an
appearance, they will be represented by the Class Counsel.
Any Person falling within the definition of the Class may, upon
request, be excluded or "opt-out" from the Settlement Class. To be
valid, the Opt-Out Form must be postmarked or submitted
electronically no later than 30 calendar days from the Notice Date,
or July 28, 2023.
Within five calendar days of receiving any Opt-Out Form, the Claims
Administrator will deliver a copy of each such Opt-Out Form to the
Class Counsel and the Defendants' Counsel. The Claims Administrator
will also provide any written revocation of Opt-Out Forms within
five calendar days of receipt.
Any Class Member may appear at the Settlement Hearing and file
objections no later than 21 days prior to the Settlement Hearing,
or Sept. 29, 2023.
All funds held by the Escrow Agent will be deemed and considered to
be in custodia legis and will remain subject to the jurisdiction of
the Court until such time as such funds will be distributed
pursuant to the Stipulation and/or further order(s) of the Court.
All papers in support of the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, and
any application by the Class Counsel for attorneys' fees, costs,
charges, and expenses will be filed and served no later than 35
calendar days before the Settlement Hearing, or Sept. 15, 2023, any
opposition papers thereto will be filed and served no later than 21
calendar days before the Settlement Hearing, or Sept. 29, 2023, and
any reply papers will be filed and served no later than seven
calendar days before the Settlement Hearing, or Oct. 13, 2023.
The Released Defendant Parties will have no responsibility or
liability for the Plan of Allocation or any application for
attorneys' fees, costs, charges, or expenses submitted by Class
Counsel, and such matters will be considered by the Court
separately from the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the
Settlement.
At or after the Settlement Hearing, the Court will determine
whether the Plan of Allocation proposed by the Class Counsel, and
any application for attorneys' fees, costs, charges, and expenses,
should be approved. The Court reserves the right to enter the
Judgment finally approving the Settlement regardless of whether it
has approved the Plan or Allocation or awarded attorneys' fees
and/or costs, charges, and expenses.
All reasonable expenses incurred in identifying and notifying Class
Members as well as administering the Settlement Fund will be paid
as set forth in the Stipulation. In the event the Court does not
approve the Settlement, or the Settlement otherwise fails to become
effective, neither Settlement Class Representative nor Class
Counsel nor the Claims Administrator will have any obligation to
repay any amounts actually and properly incurred or disbursed
pursuant to paragraph 5.2 of the Stipulation.
All proceedings in the Litigation are stayed until further order of
the Court, except as may be necessary to implement the Settlement
or comply with the terms of the Stipulation. Pending final
determination of whether the Settlement should be approved, neither
the Settlement Class Representative nor any Class Member, either
directly, representatively, or in any other capacity will commence
or prosecute any of the Released Claims against any of the Released
Defendant Parties in any action or proceeding in any court or
tribunal.
In the event this Stipulation or the Settlement is terminated or
the Effective Date otherwise fails to occur for any reason, the
Settling Parties will be restored to their respective positions in
the Litigation as of June 16, 2023 and will meet and confer
regarding a new case schedule for the Litigation.
The Parties will, no later than 10 calendar days following the
filing of the Stipulation with the Court, serve upon the
appropriate state and federal officials a notice of the proposed
Settlement in compliance with the requirements of the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 1715. The Parties
are equally responsible for the costs of the CAFA notice and
administering the CAFA notice. At least 14 calendar days before the
Settlement Hearing, the Parties will file with the Court proof, by
affidavit or declaration, regarding compliance with CAFA Section
1715(b).
A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2023 Amended Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yckfbye8 from Leagle.com.
DIAZ IRON WORKS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Iniguez Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
EDGAR INIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DIAZ IRON WORKS; and CARLOS DIAZ,
Defendants, Case No. 7:23-cv-05719 (S.D.N.Y., July 5, 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 Iniguez was employed by the Defendant as a laborer.
DIAZ IRON WORKS operates as a metal construction company in New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Samuel, Esq.
THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
1441 Broadway Suite 6085
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 563-9884
DOCUSIGN INC: Faces Weston Securities Suit in California Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Docusign, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended April 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 8, 2023, that on February 8, 2022, a putative
securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, captioned "Weston v. DocuSign,
Inc., et al.," Case No. 3:22-cv-00824, naming DocuSign and certain
of its current and former officers as defendants.
An amended complaint was filed on July 8, 2022. As amended, the
suit purports to allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, based on allegedly false and misleading
statements about our business and prospects during the COVID-19
pandemic.
As amended, the suit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers
of its securities between June 4, 2020, and June 9, 2022. The
company's motion to dismiss the case at the pleading stage was
denied by the U.S. District Court on April 18, 2023, and the suit
is now proceeding.
DocuSign is a software company in the eSignature category based in
California.
DOMO INC: Faces Volonte Securities Suit in Utah
------------------------------------------------
Domo Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
April 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on June 9, 2023, that in November 2019, a securities class action
complaint captioned "Volonte v. Domo, Inc., et. al," Case No.
19-04-01778, was filed by a stockholder of the company in the
Fourth Judicial District Court for the County of Utah in the State
of Utah against the company, certain of the company's current and
former officers and directors, and the underwriters of the
Company's June 2018 initial public offering alleging violations of
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection
with the company's initial public offering and sought unspecified
damages.
On August 19, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Volonte complaint. On April 13, 2021, the court granted the motion
and dismissed the complaint. On April 25, 2021, the plaintiff filed
a motion to amend or alter judgment or for reconsideration. On June
2, 2021, the court denied the plaintiff's motion.
On June 14, 2021, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. On
October 14, 2021, the plaintiff/appellant filed his principal brief
in the Utah Court of Appeals (Appellate Case No. 20210399-CA). The
appeal was fully briefed as of January 20, 2022, and the court
heard oral arguments from the parties on May 12, 2022. On March 9,
2023, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the
complaint.
Domo, Inc. is a cloud-based platform based in Utah.
EDGIO INC: Marinelli Sues Over Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------
Stephen D. Marinelli, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Edgio, Inc. f/k/a Limelight
Networks, Inc., Robert A. Lyons, Robert A. Lento, Stephen Cumming,
and Daniel R. Boncel, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01170-SMM (D.
Ariz., June 23, 2023) is a federal securities class action on
behalf of a class consisting of Plaintiff and all persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Edgio securities
between July 21, 2020 and March 12, 2023, inclusive, pursuing
claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
Throughout the Class Period, the 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) the sale of Open Edge equipment should be
accounted as financing leases; (ii) there were material weaknesses
in the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting
related to Open Edge transactions; (iii) as a result, the Company's
revenue had been overstated in certain periods; (iv) accordingly,
the Company's revenue forecasts were unreliable; 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.
On this news, Edgio's stock price fell $0.16 per share, or 15.5%,
to close at $0.87 per share on March 13, 2023, thereby injuring
investors, says the suit.
As a result of Defendants' alleged 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.
Edgio, Inc. provides software solutions for companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary A. Gotto, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Telephone: (602) 230-6322
E-mail: ggotto@kellerrohrback.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 -
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
PORTNOY LAW FIRM
1800 Century Park East, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 692-8883
E-mail: lesley@portnoylaw.com
EDIBLE ARRANGEMENTS: Hussein Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Edible Arrangements,
LLC. The case is styled as Sumaya Hussein, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Edible Arrangements, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-03482 (N.D. Ill., June 2, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Edible Arrangements -- http://www.ediblearrangements.com/-- is a
U.S.-based franchising business that specializes in fresh fruit
arrangements, combining the concept of a fruit basket with designs
inspired by flower arrangement.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
ELECTRONIC COMMODITIES: Valenzuela Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Sonia Valenzuela, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. ELECTRONIC COMMODITIES
EXCHANGE, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership d/b/a RITANI, Case
No. 23-ST-CV-10477 was removed from the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County, to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on June 12, 2023, and
assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04607-SB-JC.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff purports to represent a class of
consumers seeking injunctive relief against Ritani which, as
presently constituted, allegedly violate at least two provisions of
the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), including
California Penal Codes by, inter alia, recording, intercepting and
eavesdropping on customers' chats occurring on Defendant's website,
www.ritani.com.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Sarah I. Cohen (SBN 257161)
LOMBARD, GELIEBTER & COHEN LLP
230 Park Avenue, 4th Floor West
New York, NY 10169
Phone: (212) 520-1172
Facsimile: (646) 349-5567
Email: scohen@lgtrademark.com
ESSEX PROPERTY: Esposito Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Mold
---------------------------------------------------------
Jorie Esposito, an individual, on her own behalf and for all those
similarly situated v. ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC., a Maryland
corporation doing business in California; ESSEX MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION, a California corporation, ESSEX PORTFOLIO LP, a
California limited partnership and DOES 1-450, inclusive, Case No.
23STCV14094 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 16, 2023), is
brought alleging that the California statutory, decisional, and
regulatory laws prohibit the actions and omissions by Defendants,
and therefore Plaintiff has entitlement to monetary and other
relief on the basis that Defendants violated such statutes,
decisional law, and regulations.
This Complaint is a Class Action brought by the Plaintiff for
herself and for all others similarly situated, as Putative Class
Members, all of whom, Plaintiff is informed and believes and
alleges, have sustained injuries and loss from the actions and
omissions of Defendants; who failed to protect Plaintiff from harm
from visible toxic mold and other hazardous conditions at
Plaintiffs apartment unit (and hundreds of others) located at "Aqua
at Marina Del Rey Apartments", located at 4750 Lincoln Blvd, Marina
Del Rey, California 90292, Los Angeles County, State of California
(hereafter "the Property"). Plaintiff also acts here for any
members of a Putative Subclass, i.e. tenants who have suffered
injury and loss similar to Plaintiffs but whose tenancies began
earlier than did Plaintiffs or that outlasted Plaintiff's tenancy
if she relocates. In addition to failing to protect Plaintiff,
Defendants similarly failed to protect the Putative Class Members
from visible toxic mold and other hazardous conditions. This Class
Action is brought pursuant to California statutory, decisional, and
regulatory laws. This complaint seeks damages in an amount
according to proof, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was a tenant of the Property.
ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC. has been a Maryland corporation with the
capacity to sue and to be sued in California, and doing business in
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary R Carlin, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF GARY R. CARLIN, APC
301 East Ocean Blvd., suite 1550
Long Beach, CA 90802
Phone: (562) 432-8933
Facsimile: (562) 435-1656
Email: gary@garycarlinlaw.com
FEDEX CORPORATION: Almonte Sues Over Odometer Fraud Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Barrera Almonte and Mayra Magadan Munoz; James Jackman;
Miki Nolin; and Richard Alliet; on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. FEDEX CORPORATION; AUTOMOTIVE RENTALS,
INC.; HOLMAN FLEET LEASING, LLC; HOLMAN AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC.; and
ABC CORPORATIONS 1-20, Case No. 1:23-cv-03224-KMW-MJS (D.N.J., June
13, 2023), is brought allege that Defendants have been engaged in
the largest odometer fraud scheme in United States automotive
history.
Simply stated, Defendants systematically and surreptitiously
replace odometers on thousands of used diesel fleet delivery
vehicles. The new odometers display zero miles, though Defendants
know that the vehicles have, in many cases, been previously driven
hundreds of thousands of miles. The Defendants continue to use the
vehicles, but then later sell the vehicles at a premium, without
disclosing that the mileage listed on the odometers is inaccurate.
This is a clear violation of federal and state law.
Most times, the large corporate Defendants are successful in
perpetrating this fraud against unsuspecting small business owners,
who significantly overpay for delivery vehicles that have been
driven far more miles than disclosed and are past their useful life
expectancy. Therefore, the Plaintiffs bring this class action for
damages provided under federal and state law, as well as injunctive
relief to prevent Defendants from continuing to commit odometer
fraud, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased one of the Defendants’ motor vehicles.
FedEx is the ubiquitous, publicly traded courier service started in
or around 1971.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Martin P. Schrama, Esq.
Stefanie Colella-Walsh, Esq.
STARK & STARK, P.C.
100 American Metro Boulevard
Hamilton, NJ 08619
Phone: (609) 896-9060
Fax: (609) 895-7395
Email: mps@stark-stark.com
scw@stark-stark.com
- and -
Matthew R. Mendelsohn, Esq.
David M. Freeman, Esq.
MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC
103 Eisenhower Parkway
Roseland, NJ 07068
Phone: (973) 228-9898
Fax: (973) 328-0303
Email: mrm@mazieslater.com
dfreeman@mazieslater.com
FIRST REPUBLIC: Collier Sues Over Drop in Securities' Market Value
------------------------------------------------------------------
HAL COLLIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIRST REPUBLIC BANK, JAMES H. HERBERT, II,
HAFIZE GAYE ERKAN, MICHAEL J. ROFFLER, OLGA TSOKOVA, MICHAEL D.
SELFRIDGE, NEAL HOLLAND, and KPMG, LLP, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-03096 (N.D. Cal., June 22, 2023) is a class action on
behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities that purchased
or otherwise acquired First Republic securities, or sold put
options, between January 14, 2021 and April 27, 2023, inclusive,
pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
Throughout the Class Period, the 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 misrepresented the strength
of the Company's balance sheet and liquidity position, while also
understating the significant pressure rising interest rates posed
to First Republic's business model. The Defendants also
misrepresented the strength of the Company's ability to deliver
consistent results across different interest rate environments, the
diversity of the Company's deposit funding base, and the Company's
ability to generate net interest income growth and maintain stable
net interest margin. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit.
First Republic was a California state-chartered bank and trust
company that provides private banking, private business banking,
and private wealth management. It closed in 2023 and was acquired
by JPMorgan Chase.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com
clinehan@glancylaw.com
prajesh@glancylaw.com
FOOT LOCKER: Willis Sues Over Deceptive Discount Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------
TERETTA WILLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FOOT LOCKER, INC., Defendant, Case No.
519154/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., July 3, 2023) alleges that the
Defendant is engaged in deceptive discount scheme practices.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant has been
employing the "urgency" dark pattern, which refers to design
features that make prospective purchasers believe they need to buy
something quickly because there may not be enough remaining if they
do not. As a result of the false and misleading representations and
omissions, the Plaintiff paid more money for products thinking her
discounts were true discounts, which was false, because the items
in question were not, in many instances, regularly sold at the
previous prices, notwithstanding the previous prices were not
always even disclosed, says the suit.
FOOT LOCKER, INC. retails footwear. The Company offers athletics
footwear, apparel, and equipment for men, women, and kids. Foot
Locker serves customers worldwide. [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
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
-and-
James Chung Office of Law
4322 216th St
Bayside NY 11361
Telephone: (718) 461-8808
Email: jchung_77@msn.com
FORD MOTOR: Faces EcoBoost Class Suit Over Oil Pumps Failure
------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood of CarComplaints.com reports that A Ford EcoBoost
class action lawsuit alleges 1-liter EcoBoost engines suffer from
oil pump failures that destroy the engines in these Ford vehicles.
2016-2017 Ford Fiesta
2018-2021 Ford EcoSport
2016-2018 Ford Focus
The Ford 1-liter EcoBoost is a 3-cylinder engine installed in
popular subcompact, compact and economy vehicles. But the class
action lawsuit alleges the EcoBoost engine is prone to failure,
especially shortly after the 60,000-mile powertrain warranty
expires.
The lawsuit says the alleged defects cause serious safety hazards
because the EcoBoost engine can suddenly fail while driving and
send the vehicle into limp mode.
Ford 1-Liter EcoBoost Technical Service Bulletins
The class action references several TSBs and special service
messages (SSMs) for vehicles equipped with 1-liter EcoBoost
engines.
In July 2019, Ford issued SSM 48093 for 2018-2019 Ford EcoSport
vehicles with 1-liter EcoBoost engines that "may exhibit a loss of
engine oil pressure with an illuminated oil pressure warning
lamp."
Ford said the problem could be caused by a broken engine oil pump
belt tensioner which leads to a loss of oil pressure. It's possible
the EcoBoost engine would need to be replaced.
Ford also reissued the information in September 2020 as SSM 49200.
In April 2021, Ford issued SSM 49726 which expanded the vehicles to
some 2016-2018 Ford Focus and 2018-2019 Ford EcoSports with 1.0L
EcoBoost engines built before July 3, 2019. Dealers were told to
replace the engine assemblies for failed engine oil pump
tensioners.
SSM 49918 was then issued in June 2021 which said to, "[r]eplace
the engine assembly with a long block option 6006 and the
turbocharger."
"Although these manufacturer communications purport to apply only
to vehicles built before July 2019, consumers report identical
problems in vehicles built after that date and in subsequent model
years." — Ford EcoBoost lawsuit
The Ford class action was filed by these plaintiffs who own
vehicles equipped with 1-liter EcoBoost engines.
Marlon Bolton / Goergia / 2018 Ford EcoSport
Jenny Ptaszek / Michigan / 2018 Ford EcoSport
Gina Bilotta / New Jersey / 2019 Ford EcoSport
Veronica Maldonado / California / 2018 Ford EcoSport
John Wright / Maryland / 2019 Ford EcoSport
Margaret Vasquez / Texas / 2019 Ford EcoSport
Tracey Drotos / Michigan / 2019 Ford EcoSport
Scott Martin / Florida / 2018 Ford EcoSport
According to the class action lawsuit, some Ford owners may be
looking at paying more for replacement EcoBoost engines than the
values of the vehicles.
The Ford EcoBoost class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware: Bolton, et al., v.
Ford Motor Company.
The plaintiffs are represented by Chimicles Schwartz Kriner &
Donaldson-Smith LLP, Berger Montague PC, and Capstone Law APC. [GN]
FRONTIER AIRLINES: Hamad Sues Over Deceptive Practices at Check-ins
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AMIRA HAMAD, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
others, Plaintiff v. FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC., a Colorado
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 6:23-cv-01209 (M.D. Fla., June
29,2023) alleges claims against the Defendant for breach of
contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, misleading advertising, and
for violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act.
Frontier allegedly fails to specifically inform consumers about its
hidden fees, and it falsely advertises that it offers "the lowest
fares" as a standard product. Among other things, the airline
maintains a bag sizer that is smaller than its purported maximum
dimensions for personal items and, as a result, charges consumers
excessive fees to check items that do not fit inside the skewed bag
sizer, the suit says.
Frontier Airlines has continuous and systemic operations at Orlando
International Airport. The company purports itself to be a budget
airline with the lowest airfares. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael G. Mann, Esq.
THE COCHRAN FIRM ORLANDO, LLC
605 East Robinson Street, Suite 330
Orlando, Florida 32801
Telephone: (407) 271-8590
Facsimile: (407) 271-8059
E-mail: MMann@cochranfirmorlando.com
Service@cochranfirmorlando.com
GARY MOTYKIE: One Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information
------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Doe One, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GARY MOTYKIE, M.D., GARY MOTYKIE, M.D., A MEDICAL
CORPORATION, and MOTYKIE MD SKINCARE, LLC; Case No. 23STCV13325
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 9, 2023), is brought to
the Defendants failure safeguard the Plaintiffs personally
identifiable information, photographs, and patient files
(collectively "Highly Sensitive Information", as previously defined
above) pursuant to common law, the Health Information Portability
and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the California Consumer Privacy Act
(CCPA), the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act
(CMIA), and other statutory and common law provisions.
When patients saw Dr. Motykie to undergo a cosmetic procedure,
Defendants required patients to be photographed, taking "before and
after" pictures of patient faces and bodies to document the
cosmetic procedures performed on them (the "documenting photos").
The Defendants also collected personal identifying information from
patients, including, but not limited to, names, addresses,
birthdates, email addresses, telephone numbers, and Social Security
Numbers, as well as complete medical histories and other medical
records created in connection with the medical services provided by
Dr. Motykie (collectively and together with the documenting photos
"Highly Sensitive Information").
Given the sensitive nature of the work performed by Dr. Motykie, it
is important that Defendants kept the Highly Sensitive Information
they collected about their patients confidential and secure. The
Defendants' patients entrusted Defendants to keep their Highly
Sensitive Information confidential, take adequate precautions to
only keep that information which is necessary, and to ensure that
information was saved in a responsible manner in keeping with
cybersecurity best practices. The Defendants breached their
patients' trust by failing to properly safeguard their Highly
Sensitive Information, allowing cybercriminals to infiltrate
Defendants' computer systems and exfiltrate not only their names,
addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, and Social Security
Numbers, but all of their patient data, medical records, and their
before and after photos and videos--which contained not only their
naked bodies, but also their faces.
The Defendants' violations of patient trust have exposed patients'
most sensitive information to the general public; shortly after
cybercriminals infiltrated Defendants' computer systems (the "Data
Breach"), they began publishing patients' Highly Sensitive
Information to a publicly-available website, allowing anyone from
the general public to download their patient files, access their
Social Security Numbers, and download naked photographs of
Defendants' patients.
The Defendants' actions have caused their patients--Plaintiff and
Class Members--immense emotional distress, as hundreds of
individuals have already accessed the publicly-available website.
Further, Defendants' actions have exposed Plaintiff and Class
Members to further injuries, including fraud, identity theft,
sexploitation, blackmail, harassment, stalking, and a loss of value
of their personal information. Had Defendants implemented and
maintained an appropriate security program, including proper
monitoring of their network, security, and communications,
Defendants would not have had the Data Breach, or would have
discovered the data breach sooner, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff saw Defendants for medical services from 2020 through
2023.
Dr. Motykie is a board-certified plastic surgeon practicing in West
Hollywood, California..[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Henry Rosen, Esq.
Stephen Jodlowski, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
4747 Executive Drive, Suite 240
San Diego, CA 92121
Phone: (619) 923-3939
Email: hrosen@dicellolevitt.com
sjodlowski@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Nada Djordjevic, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
Ten North Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 214-7900
Email: ndjordjevic@dicellolevitt.com
GEHAN HOMES: Faces Diaz Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Richard Diaz, filing individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gehan Homes Construction Company,
LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-01147-DWL (D. Ariz., June 22, 2023) arises from the illegal
employment actions of Defendant Gehan Homes Construction Company,
LLC involving violations of the overtime wage provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Diaz brings this action on behalf of himself and as a
collective action on behalf of all other similarly situated current
and former construction managers working for Gehan Homes at any
time during the last three years.
Gehan Homes Construction Company, LLC is a construction company
with its headquarters in Tempe, Arizona.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael R. Pruitt, Esq.
Nathaniel Hill, Esq.
JACKSON WHITE
40 North Center Street, Suite 200
Mesa, AZ 85201
GLO TANNING CENTERS: Prosser TCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Christopher Prosser, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Glo Tanning Centers,
Inc., John and Jane Does 1 through 3, Case No. 23JE-CC00393 was
removed from the Jefferson County Circuit Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 13,
2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-00768-RLW to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Glo Tanning -- https://www.glotanning.com/ -- offers spa services,
spray training, and various salon training.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin V. Butler, II, Esq.
BUTLER LAW GROUP LLC
1650 Des Peres Road, Suite 220
Des Peres, MO 63131
Phone: (314) 504-0001
Email: edbutler@butlerlawstl.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Bharat Varadachari, Esq.
Charles N. Insler, Esq.
HEPLER BROOM LLC - St. Louis
701 Market Street, Suite 1400
St. Louis, MO 63101
Phone: (314) 241-6160
Fax: (314) 241-6116
Email: bzv@heplerbroom.com
cni@heplerbroom.com
GOSHEN HEALTH: Removes Lamarr Suit to S.D. Indiana
--------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of KAITLIN LAMARR, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOSHEN HEALTH
SYSTEM, INC., d/b/a GOSHEN HEALTH, filed a notice to remove the
lawsuit from the Commercial Court of the State of Indiana, County
of Marion (Case No. 49D01-2305-PL-021530) to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana on July 5, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Indiana assigned
Case No. 1:23-cv-01173-JRS-MJD. The case is assigned to Mark J
Dinsmore and referred to Magistrate James R. Sweeney.
GOSHEN HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. operates as a hospital. The Hospital
offers bone and joint care, women and children health care, lab
testing, surgical, and cardiac services. IU Health Goshen serves
patients in the United States. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Tyler J. Moorhead, Esq.
Philip R. Zimmerly, Esq.
BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS LLP
111 Monument Circle, Suite 2700
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 684-5000
Facsimile: (317) 684-5173
Email: TMOORHEAD@BOSELAW.COM
PZIMMERLY@BOSELAW.COM
- and -
Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq.
Michelle R. Gomez, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1801 California Street, Ste. 4400
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 861-0600
Facsimile: (303) 861-7805
Email: MGOMEZ@BAKERLAW.COM
PKARLSGODT@BAKERLAW.COM
GREAT VALLEY CARDIOLOGY: Faces Class Suit Over 2023 Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that Great Valley
Cardiology, a healthcare provider based in Scranton, Pennsylvania
that also does business as Commonwealth Health Physician
Network-Cardiology, has been hit with a proposed class action in
the wake of a months-long data breach.
According to the 51-page case, unauthorized parties infiltrated
Great Valley Cardiology's computer network between February 2 and
April 14, 2023 and gained access to sensitive personal and health
information belonging to 181,764 patients. The lawsuit relays that
the data compromised in the breach included patients' names,
addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, Social Security numbers,
health plan numbers, health plan claims information, medical record
numbers and medical information.
The cyberattack, which Great Valley Cardiology says it discovered
on April 13, was a direct result of the healthcare provider's
failure to implement adequate cybersecurity measures to safeguard
patients' private data, the complaint alleges.
"In addition, Defendant failed to properly monitor the computer
network and systems that housed the Private Information," the suit
says. "Had it properly monitored its property, it would have
discovered the intrusion sooner rather than allowing cybercriminals
a period of unimpeded access to the Private Information of
Plaintiff and Class Members."
The plaintiff, a Pennsylvania resident, says he was unaware that
his information might have been exposed to cybercriminals until
Great Valley Cardiology began sending data breach notice letters to
victims on June 12 of this year.
Like other affected individuals, the man now faces a "current,
imminent, and ongoing" risk of identity theft and fraudulent
charges that will likely persist for years to come, the filing
stresses.
To add insult to injury, the potential for improper disclosure of
patients' data was a "known risk" to the defendant, given that this
is not the first data breach Great Valley Cardiology has suffered
in recent years, the case alleges.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States whose
private information was compromised in Great Valley Cardiology's
data breach. [GN]
GUARDIAN SAVINGS: Motion to Dismiss in Stamler Class Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown of Bloomberg Law reports that Guardian Savings
Bank must face a proposed class action alleging it made unwanted
calls and delivered artificial or prerecorded messages to cell
phones in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Plaintiff Tatum Stamler claimed she received 13 calls from the
bank, a sufficient allegation of injury to establish standing to
sue under TCPA, Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman of the US
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio said in a June 28,
2023 opinion.
Bowman recommended that Guardian's motion to dismiss be denied.
Judge Michael R. Barrett will make a final ruling on the motion.
[GN]
HAT WORLD INC: Coleman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hat World, Inc. The
case is styled as Takori Juliana Coleman, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. Hat World, Inc., Case No. 23CV034805
(Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., June 1, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Lids or Hat World, Inc. -- http://www.lids.com/-- is an American
retailer specializing in athletic headwear.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638
Phone: 310-432-0000
Fax: 310-432-0001
Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
HILTON WORLDWIDE: Faces Class Suit Over HWP Ordinance Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Business Wire of Yahoo! News reports that on July 1, 2023 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]
HONEST PP&D: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Gomez Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
MAYRA GOMEZ, an individual, Plaintiff v. HONEST PP&D, LLC, a
California limited liability company; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 23STCV15135 (Cal. Super., June 29, 2023) is a
class action that arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of
the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from or around February 2022
as a non-exempt hourly employee until in or about November 2022.
During the course of employment, Plaintiff, and similarly situated
employees, continually worked an eight hour day, five and more days
a week, with no or late break or meal time periods provided and
without any premiums paid. Further, Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees were not compensated for any overtime hours
worked, including illegal rounding times, says the Plaintiff.
Based in California, Honest sells print and packaging products
throughout California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas H. Hoang, Esq.
Kelly C. Gales, Esq.
K2 EMPLOYMENT LAW, APC
19849 Nordhoff Street,
Northridge, CA 91324
Telephone: (800) 590-7674
E-mail: dhoang@k2employmentlaw.com
kgales@k2employmentlaw.com
HORIZON THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Tepezza Injections' Side Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald V. Miller, Jr. of Lawsuit Information Center reports that
Tepezza is a new medication for the treatment of thyroid eye
disease (TED). Soon after Tepezza was released on the market,
evidence began to emerge showing that many patients who received
Tepezza injections suffered permanent hearing damage and/or ringing
in the ears (tinnitus).
The manufacturer of Tepezza, Horizon Therapeutics, failed to warn
doctors and patients about the hearing loss risk. Patients who
received Tepezza injections and suffered permanent hearing loss are
now bringing product liability lawsuits to get compensation for
their injuries. A new Tepezza class action MDL lawsuit was recently
for those Tepezza cases in federal courts. Contact us on June 29,
2023 to see if you have a case at 800-553-8082 or reach out to us
online for a free consultation.
About Tepezza
Tepezza (teprotumumab-trbw) is an injectable prescription drug for
the treatment of thyroid eye disease (TED) TED is an autoimmune
condition characterized by inflammation and swelling of the tissues
around the eyes.
Tepezza is the only drug approved by the FDA for the treatment of
TED. Tepezza counteracts TED by targeting the insulin-like growth
factor 1 receptor (IGF-1R), which is believed to play a role in the
development of TED. Tepezza is administered through a series of
injections over several months. It has proven very effective at
addressing the symptoms of TED such as eye-bulging, double vision,
and eye pain.
Horizon Therapeutics developed and patented Tepezza. Tepezza is
still under its original patent so there are no generic versions
yet. Tepezza is a relatively new drug. It was first approved for
use in the U.S. in 2000.
Tepezza Causes Permanent Hearing Loss
In the 3 years since Tepezza has been on the market, a wealth of
evidence has emerged which shows some patients who receive Tepezza
injections have abnormal reactions which results in permanent
hearing damage and hearing loss.
In March 2021, just months after Tepezza was approved by the FDA,
the journal Endocrine Society published a study which found that
65% of patients who received Tepezza injections reported hearing
loss, hearing damage, or tinnitus (constant ringing in the ears).
That percentage was more than six times higher than the estimated
risk disclosed by Horizon in its product packaging and warning
labels.
The following year, in January 2022, a case series was published on
incidents of Tepezza-associated hearing loss based on information
from three doctors who treated 28 patients. The authors speculated
on the chemical mechanism for how Tepezza was causing hearing
damage. In February 2022, another prospective observational case
series report was published involving Tepezza hearing loss. The
reported detailed the cases of the 5 patients with tepezza-related
hearing loss had persistent subjective hearing loss at the last
follow-up.
Horizon Failed to Warn About the Risk of Hearing Loss
The maker of Tepezza, Horizon Therapeutics, did disclose that
hearing loss was a potential side effect of Tepezza. However,
Horizon grossly understanded how significant the risk was. Horizon
claimed that hearing loss occurred in less than 10% of patients,
and that the hearing loss was just temporary. The truth is that
Tepezza causes hearing loss about 60% of the time, and a large
percentage of those incidents involved permanent loss of hearing.
The Tepezza lawsuits assert that Horizon's understated warning
about the hearing loss risk was entirely inadequate because it
failed to provide doctors and patients with an accurate
understanding of the real risk level. The lawsuits claim that the
Tepezza warning was inadequate and that Horizon should be held
liable based on negligent failure to warn.
Horizon was fully aware (or should have been aware) that Tepezza
presented a much higher risk of hearing loss, and that this hearing
loss could be permanent. There was medical literature clearly
suggesting that the hormone targeted by Tepezza, IGF-I, plays a
central role in hearing and that low levels of IGF-I are associated
with hearing loss. Horizon arguably should have known this when
Tepezza was submitted for FDA approval. At the very least, however,
Horizon became of the issues with Tepezza at some point soon after
the drug was approved, and reports and studies linking it to
hearing damage started to emerge.
Tepezza Class Action Lawsuit for Hearing Loss
Beginning in 2022, individuals who suffered hearing loss from
Tepezza injections began filing product liability lawsuits against
Horizon. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits claimed that Horizon was
negligent in failing to adequately warn patients and doctors about
the real risks of hearing damage associated with Tepezza.
The lawsuits assert that the absence of an adequate warning about
the hearing damage risk left patients and doctors unaware of the
potential harm that the drug could cause. These plaintiffs allege
that they would never have to take Tepezza for treatment of their
TED had Horizon provided an adequate and accurate warning about
this risk.
In June 2023, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
consolidated all of the Tepezza hearing loss lawsuits in federal
courts into a new class action MDL. The Tepezza class action MDL
has been assigned to Judge Thomas Durkin in the Northern District
of Illinois. Judge Durkin will preside over a consolidated
discovery phase during which facts and evidence related to the
allegations will be gathered.
Once the discovery phase is completed, a handful of Tepezza hearing
loss cases will be selected for bellwether trials. These test
trials are intended to give the participants a sample of what they
could expect if all of the cases went to trial. The results of the
bellwether trials typically form the basis of a global settlement
in which all Tepezza claimants receive compensation.
Potential Settlement Value of Tepezza Class Action Lawsuit
Estimating the final settlement value of the Tepezza class action
lawsuit is very speculative at this stage because the litigation is
just getting started. At this stage, we don't fully know how strong
these cases may be because there are just too many variables and
unknowns.
That being said, however, most mass tort lawyers are very bullish
on the Tepezza hearing loss lawsuits. There seems to be an early
consensus that these are strong cases, and that the scientific
evidence supporting the plaintiffs' claims will hold up in court.
We can provide an estimated settlement value for the Tepezza cases,
based on our experience with other mass torts and based on various
assumptions.
Our lawyers estimate that a Tepezza hearing loss case with good
facts could have an average settlement compensation in the range of
$140,000 to $350,000. The exact value of a specific case will
depend on various factors, including the age of the plaintiff and
whether they had any preexisting hearing issues. Cases involving a
major, permanent hearing loss in relatively young plaintiffs could
be worth much more.
Contact Us About the Tepezza Class Action Lawsuit
Our firm is currently seeking Tepezza hearing damage lawsuits
across the country. If you took Tepezza for treatment of TED and
you subsequently suffered hearing damage, hearing loss, or
permanent ringing in the ears (tinnitus) contact our office on June
29 2023 for a free consultation. Call us on June 29, 2023 at
800-553-8082 or contact us online for a free consultation. [GN]
HYDROVIV LLC: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hydroviv L.L.C. The
case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Hydroviv L.L.C., Case No. 1:23-cv-04831-KPF
(S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Hydroviv, LLC -- https://www.hydroviv.com/ -- offers Water
purification equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
HYZON MOTORS INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in NY Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hyzon Motors Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 7, 2023, that three related putative securities
class action lawsuits were filed between September 30, 2021, and
November 15, 2021, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York against the company, certain of the its
current and former officers and directors and certain former
officers and directors of Kauffmann v. Hyzon Motors Inc., et al.
(No. 21- cv-06612-CJS), Brennan v. Hyzon Motors Inc., et al. (No.
21-cv-06636-CJS) and Miller v. Hyzon Motors Inc. et al. (No.
21-cv-06695-CJS)), asserting violations of federal securities laws.
The complaints generally allege that the company and individual
defendants made materially false and misleading statements relating
to the nature of the company's customer contracts, vehicle orders,
and sales and earnings projections, based on allegations in a
report released on September 28, 2021, by Blue Orca Capital, an
investment firm that indicated that it held a short position in the
company's stock and which has made numerous allegations about the
company.
These lawsuits have been consolidated under the caption "In re:
Hyzon Motors Inc. Securities Litigation," (Case No.
6:21-cv-06612-CJS-MWP). On March 21, 2022, the court-appointed lead
plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint seeking monetary
damages. The Company and individual defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on May 20, 2022, and the
court-appointed lead plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion
on July 19, 2022. The court-appointed lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on March 21, 2022, and a second amended complaint
on September 16, 2022.
Briefing regarding the company and individual defendants'
anticipated motion to dismiss the second amended complaint stayed
pending a non-binding mediation among the parties, which took place
on May 9, 2023. The parties did not settle during the May 9, 2023
mediation. The lead plaintiff has conveyed that he will request
leave to file a third amended complaint. The company and individual
defendants continue to anticipate filing a motion to dismiss the
operative complaint.
Hyzon Motors Inc. provides decarbonized solutions for the
commercial vehicle market and hydrogen supply infrastructure based
in New York.
IDT CORP: Faces Breach of Contract Suit Over Settlement Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
IDT Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended April 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 9, 2023, that on July 5, 2017, plaintiff JDS1,
LLC, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated
stockholders of its former subsidiary "Straight Path," and
derivatively on behalf of Straight Path as nominal defendant, filed
a putative class action and derivative complaint in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, The Patrick
Henry Trust (a trust formed by Howard S. Jonas that held record and
beneficial ownership of certain shares of Straight Path he formerly
held), Howard S. Jonas, and each of Straight Path's directors.
The complaint alleges that the company aided and abetted Straight
Path Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Davidi
Jonas, and Howard S. Jonas in his capacity as controlling
stockholder of Straight Path, in breaching their fiduciary duties
to Straight Path in connection with the settlement of claims
between Straight Path and the company related to potential
indemnification claims concerning Straight Path's obligations under
the Consent Decree it entered into with the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), as well as the sale of Straight Path's subsidiary
Straight Path IP Group, Inc. to the company in connection with that
settlement.
That action was consolidated with a similar action that was
initiated by The Arbitrage Fund. The Plaintiffs are seeking, among
other things, (i) a declaration that the action may be maintained
as a class action or in the alternative, that demand on the
Straight Path Board is excused; (ii) that the term sheet is
invalid; (iii) awarding damages for the unfair price stockholders
received in the merger between Straight Path and Verizon
Communications Inc. for their shares of Straight Path's Class B
common stock; and (iv) ordering Howard S. Jonas, Davidi Jonas, and
the company to disgorge any profits for the benefit of the class
Plaintiffs.
On August 28, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On
September 24, 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which was ultimately denied, and which denial
was affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court. On February 17, 2022,
the court denied the company's motion for summary judgment. On
March 10, 2022, JDS1, LLC withdrew its application to serve as
class representative and lead plaintiff.
On May 16, 2022, the court denied The Arbitrage Fund's motion to
serve as class representative and lead plaintiff and approved
intervenor Ardell Howard's motion to serve as class representative.
The trial commenced on August 29, 2022, for a period of five days,
followed by another five-day period in December 2022. The court
held closing arguments on May 3, 2023.
IDT Corporation is a telecommunications corporation based in New
Jersey.
INTRINSIC DESIGNS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mateo Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR MATEO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INTRINSIC DESIGNS LLC; and RAUL PENA,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-03580 (D.N.J., July 5, 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 Mateo was employed by the Defendants as a signage
installer.
INTRINSIC DESIGNS LLC owns and operates a design and installation
company for signs known as Intrinsic Design, with a principal place
of business at Morris Plains, NJ 07950-2941. [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
- and -
Nolan Klein, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
5550 Glades Road, Ste. 500
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (954) 745-0588
Email: klein@nklegal.com
amy@nklegal.com
melanie@nklegal.com
JAS FORWARDING: Jackson Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Javion J. Jackson, on behalf of the general public as private
attorney general v. JAS FORWARDING (USA), INC.; EXPRESS SERVICES,
INC. dba EXPRESS EMPLOYMENT PROFESSIONALS; JAS WORLDWIDE
MANAGEMENT, INC.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV13396
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 12, 2023), is brought for
recovery of penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of
2004 ("PAGA"). PAGA permits "aggrieved employees" to bring a
lawsuit as a representative action on behalf of the general public
as private attorney general and all other current and former
aggrieved employees, to recover civil penalties and address an
employer's violations of the California Labor Code.
In this case, Defendants violated various provisions of the
California Labor Code. The Defendants implemented policies and
practices which led to the following Labor Code violations which
include but are not limited to: (a) failure to pay wages including
overtime, (b) failure to provide meal periods for every work period
exceeding more than 10 hours per day and failure to pay an
additional hour's of pay or accurately pay an additional hour's of
pay in lieu of providing a meal period; (c) failure to provide rest
breaks for every four hours or major fraction thereof worked and
failure to pay an additional hour's of pay or accurately pay an
additional hour's of pay in lieu of providing a rest period; (d)
failing to pay all wages earned and owed upon separation from
Defendant's employ; (e) failing to provide accurate itemized wage
statements; and (f) issuing payment of wages in the form of a
non-Labor Code Compliant instrument. As a result, Plaintiff seeks
penalties under Labor Code on behalf of the general public as
private attorney general and all other aggrieved employees, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants.
JAS FORWARDING (USA), INC.; and EXPRESS SERVICES, INC. dba EXPRESS
EMPLOYMENT PROFESSIONALS operate as a logistics business and
staffing agency business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
Gregory Mauro, Esq.
Michael Calvo, Esq.
Lauren Falk, Esq.
Ava Issary, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: (949) 387-7200
Fax: (949) 387-6676
Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com
KIRKLAND'S INC: Faces Sicard Labor Suit in New York Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Kirkland's, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended April 29, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 8, 2023, that the Company was named as a
defendant in a putative class action filed on August 23, 2022, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, "Sicard v. Kirkland's Stores, Inc."
The complaint alleges, on behalf of Sicard and all other hourly
store employees based in New York, that Kirkland's violated New
York Labor Law Section 191 by failing to pay him and the putative
class members their wages within seven calendar days after the end
of the week in which those wages were earned, rather paying wages
on a bi-weekly basis. Plaintiff claims the putative class is
entitled to recover from the company the amount of their untimely
paid wages as liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and
costs.
Kirkland's, Inc. is a retailer of home décor and furnishings based
in Tennessee.
KIRKLAND'S INC: PA Court Dismisses Gennock Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Kirkland's, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended April 29, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 8, 2023, that in May 16, 2023, the Superior
Court of Pennsylvania ruled that the plaintiffs in a putative class
action filed in April 2017 in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania captioned "Gennock v.
Kirkland's, Inc." lacked standing under Pennsylvania law and
dismissed their complaints. The company was named as a defendant in
said case.
The complaint alleged that the company, in violation of federal
law, published more than the last five digits of a credit or debit
card number on customers' receipts and sought statutory and
punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On October 21,
2019, the District Court dismissed the matter and ruled that the
Plaintiffs did not have standing based on the Third Circuit's
recent decision in Kamal v. J. Crew Group, Inc., 918 F.3d 102 (3d.
Cir. 2019).
Following the dismissal in federal court, on October 25, 2019, the
plaintiffs filed a Praecipe to Transfer the case to Pennsylvania
state court, and on August 20, 2020, the court ruled that the
plaintiffs have standing.
The company appealed that ruling, and on April 27, 2022, the
Superior Court of Pennsylvania granted the company's petition for
permission to appeal.
Kirkland's, Inc. is a retailer of home décor and furnishings based
in Tennessee.
LEXMOD INC: Cruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lexmod, Inc. The case
is styled as Alison Michele Cruz, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Lexmod, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-04609-KPF (S.D.N.Y., June 1, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
LexMod -- https://lexmod.com/ -- is a furniture manufacturer that
provides sofas, tables, beds, desks, accessories, and decor
products for decorating homes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
LISA'S FOOD: Holmes Sues Over Alleged Labor Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
DOMINIEK HOLMES, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated Plaintiff v. LISA'S FOOD ENTERPRISES, INC., and
ROSARIO IRACI, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04873 (E.D.N.Y., June
29, 2023) arises out of the Defendants' violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
Plaintiff Holmes began his employment with Defendant Lisa's Food
Enterprises, Inc. as a Crew Member at its McDonald’s restaurant
located in Staten Island, New York in March 2022. The Plaintiff was
promoted to crew trainer in June 2022. In this class action,
Plaintiff Holmes seeks to recover unpaid wages and damages
resulting from Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages to Holmes;
its failure to pay him all "spread of hours" wages owed to him; its
failure to give him his allotted meal breaks; and for retaliation
against Holmes for complaining about the aforementioned violations
by reducing his hours, increasing his workload disproportionately
to his coworkers, and subjecting him to racist comments, and all
similarly situated individuals who were formerly or are presently
employed by Defendant Lisa's Food Enterprises, Inc.
Lisa’s Food Enterprises, Inc. is a domestic business corporation
with headquarters located at 391 East 149th Street, Bronx, NY.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Grace, Esq.
Douglas Mace, Esq.
DANNY GRACE PLLC
225 Broadway, Suite 1200
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (516) 748-9848
M&T BANK CORPORATION: Brown Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lance Brown, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated v. M&T Bank Corporation, Case No.
UNN-L-001344-23 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Union County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey on June 1, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-03026-MCA-ESK to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated Other Contract.
M&T Bank Corporation -- https://www3.mtb.com/ -- is an American
bank holding company headquartered in Buffalo, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Javier Luis Merino, Esq.
DANN LAW FIRM
1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101
North Brunswick, NJ 08902
Phone: (201) 355-3440
Fax: (216) 373-0536
Email: jmerino@dannlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Fred W. Hoensch, Esq.
Marissa Edwards, Esq.
Parker Ibrahim & Berg LLP
1635 Market Street, 11th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (267) 908-9800
Fax: (267) 908-9888
Email: fred.hoensch@piblaw.com
marissa.edwards@piblaw.com
- and -
James Paul Berg, Esq.
Scott W. Parker, Esq.
PARKER IBRAHIM & BERG LLP
270 Davidson Avenue
Somerset, NJ 08873
Phone: (908) 333-6219
Email: james.berg@piblaw.com
scott.parker@piblaw.com
MAIMONIDES MEDICAL: Rodriguez Sues for Breach of Private Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
CARMEN RODRIGUEZ and CAROLINE EDRI, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MAIMONIDES MEDICAL CENTER,
Defendant, Case No. 518243/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Kings Cty., June 22,
2023) is a class action against Maimonides for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and other similarly
situated current and former Maimonides patients' and employees'
personally identifiable information and protected health
information from cybercriminals.
On April 4, 2023, Maimonides learned that an unauthorized entity
had gained access to patient information on one of its computer
servers. In response, the Defendant launched an investigation to
determine the nature and scope of the suspicious activity.
Maimonides's investigation revealed that the cybercriminal had
access to certain patient files on the server from March 18, 2023
to April 4, 2023.
As a result of the data breach, and in light of their private
information now being in the hands of cybercriminals, Plaintiffs
and Class Members were, and continue to be, at significant risk of
identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and
financial harm. This substantial and imminent risk will remain for
their respective lifetimes, says the suit.
Maimonides Medical Center, based in Brooklyn, New York, is a
healthcare system providing outpatient services as well as virtual
and remote care offerings.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
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
MAN STAFFING: Osuna Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Osuna, an individual, on behalf of himself, all aggrieved
employees, and the State of California as a Private Attorneys
General v. MAN STAFFING, LLC, a California limited liability
company, KAMRAN STAFFING INC., a California corporation and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV13377 Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., June 12, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") on a representative basis as a result
of the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages.
The Defendants have had a consistent policy and/or practice of:
failing to comply with California law concerning payment of lawful
wage for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked; failing
to pay all wages owed twice per month; failing to pay wages due
upon termination; failing to pay minimum wage; failing to provide
accurate itemized wage statements. Defendants are therefore liable
for civil penalties under the Cal. Labor Code, including the
Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"), says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant Kamran Staffing, Inc. until
December 2022, at all times at the same location, Best Quality
Furniture.
MAN STAFFING, LLC is a California limited liability company
authorized to do business and doing business in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
KOUL LAW FIRM
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 761-5484
Facsimile: (818) 561-3938
Email: nazo@koullaw.com
- and -
Sahag Majarian, Esq.
Garen Majarian, Esq.
MAJARIAN LAW GROUP, APC
18250 Ventura Blvd.
Tarzana, CA 91356
Phone: (818) 609-0807
Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
Email: sahagii@aol.com
garen@majarianlawgroup.com
MANAGED CARE: Nieblas Sues Over Failure to Protect Customer's Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN NIEBLAS, individually and on behalf her daughter "JANE DOE,"
a minor, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. MANAGED CARE OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., MCNA INSURANCE COMPANY, and
MCNA HEALTH CARE HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:23-cv-61200
(S.D. Fla., June 23, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment
for their failure to protect Plaintiff and other customers' highly
sensitive personally identifying information.
Although Defendants became aware of the data breach on March 6,
2023, Defendants did not timely notify Plaintiff and Class Members
of the data breach and/or inform them that their highly sensitive
personally identifying information and protected health information
was compromised until May 26, 2023, nearly two and a half months
after the data breach occurred. Accordingly, Plaintiff and Class
Members were not aware that their PII and PHI had been compromised,
and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of
identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and
financial harm, says the suit.
Accordingly, Plaintiff brings 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.
Managed Care of North America is a dental benefits manager with its
principal place of business in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Ave., Fl. 5
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
nickc@lcllp.com
- and -
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
MAYFLOWER INTERNATIONAL: Figueroa Suit Hits Gender Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JEANNETTE FIGUEROA, on her own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated Plaintiff v. MAYFLOWER INTERNATIONAL HOTEL GROUP
INC d/b/a Mayflower Hotel and d/b/a Wyndham Garden; YAN ZHI HOTEL
MANAGEMENT INC d/b/a Mayflower Hotel and d/b/a Howard Johnson
Hotel; WEIHONG HU a/k/a Wei Hong Hu HENLEY LIANG Defendants, Case
No. 1:23-cv-04729 (E.D.N.Y., June 25, 2023) is a class action
against Defendants for hostile work environment and adverse
actions, including discriminatory acts that Plaintiff faced at the
hands of Defendants due to her gender under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and New
York City Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a full-time Assistant
Manager from April 2, 2021 to September 15, 2021, at the Howard
Johnson Hotel located in Long Island City, New York. Plaintiff
asserts that during her employment with the Howard Johnson Hotel,
she was treated worse than most of the other Howard Johnson
Employees due to her sex. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with
Defendants, she was constantly catcalled and sexually harassed.
Ultimately Plaintiff quit her job in fear of her safety and because
of the pervasiveness and severity of the sexual harassment as well
as physical danger that she had to endure, and Defendants'
inaction, the Plaintiff adds.
Mayflower International Hotel Group Inc. is a company that operates
in the hospitality industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
Tiffany Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 110
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
MEDIBANK PRIVATE: Faces Fourth Class Action Suit Over Cyber Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
Poonam Behura in Bengaluru and editing by Anil D'Silva of Reuters
report that Australia's Medibank Private Ltd (MPL.AX) said on June
29, 2023 it was facing a fourth shareholder class-action lawsuit
over a cyberattack incident last year that exposed the personal
data of 9.7 million current and former customers.
Earlier in the week, the country's banking regulator told Medibank
to set aside A$250 million ($165.30 million) in extra capital,
something analysts believe will affect the firm's ability to pay
capital returns to shareholders.
The latest class action alleges the health insurer was involved in
"misleading or deceptive conduct," and failed to comply with
corporate law and ASX listing rules by not revealing information on
its cyber security deficiencies.
The proceedings were filed by Sydney-based law firm Phi Finney
McDonald on behalf of people who held interest in Medibank shares
between Sept. 10, 2020 and Oct. 25, 2022.
The company intends to defend the proceedings, it said in a
statement. [GN]
METAVERSE CORPORATION: Hay Files Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Metaverse
Corporation. The case is styled as Raymond Hay, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Metaverse Corporation,
Case No. 2:23-cv-04542-DMG-AS (C.D. Cal., June 9, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Metaverse -- https://www.metaversecorp.com/ -- is a leading
provider of custom finished art.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander E. Wolf, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
280 South Beverly Drive Penthouse
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (872) 365-7060
Email: awolf@milberg.com
MGNY CONSULTING CORP: Wills Files Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MGNY Consulting
Corp., et al. The case is styled as Anthony Wills, Jr., on his own
behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. MGNY
Consulting Corp., Cezar Haxhari, Cezar H. LLC, The City of New
York, New York City Department of Housing Preservation and
Development, New York City Human Resources Administration, New York
City Housing Development Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-04840-MKV
(S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Accommodations Civil Rights for the
Fair Housing Amendments Act.
MGNY -- https://mgnyconsulting.com/ -- provides property tax help
and management services that equip the real estate industry with a
new level of efficiency and make room for opportunities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Scott Johnson, Esq.
HAMRA LAW GROUP
1 Linden Plaza, Ste. 205
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: (704) 258-5546
Email: kjohnson@hamralawgroup.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Seth Motel, Esq.
NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
100 Church St.
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 356-2633
Email: smotel@law.nyc.gov
MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Class Suit Over "Stolen" Users' Personal Data
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Musto of Fox News reports that a class-action complaint filed
on June 28, 2023 in the northern district of California alleges
tech leaders OpenAI and Microsoft Corp. used "stolen and
misappropriated" information from hundreds of millions of internet
users without their knowledge to train and develop its artificial
intelligence tech like chatbot ChatGPT.
The 16 plaintiffs, who are represented by the Clarkson Law Firm and
listed with initials, claimed the defendants "continue to
unlawfully collect and feed additional personal data from millions"
worldwide to that end and that they systematically scraped 300
billion words from the internet without consent.
The 157-page lawsuit written by Ryan Clarkson, the managing partner
of the firm, also asserts that without the "unprecedented theft of
private and copyrighted information belonging to real people," the
products developed by the companies "would not be the
multi-billion-dollar business they are on June 29, 2023."
"Once trained on stolen data, defendants saw the immediate profit
potential and rushed the products to market without implementing
proper safeguards or controls to ensure that they would not produce
or support harmful or malicious content and conduct that could
further violate the law, infringe rights and endanger lives,"
Clarkson continued. "Without these safeguards, the products have
already demonstrated their ability to harm humans, in real ways."
The firm said the defendants' disregard for privacy laws was only
matched by their disregard for the "potentially catastrophic risk
to humanity," citing a previous statement from OpenAI CEO Sam
Altman.
He has warned of the dangers of a misaligned superintelligent AGI
before and recently called for AI regulation on Capitol Hill.
"AI will probably most likely lead to the end of the world, but in
the meantime, there'll be great companies," they quoted Altman as
saying. Although, some media outlets have noted he was likely
joking.
In addition to calls for "transparency," "accountability" and
"control," the lawsuit requests injunctive relief in the form of a
temporary freeze on commercial access and development of the OpenAI
products.
It also asks for the establishment of an "AI Council" to be
responsible for approval of products before they are deployed and
"data dividends" as compensation for "the stolen data on which the
products depend."
OpenAI did not immediately respond to FOX News' request for comment
on the matter.
In March, the company updated its data usage and retention
policies, saying it would not use data submitted by customers via
its Application Programming Interface to train or improve its
models unless the user explicitly decides to share data for that
purpose.
Additionally, any data sent through the API would be retained for
abuse and misuse monitoring purposes for a maximum of 30 days,
after which it will be deleted, unless otherwise required by law.
"We don't use data for selling our services, advertising or
building profiles of people — we use data to make our models more
helpful for people," an OpenAI blogger said last week.
Microsoft, which plans to invest billions into OpenAI, declined to
comment.
OpenAI isn't the only company that has used internet data to train
AI models, but Clarkson told The Washington Post on June 28, 2023
OpenAI was the "natural first target" after igniting an "AI arms
race." [GN]
MISSION PRODUCE INC: Faces Labor Suit in California Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Mission Produce, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended April 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 8, 2023, that on April 23, 2020, former Mission
Produce, Inc. employees filed a class action lawsuit in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles against the company alleging violation of certain wage and
labor laws in California, including failure to pay all overtime
wages, minimum wage violations, and meal and rest period
violations, among others.
Additionally, on June 10, 2020, former Mission Produce, Inc.
employees filed a class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Ventura against the company
alleging similar violations of certain wage and labor laws.
The plaintiffs in both cases seek damages primarily consisting of
class certification and payment of wages earned and owed, plus
other consequential and special damages. While the company believes
that it did not violate any wage or labor laws, it nevertheless
decided to settle these class action lawsuits.
In May 2021, the plaintiffs in both class action lawsuits and the
Company agreed preliminarily to a comprehensive settlement to
resolve both class action cases for a total of $0.8 million, which
the Company recorded as a loss contingency in selling, general and
administrative expenses in the consolidated statements of income
during the three months ended April 30, 2021.
The parties executed a stipulation of the settlement agreement on
such terms in November 2021. This preliminary settlement was
approved by the applicable courts in October 2022. In the course of
preparing to send out notices to the settlement class, issues arose
regarding the nature and scope of the settlement, specifically with
respect to the universe of participants in the settlement class,
which the parties have been unable to resolve to date. The parties
have fully briefed the court on the issues, and a hearing on the
matter is set this month.
Mission Produce, Inc. is into sourcing, producing, and distributing
fresh avocados, serving retail, wholesale, and food service
customers based in California.
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Faces Berndt Suit Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------
DANIEL BERNDT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONDELEZ GLOBAL LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-04001 (N.D. Ill., June 23, 2023) seeks to redress
Mondelez's unlawful, willful and wanton failure to protect the
personal identifiable information of approximately 51,110
individuals that was exposed in a major data breach of Defendant's
network, in violation of its legal obligations.
The Plaintiff and the other Class Members are current and former
employees of Mondelez. As part of their employment, Plaintiff and
the Class entrusted their sensitive information to Mondelez with
the reasonable expectation that Mondelez would maintain that
information safely and securely. However, the Defendant betrayed
the trust of Plaintiff and the other Class Members by failing to
properly safeguard and protect their personal identifiable
information and thereby enabling cybercriminals to steal such
valuable and sensitive information, says the suit.
According to Mondelez, the personal identifiable information
exposed in the breach included: social security number, first and
last name, address, date of birth, marital status, gender, employee
identification number, and Mondelez retirement and/or thrift plan
information. Due to Defendant's negligence, cybercriminals obtained
everything they need to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on
the financial and personal lives of hundreds of thousands of
individuals, including Plaintiff, the suit alleges.
Mondelez is a food retailer and is part of one of the largest snack
companies in the world. Mondelez is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Mondelez International, Inc., which had global net revenues of
approximately $31.5 billion in 2022.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 440
Washington, D.C. 20015-2052
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Facsimile: (202) 686-2877
E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com
- and -
A. Brooke Murphy, Esq.
MURPHY LAW FIRM
4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700
Oklahoma City, OK 73108
Telephone: (405) 389-4989
E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com
MSCRIPTS LLC: Court Appoints Guardian Ad Litem for Kent Robbins
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KENT ROBBINS, Plaintiff v. MSCRIPTS, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 23-cv-01381-LB (N.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division,
appoints Sarah Robbins as guardian ad litem for the Plaintiff.
The lawsuit is putative data-breach class action brought by named
Plaintiff Kent Robbins. Robbins moves to appoint his wife, Sarah
Robbins, as his guardian ad litem because he has dementia and is
not competent to represent himself. He submitted declarations from
Ms. Robbins describing how his dementia impacts his ability
participate in the litigation and her responsibilities as his
primary caregiver, including having power of attorney to make
healthcare decisions on his behalf. The Defendant contends that it
requires more information before taking a position on the motion.
Mscripts is a mobile pharmacy company. In 2022 the company detected
a misconfiguration in its cloud storage environment that exposed
client data for a six-year period. Because the Plaintiff's pharmacy
contracts with the Defendant, his personal information was exposed.
He brings various contract, tort, and invasion-of-privacy claims on
behalf of a nationwide class.
In addition to being the Plaintiff's wife, Ms. Robbins has durable
power of attorney for the Plaintiff and is his agent to make
healthcare decisions. The Plaintiff provided two declarations by
Ms. Robbins advocating for her fitness for the guardian ad litem
appointment. In the declarations Ms. Robbins purports to attach two
exhibits: health records and a notarized durable power of attorney
and advance healthcare directive that grants her the ability to
conduct all of the Plaintiff's affairs. Neither exhibit is
attached. Ms. Robbins describes the Plaintiff as having "lucid
moments," but being significantly limited in his ability to make
decisions.
The Defendant requested limited discovery related to the basis for
the Plaintiff's motion for a guardian ad litem. It asserts that it
lacks sufficient information to take a position on the Plaintiff's
condition or Ms. Robbins' claims of incompetence. It noted that if
appointed as the Plaintiff's guardian ad litem Ms. Robbins would
represent the interests of all putative class members in addition
to those of her husband.
The Court ordered the parties to confer on what additional
discovery would be appropriate. The Defendant requested limited
discovery: four interrogatories, six requests for admission, three
requests to produce documents, and a deposition of either the
Plaintiff or Ms. Robbins or live testimony from them at a hearing
(with both of them present). The Defendant also requested the
ability to challenge any appointment if necessary after development
of the factual record in the event the Court denied discovery. The
Plaintiff provided a second declaration from Ms. Robbins and
contends that no further discovery is warranted.
Judge Beeler notes that it is undisputed that the Court has
subject-matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.
The parties consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction. The Court
can decide the motion without oral argument. The parties dispute
whether the record is sufficient to evaluate the moving party's
competence, particularly given the class-action posture.
Judge Beeler finds that a preponderance of the evidence supports
finding the Plaintiff incompetent. Ms. Robbins' declarations show
that the Plaintiff was diagnosed with brain disease and dementia,
which creates a mental impairment which significantly limits any
decision making. This shows that he is unable to assist counsel in
the preparation of the case.
Given that Mr. Robbins is incompetent, the court finds that Ms.
Robbins is a suitable guardian ad litem for the Plaintiff. The
Plaintiff consented to her appointment, she is not a party to the
case, she is the wife of the Plaintiff, and she is fully able to
represent him. The Defendant does not argue that Ms. Robbins has
any conflict.
This conclusion is buttressed by the Defendant's ability to
challenge any appointment if necessary after development of the
factual record. The trial court may remove a guardian ad litem if
they do not perform responsibly, either on the trial court's own
motion or at a party's request. A trial court may also remove a
guardian ad litem if a conflict of interest arises or if the
guardian ad litem has improperly represented the incompetent party.
The Defendant may move for the removal of a guardian ad litem after
appointment on any of these grounds.
In sum, Judge Beeler concludes that the existing record describing
the Plaintiff's dementia is sufficient to determine incompetence
and Ms. Robbins' suitability as guardian ad litem. She therefore
grants the request and appoints Ms. Robbins as guardian ad litem.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5emyr2tf from Leagle.com.
N.S.J CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sobrinho Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
RAIMUNDO SOBRINHO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. N.S.J CONSTRUCTION, INC.; and
NELSON DASILVA, JR., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-883 (D. Conn.,
July 3, 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 Sobrinho was employed by the Defendants as a construction
worker.
N.S.J CONSTRUCTION, INC. is in the single family housing
construction business. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary L. Rubin, Esq.
Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Email: zrubin@llrlaw.com
hlichten@llrlaw.com
NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Hall Balks at Tax Systems' Discriminatory Acts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WAYNE J. HALL, REINA HERNANDEZ, and FLORIDALMA PORTILLO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. NASSAU COUNTY, DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENT OF NASSAU
COUNTY, ASSESSMENT REVIEW COMMISSION OF NASSAU COUNTY, and DOES
1-25, Defendants, Case No. 609994/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty.,
June 23, 2023) is a class action seeking declaratory, monetary, and
injunctive relief on behalf of owners of residential property in
nonwhite communities in Nassau County, New York against
Defendants.
According to the complaint, the Defendant imposed irrational and
discriminatory policies and procedures in their property tax system
in 2010 that have shifted more than $1.7 billion in property taxes
from wealthier, white communities in Nassau County to lower income,
nonwhite communities. The Defendants knew to a statistical
certainty that the policies would be discriminatory, irrational,
inequitable, and far removed from current market value.
Specifically, Defendants knew and intended that the burden would
primarily affect nonwhite, elderly, disabled, and lower-income
property owners, the kinds of people who are statistically least
able to bear greater financial burdens.
This putative class action is brought for damages, restitution, and
related legal and equitable relief pursuant to Title VI of the 1964
Civil Rights Act and its implementing regulations affecting
housing; and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for violations of 42 U.S.C.
Section 1981 and the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of
the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This system also
violates the scientific and equitable requirements of the Nassau
County Charter, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs owned residential properties in a nonwhite community
in the Village of Hempstead since before 2010.
Nassau County is a political subdivision of the State of New York,
bound by the terms of the Nassau County Charter.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David Bishop, Esq.
Ira M. Press, Esq.
Andrew McNeela, Esq.
Karina Kosharskyy, Esq.
KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
250 Park Avenue, Suite 820
New York, NY 10177
Telephone: (212) 371-6600
Facsimile: (212) 751-2540
E-mail: amcneela@kmllp.com
dbishop@kmllp.com
ipress@kmllp.com
kkosharskyy@kmllp.com
NATIONSBENEFITS HOLDINGS: Dekenipp Files Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NationsBenefits, LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Kimberly Dekenipp, on behalf of
herself and all individuals similarly situated v. NationsBenefits,
LLC, Fortra, LLC, Case No. 0:23-cv-61089-BB (S.D. Fla., June 7,
2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
NationsBenefits -- https://www.nationsbenefits.com/ -- is a
supplemental benefits company that provides managed care
organizations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN PA
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com
- and -
Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
31 Samana Drive
Miami, FL 33133
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Joseph Alan Sacher, Esq.
GORDON & REES LLP
100 SE Second Street, Suite 3900
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 428-5300
Fax: (877) 634-7245
Email: jsacher@gordonrees.com
NATIXIS SA: Objection to EGB Antitrust Suit Deal Sustained in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE EUROPEAN GOVERNMENT BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
Case No. 19 Civ. 2601 (VM) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Victor Marrero of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York sustains
in part and overrules in part non-parties Rabo and Deutsche's
Objection to the Proposed Settlements.
Plaintiffs Ohio Carpenters' Pension Fund, San Bernardino County
Employees' Retirement Association, and Electrical Workers Pension
Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W. brought this putative antitrust class
action, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
against the Defendants, which include, among others, Natixis S.A.,
UniCredit Bank AG, and UniCredit Capital Markets LLC (together,
with UniCredit Bank AG, "UniCredit"). The Plaintiffs entered into
partial settlements (the "Proposed Settlements") with UniCredit and
Natixis (together, the "Settling Defendants" or "Released
Parties"). The Court preliminarily approved the Proposed
Settlements on May 16, 2023.
Cooperatieve Rabobank U.A. and Rabo Securities USA, Inc. (together,
"Rabobank") and Deutsche Bank AG and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.
(together, "Deutsche Bank," and collectively, with Rabobank, "Rabo
and Deutsche") are non-parties in the In re EGB Action, but are
named as defendants in a related matter also before this Court,
Ohio Carpenters' Pension Fund, et al. v. Deutsche Bank AG, et al.,
No. 22 Civ. 10462 (VM) (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Ohio Carpenters Action").
Despite being non-parties here, Rabo and Deutsche were named as
"Defendants" in the Proposed Settlements.
Now pending before the Court is Rabo and Deutsche's joint objection
to the Proposed Settlements. The Plaintiffs filed their opposition,
and Rabo and Deutsche filed their reply.
In their Objection, Rabo and Deutsche argue that it is
inappropriate for the Proposed Settlements to include them as
"Defendants" because they are not parties to the instant matter.
They further argue that by naming them as Defendants, the Proposed
Settlements improperly extinguish their right to seek contribution
against the Released Parties. Lastly, they argue that the Proposed
Settlements improperly impose discovery burdens on Rabo and
Deutsche.
First, Judge Marrero is not persuaded that a bar order, even with a
savings clause, may be imposed upon Rabo and Deutsche as
non-parties to the In re EGB Action, despite their being parties to
the related, but not consolidated, Ohio Carpenters Action. He
agrees that the Proposed Settlements improperly burden Rabo and
Deutsche's rights to pursue claims against the Released Parties,
and as he determined, the Plaintiffs' treatment and inclusion of
the non-party Rabo and Deutsche as "Defendants" in the Proposed
Settlements is not appropriate. Accordingly, Rabo and Deutsche's
Objection on this ground is sustained, and Judge Marrero directs
the Plaintiffs to remove Rabo and Deutsche from the definition of
"Defendants" in the Proposed Settlements.
Second, Judge Marrero finds that the Plaintiffs did not impose
improper discovery obligations on Rabo and Deutsche. He agrees with
the Plaintiffs that based on a plain reading of their brief, Rabo
and Deutsche are not obliged to comply with their request, as they
simply seek Rabo and Deutsche's cooperation in providing notice.
Should Rabo and Deutsche choose not to cooperate with the
Plaintiffs' requests, the Plaintiffs have other avenues for
obtaining discovery from non-parties, including subpoenas, for
which the Plaintiffs have already moved.
Thus, Judge Marrero overrules Rabo and Deutsche's Objection that
the Proposed Settlements improperly impose discovery burdens upon
them. Further, in accordance with the Court's Order dated June 16,
2023, he directs Rabo and Deutsche to respond to or move to quash
the Plaintiffs' subpoenas within 14 days of the date of the Order.
For these reasons, Judge Marrero sustains the objection Rabo and
Deutsche to their inclusion as "Defendants" in the Plaintiffs'
Proposed Settlements with UniCredit. The Plaintiffs are directed to
amend the Proposed Settlements to remove Rabo and Deutsche from the
definition of "Defendants" within 14 days of the date of his Order.
He overrules the Objection of Rabo and Deutsche to the Plaintiffs'
discovery request. As the Plaintiffs have filed motions to subpoena
Rabo and Deutsche, Rabo and Deutsche will have 14 days from the
date of the Order to respond to or move to quash such motions.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2023 Decision & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yn78he9s from Leagle.com.
NAVIENT CORP: Student Loan Bankruptcy Class Suit Settlement Ok'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Wolf of Bloomberg Law reports that Navient Corp. and thousands
of student loan borrowers won a Nebraska bankruptcy court's
approval of their settlement to end claims that the loan servicer
attempted to collect on debt that was wiped out in bankruptcy.
Under the agreement, Navient will cease efforts to collect on about
$54 million worth of private student loans that were subject to
discharge. One of the nation's largest student debt servicers,
Navient also will pay up to $28 million in damages, which will be
used to partially refund borrowers who continued to pay back those
loans after going through bankruptcy. [GN]
NEVADA BADGER: Suarez Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Sergio Suarez, as an individual and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. NEVADA BADGER DAYLIGHTING
CORP., a Nevada Corporation; BADGER DAYLIGHTING CORP., a Nevada
Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2302287 was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on June 5, 2023, and assigned Case No.
5:23-cv-01045-JGB-SP.
The Complaint asserts the following eight causes of action:
recovery of unpaid minimum wages and liquidated damages; recovery
of unpaid overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods or
compensation in lieu thereof; failure to provide rest periods or
compensation in lieu thereof; failure to furnish accurate itemized
wage statements; failure to timely pay all wages due upon
separation of employment; failure to reimburse business expenses;
and unfair competition.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Alice H. Wang, Esq.
Courtney Chambers, Esq.
Jennifer W. Maguire, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: 415.433.1940
Fax: 415.399.8490
Email: awang@littler.com
cchambers@littler.com
jmaguire@littler.com
NHS MANAGEMENT: Wins Griggs Breach Class Suit in N.D. Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Marselas of McKnights reports that a management firm
serving nursing homes in four states has avoided a class-action
lawsuit related to a 2021 data breach.
A federal judge ruled this week that NHS Management wasn't subject
to a federal class action suit initiated by a former employee
because she didn't prove other plaintiffs would be citizens of
multiple states.
Both lead plaintiff Shymikka Griggs and NHS are based in Alabama.
Without other claimants who are citizens of other states, US
District Court Judge R. David Proctor of the US District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama ruled that his court did not have
jurisdiction.
Without being asked, he tossed the case and it will not advance
unless Grigg can produce new claimants from other states by July
21.
The case hinges on a February 2021 data breach that affected more
than 500 people, Griggs among them. She was notified, along with
employees, vendors and residents in other states. But the court
said that fact wasn't enough to make a leap as to their citizenship
or their willingness to sign on to Griggs' suit.
"The mere fact that NHS serves facilities in states other than
Alabama or Delaware [where it is incorporated] is insufficient to
establish the citizenship of any putative class member, especially
when Plaintiff has not specifically identified any putative
plaintiffs," Proctor wrote. He said Griggs had "not met her burden
to establish the existence of subject matter jurisdiction" under
the Class Action Fairness Act.
NHS reported the breach after it was discovered in May 2021,
calling the unauthorized access "a sophisticated cyberattack." A
third-party forensic team hired by the company investigated and
found someone had entered more than one system and accessed
information stored there.
A voicemail seeking comment from an NHS executive was not returned
by deadline.
The company previously said a full review determined that "certain
personal information," such as medical history, Social Security
numbers, birthdates and more, was included in documents affected by
the breach. But the company said hackers had not been able to
access its electronic medical records database used for patients.
It notified potential victims, including Griggs, in April 2022.
Griggs took legal action the next month, claiming NHS was
responsible for the data breach "because of its failure to follow
industry standard practices for securing sensitive Information. She
alleged that NHS "inadequately trains its employees on
cybersecurity policies, fails to enforce those policies, or
maintains unreasonable or inadequate security practices and
systems."
Griggs had expected the value of class-action claims to surpass $5
million, according to Proctor's ruling. [GN]
NIPPON EXPRESS: Aranda Sues Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------
Charles M. Aranda, individually and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. NIPPON EXPRESS USA, INC., a New York
Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 23CV035529 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., June 7, 2023), is brought pursuant to the
California Labor Code, applicable IWC California Wage Orders and
California Code of Regulations seeking unpaid wages, unpaid meal
and rest period compensation, unreimbursed expenses, penalties,
liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
This is a Class Action, pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure section 382, on behalf of Plaintiff and any and all
persons who are or were employed by Defendants, either directly or
indirectly, in the State of California at any time from four years
prior to the filing of this Complaint through resolution or trial
of the matter. ("Class Members" or "Non-Exempt Employees".) The
Defendants implemented uniform policies and practices that deprived
Plaintiff and Class Members of earned wages, including minimum
wages; straight time wages; overtime wages; premium wages; lawful
meal and/or rest breaks; reimbursement for necessary expenses; and
timely payment of wages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in an hourly, non-exempt
position.
Nippon Express USA, Inc. is a New York corporation, doing business
in the state of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
Christina M. Lucio, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: (949) 387-7200
Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
Email: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
christina@jameshawkinsaplc.com
NOVO BUILDING: Durkel Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW DURKEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NOVO BUILDING PRODUCTS, LLC, NOVO
DISTRIBUTION, LLC, and THE EMPIRE COMPANY, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 1:23-cv-03414 (D.N.J., June 23, 2023) seeks to recover all
available relief for unpaid regular and overtime wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the
supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations.
Plaintiff Durkel began his employment with Defendant Empire as an
Account Service Manager in 2010 and worked in that position until
October 2019 when he was promoted to Area Service Support Manager.
In September 2022, Defendants changed the title of the ASSM
position to Regional Service Representative. He worked as an RSR
until his employment ended with Defendants in February 2023.
Novo Building Products, LLC is a manufacturer and distributor of
building materials organized under the laws of Delaware with its
principal office in Zeeland, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roosevelt N. Nesmith, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ROOSEVELT N. NESMITH, LLC
400 Broadacres Drive, Suite 260 Suite 2C
Bloomfield, NJ 07003
Telephone: (973) 259-6990
Facsimile: (866) 848-1368
E-mail: roosevelt@nesmithlaw.com
- and -
Catherine E. Anderson, Esq.
GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP
90 Broad Street, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 847-8315
Facsimile: (646) 964-9620
E-mail: canderson@gslawny.com
- and -
David R. Markham, Esq.
THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
750 B Street, Suite 1950
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 399-3995
Facsimile: (619) 615-2067
E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com
OFFICE DEPOT: Fitzgerald Sues Over Untimely Payment of Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
LILLIAN FITZGERALD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OFFICE DEPOT, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 609969/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., June 23, 2023) seeks to
recover damages pursuant to the New York Labor Law for untimely
paid wages for Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals who
work or worked for Defendant in New York State as hourly employees
in any role at any time between February 15, 2020 and June 30,
2023, and who worked at least one full week.
The Plaintiff is an adult individual who worked for Defendant in
New York as an hourly-paid manual worker. She asserts that
Defendant paid her and the Class Members on a biweekly basis, which
violated the requirement that manual workers be paid within seven
days after the end of the workweek in accordance with NYLL.
Office Depot, LLC operates retail stores in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
477 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (800) 616-4000
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com
ONE BROOKLYN HEALTH: Francis Sues Over Inadequate Data Security
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anika Francis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ONE BROOKLYN HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Case No.
1:23-cv-04431-DG-PK (E.D.N.Y., June 15, 2023), is brought seeks to
hold Defendant responsible for the injuries Defendant inflicted on
Plaintiff and approximately 235,2511 similarly situated persons
("Class Members") 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 (the "Data Breach" or "Breach") between July 9,
2022, to November 19, 2023.
The data that Defendant caused to be exfiltrated by cybercriminals
were highly sensitive. Upon information and belief, the exfiltrated
data included personal identifying information ("PII") and personal
health information ("PHI") like individuals' 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 Defendant obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI
and then maintained that sensitive data in a negligent and/or
reckless manner. As evidenced by the Data Breach, Defendant
inadequately maintained their network, platform, software, and
technology partners-rendering these easy prey for cybercriminals.
The risk of the Data Breach was known to Defendant. Thus, Defendant
was on notice that its inadequate data security created a
heightened risk of exfiltration, compromise, and theft. Then, after
the Data Breach, Defendant failed to provide timely notice to the
affected Plaintiff and Class Members--thereby exacerbating their
injuries. Ultimately, Defendant deprived Plaintiff and Class
Members of the chance to take speedy measures to protect themselves
and mitigate harm. Simply put, Defendant impermissibly left
Plaintiff and Class Members in the dark—thereby causing their
injuries to fester and the damage to spread. Even when Defendant
finally notified Plaintiff and Class Members of their PII and PHI's
exfiltration, Defendant failed to adequately describe the Data
Breach and its effects.
The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered—and will continue
to suffer--from the loss of the benefit of their bargain,
unexpected out-of-pocket expenses, lost or diminished value of
their PII and PHI, emotional distress, and the value of their time
reasonably incurred to mitigate the fallout of the Data Breach.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to remedy these injuries on
behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals whose
PII and PHI were exfiltrated and compromised in the Data Breach.
The Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to,
compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages,
reimbursement of out-of pocket costs, and injunctive
relief--including improvements to Defendant's data security
systems, future annual audits, and adequate credit monitoring
services funded by Defendant, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person and resident and citizen of the
State of New York.
One Brooklyn is a healthcare company providing a broad range of
healthcare services, including pediatric and geriatric care,
behavior health services, sickle cell services, podiatry, and
maternal health services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Sedgh, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
850 3rd Ave, Suite 402
Brooklyn, NY 11232
Phone: (212) 738-6839
Fax: (813) 222-2439
Email: jsedgh@forthepeople.com
- and -
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
Phone: (813) 223-5505
Fax: (813) 223-5402
Email: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com
MValladares@forthepeople.com
Ramen@forthepeople.com
ONE BROOKLYN: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Jones Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
SHAKIRA JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ONE BROOKLYN HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 519199/2023 (N.Y., Sup., Kings Cty., July 3, 2023) is a
class action on behalf of individuals whose personally identifying
information or protected health information was accessed and
exfiltrated by an unauthorized third party during a data breach of
OBH's computer system, which Defendant discovered on or about
November 19, 2022, but did not disclose until April 20, 2023.
According to the complaint, despite becoming aware of the data
breach on or around November 19, 2022, the Defendant failed to
timely notify the Plaintiff and Class Members of the Data Breach
within 60 days as required by law. Notably, the Defendant failed to
notify the Plaintiff and Class Members for approximately six months
after its discovery of the Data Breach. As a direct and proximate
result of the Defendant's inadequate data security, and its breach
of its duty to handle PII and PHI with reasonable care, Plaintiff's
and Class Members' PII and PHI has been accessed by hackers and
exposed to an untold number of unauthorized individuals, says the
suit.
ONE BROOKLYN HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. provides healthcare services
through a network of acute hospitals, and health care specialists.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
Ethan S. Binder, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
ebinder@scott-scott.com
- and -
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
Email: gary@lcllp.com
jamisen@lcllp.com
nickc@lcllp.com
OOMA INC: Faces False Advertising Suit in Canadian Court
--------------------------------------------------------
Ooma, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended April 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 8, 2023, that on February 3, 2021, plaintiff
Fiona Chiu filed a class action complaint against the company and
Ooma Canada Inc. in the Federal Court of Canada, alleging
violations of Canada's Trademarks Act and Competition Act.
The complaint seeks monetary and other damages and/or injunctive
relief enjoining the company to cease describing and marketing its
"Basic Home Phone" using the word "free" or otherwise representing
that it is free. On November 9, 2021, the Federal Court of Canada
removed Ms. Chiu and substituted John Zanin as the new plaintiff in
the proceeding. In connection with the substitution of Mr. Zanin as
the new plaintiff, the Federal Court of Canada deemed the
proceeding as having commenced on November 8, 2021, instead of
February 3, 2021.
In January 2022, the Federal Court of Canada heard arguments from
counsel representing each of the Company and Mr. Zanin regarding
jurisdiction and class action certification issues, and the parties
are awaiting the Court to issue its ruling.
Ooma Inc. provides communications services and related technologies
based in California.
OPENAI INC: Faces Awad & Tremblay Class Suit Over Copyright
-----------------------------------------------------------
Emily St. Martin of Los Angeles Times reports that two bestselling
novelists filed a suit against OpenAI in a San Francisco federal
court on June 28, 2023, claiming in a proposed class action that
the company used copyright-protected intellectual property to
"train" its artificial intelligence chatbot.
Authors Mona Awad and Paul Tremblay claim that ChatGPT was trained
in part by "ingesting" their novels without their consent. The
generative AI is powered by two software programs known as large
language models, which forgo a traditional programming method and
instead extract massive amounts of text in order to produce natural
and lifelike responses to user prompts.
When prompted, ChatGPT emitted extremely detailed summaries of
Tremblay's "The Cabin at the End of the World" and Awad's "Bunny"
and "13 Ways of Looking at a Fat Girl." Both authors claim this is
proof that their novels were used to train the chatbot, and the
filing includes ChatGPT's responses to prompts regarding their
novels.
According to the suit, much of the material that OpenAI uses to
train its generative chatbots comes from copyrighted works,
including books written by Awad and Tremblay, "that were copied by
OpenAI without consent, without credit, and without compensation."
The lawsuit alleges that a variety of materials had been used to
train the large language models, but books have been "a key
ingredient in training datasets for large language models because
books offer the best examples of high-quality longform writing."
In June 2018, OpenAI revealed that it trained GPT-1 using
BookCorpus, which the suit described as a "controversial dataset"
assembled by artificial intelligence researchers in 2015, with a
collection of "over 7,000 unique unpublished books from a variety
of genres including Adventure, Fantasy, and Romance. "
"They copied the books from a website called Smashwords.com that
hosts unpublished novels that are available to readers at no cost.
Those novels, however, are largely under copyright."
According to the complaint, later iterations of the company's large
language models were trained using significantly larger quantities
of copyright-protected books. In a July 2020 paper introducing
GPT-3, the company revealed that 15% of the training data set came
from "two internet-based books corpora" that OpenAI simply called
"Books1" and "Books2."
The suit approximates that, based on numbers revealed in OpenAI's
paper about GPT-3, Books1 would contain roughly 63,000 titles, and
Books2 would include approximately 294,000 titles.
"Because the OpenAI Language Models cannot function without the
expressive information extracted from Plaintiffs' works (and
others) and retained inside them, the OpenAI Language Models are
themselves infringing derivative works, made without Plaintiffs'
permission and in violation of their exclusive rights under the
Copyright Act.," the suit reads.
Also on June 28, 2023, a broader class-action suit was filed by
Clarkson, a public-interest law firm, on behalf of a dozen
anonymous clients, accusing OpenAI of lifting private, sometimes
identifying information from Internet users "without their informed
consent or knowledge," according to a report in Rolling Stone.
Experts have predicted more suits are sure to follow as AI becomes
more adept at using information from the web to generate new
content. [GN]
OPENAI INC: Faces Class Suit Over ChatGPT's Copyright Info
----------------------------------------------------------
Keith Griffith of Dailymail.com reports that OpenAI, the company
behind wildly popular generative artificial intelligence platform
ChatGPT, has been hit with a class-action lawsuit alleging
'unprecedented theft of private and copyrighted information.'
The lawsuit was filed on June 28, 2023 in federal court in
California by public interest law firm Clarkson, on behalf of more
than a dozen plaintiffs identified only by their initials in the
complaint.
The 157-page complaint makes wide-ranging allegations, accusing
OpenAI of 'secret and unregistered scraping of internet data' as
well as 'intentionally luring thousands if not millions of children
to the platform.'
The heart of the complaint centers on claims that OpenAI trained
its AI products using '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.'
San Francisco-based OpenAI, a private company backed by Microsoft,
did not immediately respond to a request for comment from
DailyMail.com.
Responding to a prompt asking it to craft a statement defending its
creators against the allegations, ChatGPT immediately issued a
lengthy reply in the format of a press release.
'OpenAI, a global leader in artificial intelligence research and
development, categorically denies the recent allegations that it
engaged in the unlawful scraping of private and copyrighted
information from the internet to train its ChatGPT language model,'
wrote ChatGPT.
'OpenAI firmly believes in maintaining the highest standards of
ethical conduct, respecting privacy rights, and upholding
intellectual property laws,' the generative AI chatbot added.
While the response from ChatGPT cannot be construed as speaking on
behalf of its creators, it does illustrate the technology's power
and wide-ranging abilities.
In the class-action complaint, lead attorney for the plaintiffs
Ryan J. Clarkson accused OpenAI of scraping '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.'
The complaint further alleged: 'Defendants deceptively operated the
free ChatGPT Platform as if it were only used by adults while
intentionally luring thousands if not millions of children to the
platform.'
The suit claims OpenAI 'intentionally tracked and collected the
personal information of each underage ChatGPT User' despite
'knowing that thousands if not millions of these Users were
actually minor children.'
The suit seeks unspecified damages and a court injunction freezing
commercial access to, and development of, ChatGPT until certain
conditions are met.
Separately, two US authors also sued OpenAI in San Francisco
federal court on June 28, 2023 in a proposed class-action suit.
That suit accused the company of misusing their copyrighted books
to 'train' ChatGPT.
Massachusetts-based writers Paul Tremblay and Mona Awad said
ChatGPT mined data copied from thousands of books without
permission, infringing the authors' copyrights.
Matthew Butterick, an attorney for the authors, declined to
comment.
Several other legal challenges have been filed over material used
to train cutting-edge AI systems.
Plaintiffs include source-code owners against OpenAI and
Microsoft's GitHub, and visual artists against Stability AI,
Midjourney and DeviantArt.
The lawsuit targets have previously argued that their systems make
fair use of copyrighted work.
ChatGPT responds to users' text prompts in a conversational way. It
became the fastest-growing consumer application in history earlier
this year, reaching 100 million active users in January only two
months after it was launched.
ChatGPT and other generative AI systems create content using large
amounts of data scraped from the internet. Tremblay and Awad's
lawsuit said books are a 'key ingredient' because they offer the
'best examples of high-quality longform writing.'
The complaint estimated that OpenAI's training data incorporated
over 300,000 books, including from illegal 'shadow libraries' that
offer copyrighted books without permission.
Awad is known for novels including '13 Ways of Looking at a Fat
Girl' and 'Bunny.' Tremblay's novels include 'The Cabin at the End
of the World,' which was adapted in the M. Night Shyamalan film
'Knock at the Cabin' released in February.
Tremblay and Awad said ChatGPT could generate 'very accurate'
summaries of their books, indicating that they appeared in its
database.
The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of money damages on behalf
of a nationwide class of copyright owners whose works OpenAI
allegedly misused. [GN]
PNC BANK: Fails to Provide Full Disclosures on Fees, Gutierrez Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JASMINA GUTIERREZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PNC BANK, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-03238
(N.D. Cal., June 28, 2023), arises from the Defendant's alleged
violations of the federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act.
Plaintiff Gutierrez alleges that the Defendant failed to abide the
law's requirement to fully, fairly and accurately disclose the
contours of its overdraft service, including circumstances in which
it will assess overdraft and/or insufficient fund fees.
Accordingly, on behalf of herself and the Classes, Plaintiff seeks
damages, restitution, statutory damages, and attorneys' fees for
Defendant's violations. She also seeks to enjoin the Defendant from
continuing to mislead current and prospective account holders
regarding its overdraft and non-sufficient funds fee assessment
practices, says the Plaintiff.
Headquartered in Pennsylvania, PNC Bank provides retail banking
services to consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
950 Gilman Street, Suite 200
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com
- and –
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
- and-
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILIE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
POINT32HEALTH INC: Mackey Sues Over Failure to Secure Data
----------------------------------------------------------
Kelli Mackey, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. POINT32HEALTH, INC., HEALTH PLANS, INC., and HARVARD
PILGRIM HEALTH CARE, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-11257-NMG (D. Mass.,
June 2, 2023), is brought for damages against Defendants for their
failure to exercise reasonable care in securing and safeguarding
the sensitive personal data--including names, home addresses, dates
of birth, phone numbers, health insurance account information,
clinical information, and Social Security numbers (SSNs).
This class action is brought on behalf of individuals whose
sensitive PII was stolen by cybercriminals in a cyber-attack on
Defendants’ systems that took place on or around March 28, 2023,
and which resulted in the access and exfiltration of sensitive
information (the “Data Breach”). The stolen data included
names, home addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, health
insurance account information, private clinical information (such
as diagnoses), and Social Security numbers of thousands of
individuals.
Point32Health and Harvard Pilgrim provide health administration
services to Health Plans, Inc. (“HPI”), a health plan
administrator. The information extracted in the Data Breach
belonged to the patients or other users (hereinafter “patients”
or “consumers”) of Health Pans, Inc. This lawsuit is brought on
behalf of those patients affected by the Breach (the “Class”).
The Defendants discovered the first signs of the Breach on or
around April 17, 2023. They concluded through their internal
investigation of the Data Breach that Plaintiff and Class
members’ sensitive information was accessed from on or around
March 28, 2023, to on or around April 17, 2023. Defendants did not
notify affected individuals until on or around May 24, 2022.
As a result of the Data Breach and Defendants’ failure to
promptly notify Plaintiff and Class members of the Data Breach,
Plaintiff and Class members have experienced and will experience
various types of misuse of their PII in the coming months and
years, including but not limited to, unauthorized credit card
charges, unauthorized access to email accounts, identity theft, and
other fraudulent use of their Private Information, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff has worked at St. Paul’s School, a boarding school
in Concord, New Hampshire.
Point32Health is the parent company of both Harvard Pilgrim and
HPI.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard E. Levine, Esq.
STANZLER LEVINE, LLC
37 Walnut Street, Suite 200
Wellesley, MA 02481
Phone: (617) 482-3198
Email: rlevine@stanzlerlevine.com
- and -
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD, LLP
412 H Street NE
Washington, D.C. 20002
Phone: 202.470.3520
Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
PRABAL GURUNG: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prabal Gurung, LLC.
The case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Prabal Gurung, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-04861-JLR (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Prabal Gurung -- https://prabalgurung.com/ -- is a philosophy
encompassing modern luxury, indelible style and an astute sense of
glamour.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Mitchell Sues Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------
VINCENT MITCHELL and SHAWNTESSA GUILLORY-CAILLIER, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PROGRESS
SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-11417 (D. Mass.,
June 23, 2023) arises from a recent cyberattack resulting in a data
breach of Plaintiffs and similarly situated consumers' sensitive
information in the possession and custody and/or control of
Defendant.
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 may have been
exploited by cybercriminals from as far back as 2021. The data
breach resulted in unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, and theft
of consumers' highly personal information, including names, Social
Security numbers, dates of birth, addresses, demographic
information, driver's license numbers, vehicle registration
numbers, and financial information, says the suit.
The Defendant's failure to timely detect and report the data breach
made its consumers vulnerable to identity theft without any
warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to
prevent unauthorized use of their PII, asserts the complaint.
In failing to adequately protect Plaintiffs' and the
Class' PII, failing to adequately notify them about the breach, and
by obfuscating the nature of the breach, Defendant violated state
and federal law and harmed an unknown number of its consumers, the
complaint adds.
Progress Software Corporation is a software company offering a
range of products and services to government and corporate entities
across the country and around the world.[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 -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina Borrelli , Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com
raina@turkestrauss.com
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Narcisse Files Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive Casualty
Insurance Company, et al. The case is styled as Jeanine Narcisse,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Progressive Max Insurance
Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-04690-JGK (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.
Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. -- https://www.progressive.com/
-- is an insurance company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Lee Lowther, III, Esq.
Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, III, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM PLLC
519 W. 7th Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: (501) 312-8500
Fax: (501) 312-8505
Email: llowther@cbplaw.com
hbates@cbplaw.com
- and -
Thomas M. Mullaney, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS M. MULLANEY
530 Fifth Avenue, 23rd Floor
New York, NY 10036
Phone: (212) 223-0800
Fax: (212) 661-9860
Email: Mulllaw@msn.com
PUBLIX SUPER: Griffin Sues Over Mislabeled Cereal Bars
------------------------------------------------------
JERKERRIS GRIFFIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-01490 (M.D. Fla., July 5, 2023) alleges
that the Defendant sells mislabeled "Apple Cinnamon Flavored Fruit
& Grain Cereal Bars."
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's
representations are misleading because the labeling omits the use
of artificial flavoring ingredients to simulate, resemble and
reinforce the Product's apple taste.
As a result of the false and misleading representations, the
Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than
$2.99 for 8 bars, excluding tax and sales, higher than similar
products, represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it
would be sold for absent the misleading representations and
omissions, says the suit.
PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC. owns and operates a chain of
supermarkets. The Company offers meats, seafood, dairy products,
baked and goods, confectionery items, dry fruits, soft drinks, and
alcoholic beverages, as well as pharmacy services. Publix Super
Markets serves customers throughout the State of Florida, Georgia,
Alabama, South Carolina, and Tennessee. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Wright, Esq.
THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A.
515 N Flagler Dr Ste P300
West Palm Beach FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 514-0904
Email: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com
- and -
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
R&B CORPORATION: Moxley Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against R&B Corporation of
Virginia. The case is styled as Stephanie Moxley, Wendi Moyer, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. R&B
Corporation of Virginia doing business as: Credit Control
Corporation, Case No. 4:23-cv-00070-RBS-RJK (S.D.N.Y., June 1,
2023).
The nature of suit is stated Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor
Vehicle.
R&B Corporation of Virginia doing business as Credit Control --
https://creditcontrol.net/ -- is a debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Hirsh, Esq.
HIRSH LAW OFFICE
2295 Towne Lake Pkwy., Ste. 116-181
Woodstock, GA 30189
Phone: (678) 653-9907
Email: Michael@Hirsh.law
RELX GROUP PLC: Wanna Files FCRA Suit in D. Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RELX Group plc. The
case is styled as Melissa Wanna, on behalf of herself individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RELX Group plc,
Reed Elsevier Inc. doing business as: LexisNexis, RELX Inc. doing
business as: LexisNexis, LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc., LexisNexis
Risk Solutions FL Inc., Case No. 0:23-cv-01769-PJS-JFD (D. Minn.,
June 13, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
RELX plc -- http://www.relx.com/-- is a British multinational
information and analytics company headquartered in London,
England.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J.S. Madgett, Esq.
MADGETT & KLEIN, LLC
333 S. Seventh Street, Suite 2450
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 470-6529
Email: dmadgett@madgettlaw.com
RENT THE RUNWAY: Faces Securities Suit in NY Over IPO
-----------------------------------------------------
Rent The Runway, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended April 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 8, 2023, that on November 14, 2022, a purported
stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit in
the Eastern District of New York against the company, certain of
its officers and directors, and the underwriters of its IPO,
entitled "Rajat Sharma v. Rent the Runway, Inc., et al."
22-cv-6935.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by making allegedly
materially misleading statements, and by omitting material facts
necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading
concerning, inter alia, the company's growth at the time of the
IPO.
The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, an
award of attorney's fees and costs, and such other relief as deemed
just and proper by the court. On June 8, 2023, the court-appointed
Delaware Public Employees' Retirement System and Denver Employees
Retirement Plan as lead plaintiffs.
Rent The Runway, Inc. is an e-commerce platform offering fashion
services.
RICETEC INC: Louisiana Farmers Sue Over Defective Rice Variety
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Keith Heinen, Thomas and Cassedy Farms, John Joseph
Carbalan, Blane Frey v. Ricetec Inc., Syngenta Seeds, LLC, and
Adama Ltd, Case No. 6:23-cv-00873 (W.D. La., June 29, 2023) alleges
claims against the Defendants for negligence and for violations of
the Louisiana Products Liability Act.
This class action is brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of all past
and present farmers or rice customers who purchased, planted,
farmed, harvested, or brought to market the RiceTec MAXACE product
manufactured, sold, advertised or distributed by defendants. The
Plaintiffs allege that RiceTec MAXACE product has redhibitory
defects and the Defendants still allowed it to enter the stream of
commerce.
Allegedly, the Defendants failed to properly and/or prudently test,
and research the growth/harvest cycle of the MAX-RICE, to ensure
that said product would grow and thrive in the naturally occurring
weather, climate, and soil conditions of South Louisiana where the
Defendants knew or should have known that significant amounts of
MAX-RICE had been sold and distributed for the purpose of
commercial planting throughout Louisiana. Accordingly, Plaintiffs
seek to recover from all economic losses and damages incurred due
to the defective rice manufactured and/or sold by the Defendants,
the suit says.
Defendants are entities engaged in the farming industry and have
either manufactured and/or sold rice seeds. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen R. Barry, Esq.
BARRY ROME & SCOTT
612 Gravier Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 525-5553
Facsimile: (504) 525-1909
E-mail: sbarry@barryrome.com
and
Barry A. Roach, Esq.
LARRY A. ROACH, INC.
2917 Ryan Street
Lake Charles, LA 70601
Telephone: (337) 433-8504
Facsimile: (337) 433-3196
E-mail: broach@larryaroachinc.com
- and -
Brett A. Stefanski, Esq.
Scott Sterfanski, Esq.
EDWARDS STEFANSKI-ZAUNBRECHER, LLP
P.O. Drawer 730
Crowley, LA 70527
Telephone: (337) 783-7000
Facsimile: (337) 783-3165
E-mail: bstefanski@eszlawfirm.com
sastefanski@eszlawfirm.com
SAFE HOME SECURITY: Gillenwater Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Harold Gillenwater, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Safe Home Security, Inc.,
Security Systems, Inc., Case No. 2322-CC00862 was removed from the
Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 1, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-00727-JMB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Safe Home Security, Inc. -- https://www.safehomesecurityinc.com/ --
is a family-owned business that has been dedicated to protecting
communities specializing in: CCTV & wireless video surveillance;
Home automation – smart home technology; Professional
installation & 24/7 technical support; Central station monitoring
– burglary, fire & medical.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Francis J. Flynn, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J FLYNN JR
6057 Metropolitan Plaza
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Phone: (314) 662-2836
Email: casey@lawofficeflynn.com
- and -
Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq.
CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL
308 Hutchinson Road
Ellisville, MO 63011
Phone: (314) 541-0317
Fax: (855) 710-7706
Email: tiffany@consumerprotectionlegal.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Natalie J. Kussart, Esq.
SANDBERG PHOENIX PC - St. Louis
600 Washington Avenue, 15th Floor
St. Louis, MO 63101-1313
Phone: (314) 231-3332
Fax: (314) 241-7604
Email: nkussart@sandbergphoenix.com
SAM BANKMAN-FRIED: Hawkins Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Elliott Lam, Julie Papadakis, Russell Hawkins,
Mark Girshovich, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Sam Bankman-Fried, Caroline Ellison, Golden State
Warriors LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-07336 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 5,
2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-22195-KMM to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Samuel Benjamin Bankman-Fried, also known by the initials SBF, is
an American entrepreneur, investor, and alleged fraudster.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher Kar-Lun Young, Esq.
Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
Steven Noel Williams, Esq.
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
601 California Street, Ste. 1000
San Francisco, CA 94108
Phone: (415) 500-6807
Email: cyoung@saverilawfirm.com
jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
- and -
Kurt Kessler, Esq.
Ling Y. Kuang, Esq.
William M. Audet, Esq.
AUDET & PARTNERS LLP
711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102-3275
Phone: (415) 568-2555
Email: kkessler@audetlaw.com
lkuang@audetlaw.com
waudet@audetlaw.com
- and -
Laurence D. King, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER
350 San Some Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 772-4700
Fax: 677-1233
Email: lking@kaplanfox.com
- and -
Yaman Salahi, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 956-1000
Email: ysalahi@lchb.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Marc R. Lewis, Esq.
Zachary Christian Flood, Esq.
LEWIS AND LLEWELLYN LLP
601 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 800-0590
Email: MLewis@lewisllewellyn.com
zflood@lewisllewellyn.com
- and -
Jeremy D. Mishkin, Esq.
Richard M. Simins, Esq.
MONTGOMERY MCCRACKEN
1735 Market Street, 21st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 772-1500
Email: jmishkin@mmwr.com
rsimins@mmwr.com
- and -
Christopher William Johnstone, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Phone: (650) 858-6147
Email: chris.johnstone@wilmerhale.com
- and -
Nicholas Werle, Esq.
Peter G. Neiman, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
7 World Trade Center
New York, NY 10006
Phone: (212) 230-8800
Email: nick.werle@wilmerhale.com
peter.neiman@wilmerhale.com
- and -
Jamila MacEbong, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Email: jmacebong@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Matthew Kahn, Esq.
Michael Kahn, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
555 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Email: mkahn@gibsondunn.com
mjkahn@gibsondunn.com
SAMEDAY HEALTH: Sepulveda Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Sepulveda, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved
Employees v. SAMEDAY HEALTH INC, a Delaware corporation, SAMEDAY
TECHNOLOGIES INC., a Delaware corporation, PRAESIDIUM DIAGNOSTICS
LLC, a California limited liability company, MAERLY PAYROLL
PROCESSING LLC, a California limited liability company, and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23LBCV01019 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., June 2, 2023), is brought against the Defendants'
failure to pay compensation in violation of Labor Code, the
California Code of Regulations, and the applicable Wage Orders.
This complaint is brought pursuant to California Labor Code section
2699 et seq., on behalf of REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF and all other
persons similarly situated who worked for DEFENDANTS in their
California locations as nonexempt, hourly employees (herein
collectively identified as "AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES") for: failure to
provide employment records in violation of Labor Code sections 226,
432, and 1198.5; failure to pay overtime and double time in
violation of Labor Code sections 510 and the applicable Wage
Orders; failure to provide rest and meal periods in violation of
Labor Code sections 226.7, 512(a), and the applicable Wage Orders;
failure to pay minimum wage in violation of Labor Code sections
1182.2, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and the applicable Wage Orders; failure
to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage
statements in violation of Labor Code sections 226(a), 1174(d),
1198, and the applicable Wage Orders; failure to pay reporting time
wages in violation of California Code of Regulations, Title 8,
section 11050(5)(A); failure to pay split shift wages in violation
of California Code of Regulations 11050(4)(C); failure to pay all
wages earned on time in violation of Labor Code section 204;
failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation in
violation of Labor Code sections 201, 202, and 203; failure to
reimburse necessary, business-related expenses in violation of
Labor Code sections 2800 and 2802; failure to provide notice of
paid sick time and accrual in violation of Labor Code section 246;
employers, and individuals acting on behalf of employers, violating
or causing to be violated a section of the Labor Code or any Wage
Order in violation of Labor Code; says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants with the job title of
clinic nurse on or about January 1, 2022.
Sameday Health Inc. and Sameday Technologies Inc. operate as
primary care, urgent care, and testing services organization.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
Diana Zadykyan, Esq.
HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: 1-818-696-2306
Facsimile: 1-818-696-2307
Email: haig@hbklawyers.com
diana@hbklawyers.com
SELENE FINANCE: Cataneo Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Daniel Cataneo, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. SELENE FINANCE, LP; and JOHN DOES
1-25, Case No. MRS-L-000468-23 was removed from the Superior Court
of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County, to the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey on June 15, 2023, and
assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-03297-SDW-JSA.
The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). The Plaintiff's Complaint
further alleges that Selene "violated the FDCPA by using any false,
deceptive or misleading representation or means in connection with
its attempts to collect debts" and in connection with its
communications to Plaintiff and others similarly situated."[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew Braunstein, Esq.
LOCKE LORD LLP
Brookfield Place, 200 Vesey Street, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10281-2101
Phone: 212-415-8600
Email: abraunstein@lockelord.com
SHADWICK INC: Cuba Seeks to Recover Dishwashers' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
LAURA CUBA, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHADWICK INC. d/b/a THE BRAVEST and MICHAEL
F. SHADWICK, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-05329 (S.D.N.Y., June 22,
2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, and the supporting
New York State Department of Labor Regulations by failing to pay
overtime wages, failing to pay spread of hours compensation, and
failing to provide written wage notice and wage statements.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a dishwasher from
about March 2023 to May 16, 2023.
Shadwick Inc., d/b/a The Bravest, is a New York-based company
engaged in the restaurant business.[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
STATE FARM FIRE: Faces Huskey Class Suit Over Racial Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Lopez of USA Herald reports that State Farm Fire & Casualty
Company, a titan in the insurance industry, is on the receiving end
of a class action lawsuit. The claim alleges discriminatory
practices in the firm's claims processing, adversely affecting
Black homeowners.
Plaintiff Jacqueline Huskey and other affected homeowners have
lodged a complaint citing State Farm's automated claims processing
and machine-learning algorithms as the root of the problem. The
lawsuit claims these technologies have unfairly targeted claims
made by Black homeowners, subjecting them to greater scrutiny than
those lodged by white policyholders.
The complaint cites numerous instances where Black homeowners were
asked for additional documentation and had more interactions with
State Farm employees to resolve their claims. As a result, their
claims took longer to process and approve, leading to delays in
essential home repairs. The impact of these delays has been
detrimental, both to the property values of these homeowners and
their quality of life.
Legal Implications and Historical Perspective
The plaintiffs allege that State Farm's practices violate the Fair
Housing Act ("FHA"), 42 U.S.C. Section 3601 et seq., a federal law
prohibiting discrimination in housing-related transactions based on
race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or
disability.
The case, currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, is yet another
instance highlighting the importance of fair practices in the
insurance industry.
Impact on Public and State Farm Policyholders
The implications of the lawsuit extend beyond the plaintiffs,
affecting public trust in large insurance companies. If these
allegations are proven, State Farm's policyholders might reconsider
their trust in the company, potentially leading to a massive loss
in customer base.
Specifically, for State Farm policyholders, this case could serve
as a stark reminder to be vigilant. While insurance policies are
designed to protect homeowners from financial losses,
discriminatory practices can undermine the very security these
policies promise.
Steps to Protect Against Discrimination
As the case continues, State Farm policyholders must learn from
this situation to protect themselves against potential
discriminatory practices. They should thoroughly review the claims
process, demand transparency, and if they believe to have been
subjected to discriminatory treatment, they should seek legal
counsel.
A Call for Fair Practices
As the Huskey v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., No. 22-cv-7014
case unfolds, it re-emphasizes the need for fairness and
non-discrimination in the insurance industry. While we await the
court's ruling, the allegations against State Farm serve as a
crucial reminder to all insurers that their claims processing
systems must not only be efficient but also equitable.
If these allegations hold, State Farm will be held accountable for
its practices. Regardless of the outcome, let this case be a beacon
to all policyholders, illuminating the need for vigilant oversight
and robust challenges to practices that undermine equality and
justice. [GN]
STITCH FIX: Faces Shareholder Suit in California Court
------------------------------------------------------
Stitch Fix, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended April 29, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 7, 2023, that on August 26, 2022, a class action
lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities laws was filed by
certain of the company's stockholders in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants the
company, certain of its officers and directors and certain of its
affiliated stockholders.
The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, by the company and its officers for allegedly
making materially false and misleading statements regarding its
Freestyle offering between December 2020 and December 2021. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On
March 17, 2023, a derivative action was filed against its directors
in the same court, alleging the same violations of securities laws
as alleged in the Class Action and breach of fiduciary duties.
Stitch Fix, Inc. is into pairing data science and human judgment
based in California.
TAP PLASTICS INC: Smith Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tap Plastics, Inc.
The case is styled as Sean Smith, in a Representative capacity
only, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated v. Tap Plastics, Inc., Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2023-0005825 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., June 7,
2023).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
TAP Plastics -- https://www.tapplastics.com/ -- is the ultimate
destination for DIY enthusiasts who enjoy home improvement
projects.[BN]
TEACHERS INSURANCE: Bid for Class Suit Certification 403(b) Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Steyer of Pensions and Investment reports that a federal
judge in New York has rejected a request by a participant in a
Washington University in St. Louis 403(b) plan to have her lawsuit
against the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association broadened to
a class-action suit to cover some 8,000 other plans.
Washington University in St. Louis isn't a defendant in Melissa
Haley vs. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association. She
criticized the TIAA practice of offering collateralized and
non-collateralized loans to retirement plan participants, alleging
this was an ERISA violation.
The ruling on June 27, 2023 by U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken
reversed his November 2020 decision that allowed the broad
class-action complaint, which would have covered nearly 1 million
loan transactions, according to court records.
TIAA appealed to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York,
which in December 2022 overturned the judge's original
class-certification ruling and sent the case back to his court.
"Plaintiff again sought a class definition identical to that which
the Second Circuit vacated, and plaintiff relies on a virtually
indistinguishable set of arguments as before, even though the
Second Circuit has rejected them," Mr. Oetken wrote on June 27,
2023.
The judge rejected the plaintiff's request to file class-action
applications affecting certain subgroups among the 8,000 plans,
noting that she had five years to do so.
The class-action ruling doesn't affect the substance of Ms. Haley's
lawsuit, which she filed in 2017. She argued that TIAA was a
fiduciary, alleging that it engaged in a prohibited transaction
under ERISA by allowing plan participants to take collateralized or
non-collateralized loans. She also sued TIAA for liability as a
non-fiduciary for alleged ERISA violations by the university. [GN]
TENNESSEE: L. M. Files Suit in E.D. Tennessee
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tennessee Department
of Education, et al. The case is styled as L. M., A. H., C. H., a
minor under the age of eighteen, through parents and natural
guardians, L.M. and A.H. v. Tennessee Department of Education
through its designated agent, Commissioner of Education, DR. PENNY
SCHWINN; Tennessee State Board of Education through its designated
agent, Executive Director, DR. SARA HEYBURN MORRISON; United States
Department of Education through its designated agent, Secretary of
Education, DR. MIGUEL CARDONA; Case No. 3:23-cv-00200-DCLC-DCP
(E.D. Tenn., June 12, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Education Civil Rights.
The Tennessee Department of Education -- http://www.team-tn.org/--
is the state education agency of Tennessee.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Dail R. Cantrell, Esq.
Daniel R. Goodge, Esq.
CANTRELL, CANTRELL & ASSOCIATES
P.O. Box 299
Clinton, TN 37717
Phone: (865) 457-9100
Fax: (865) 463-7881
Email: dailnicki@aol.com
dgoodge@cantrellcantrell.com
- and -
Rebecca Emily Horton, Esq.
William Lucas Arnold, Esq.
THE CANTRELL LAW FIRM
362 S. Charles G. Seivers Boulevard
P.O. Box 299
Clinton, TN 37717
Phone: (865) 457-9100
Email: ehorton@cantrell-law.com
larnold@cantrell-law.com
TOM FORD INTERNATIONAL: Hussein Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tom Ford
International LLC. The case is styled as Sumaya Hussein, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Tom Ford
International LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03480 (N.D. Ill., June 2,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Tom Ford International -- https://www.tomford.com/ -- is a luxury
fashion house founded by designer Tom Ford in 2005.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Chatwin Suit Over Defective Sienna Vehicles
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARK CHATWIN and GIOI NGUYEN, on behalf of themselves and the
Putative Class, Plaintiffs v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, USA, INC., TOYOTA
MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC. and TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-03398 (D.N.J., June 22, 2023) arises from the
Defendants' engagement in deceptive, unconscionable, unfair,
fraudulent and/or misleading commercial practices in the
advertising, promoting, marketing, distributing, selling and
leasing of the Class Vehicles it knew to be defective in violation
of the New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act, the New York General Business Law, and the Texas Deceptive
Trade Practices Act.
The Plaintiffs bring this action for actual damages, equitable
relief, including restitution, injunctive relief, and disgorgement
of profits, and all other relief available on behalf of themselves
and all similarly-situated individuals and entities who own, lease
or have owned or have leased a Toyota fourth generation Sienna for
model year 2021, 2022, and 2023 manufactured and/or sold by the
Defendants.
According to the complaint, Toyota started manufacturing the fourth
generation Sienna in May 2020 for sale as the 2021 model. That
model year Sienna was offered in LE, XLE, Limited, XSE trim, and
Platinum trim lines. All models have a hybrid powertrain and
all-wheel drive capability. For the 2022 and 2023 model years all
the Sienna vehicles sold in the United State are all hybrids and
AWD. Because of the hybrid powertrain, and AWD configuration, the
fourth generation Siennas suffer from manufacturing and design
defect present in several other Toyota and Lexus models. This
defect is inherent in the design and/or manufacture of the Class
Vehicles' wiring harness that supplies electrical power to the rear
motor. As a result of the defect, Plaintiffs and the other members
of the Class have been subject, and continue to be subject, to
costly repairs and a potential safety risk if the vehicle shuts
down without warning while on the road, says the suit.
Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. is a California automotive company
with its principal place of business in Plano, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bruce H. Nagel, Esq.
Randee M. Matloff, Esq.
NAGEL RICE, LLP
103 Eisenhower Parkway
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 618-0400
E-mail: bnagel@nagelrice.com
rmatloff@nagelrice.com
- and -
Joseph Santoli, Esq.
340 Devon Court
Ridgewood, NJ 07450
Telephone: (201) 926-9200
E-mail: josephsantoli002@gmail.com
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Connell Sues Over Illegal Collection of Debts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MELODY CONNELL f/k/a MELODY DOUGHERTY, on behalf of herself and
similarly situated putative class members, Plaintiff v. TRANSWORLD
SYSTEMS, INC., U.S. BANK, N.A. c/o CT CORPORATION SYSTEM, and
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2005-3, Defendants, Case No.
230602149 (Pa. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., June 22, 2023) arises
from the Defendants' unfair and misleading representations and
improperly pursued debt collection practices with Plaintiff and
Class members in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.
This action concerns the unlawful actions including the debt
collection practices of Defendants National Collegiate Student Loan
Trust 2005-3 through TSI, its debt collector, all on behalf of USB,
its special servicer and indenture trustee. By communicating with
the Plaintiff directly and indirectly, and threatening and/or
demanding sums not legally due from the Plaintiff, which are barred
from collection against the Plaintiff as a result of the Court's
determination to not be due the NCSLT Trust and an inability to
prove their claims, NCSLT Trust, TSI and USB used false, deceptive,
or misleading representations or means in connection with the
collection of consumer debts of the Plaintiff in violation of the
law, says the suit.
Here, the alleged debts Defendants are attempting to collect upon
are (i) non-governmental loans; (ii) that originated for student
borrowers who usually had co-signers; and (iii) through a "rent a
bank" scheme that used federally insured banks to "originate"
student loans to evade state usury laws even though those banks
took little to no financial risk in the transactions.
Transworld Systems, Inc. is a debt collector, which acts as a
default subservicer on behalf of USB, the Special Servicer for the
NCSLT Trust named in this action as Defendants and is engaged in
the business of a collection agency, using the mails and telephone
to collect consumer debts allegedly owed to others.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert P. Cocco, Esq.
ROBERT P. COCCO, P.C.
1500 Walnut St., Ste. 900
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 351-0200
E-mail: bob.cocco@phillyconsumerlaw.com
TREBBIANNO LLC: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trebbianno, LLC. The
case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Trebbianno, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04862-GHW
(S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Trebbianno LLC doing business as Showroom35 is a fashion leader for
women's accessories and promotional items.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
TRUMP CORP: McKoy Bid to Depose Non-Party Witnesses Partly OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHERINE MCKOY, MARKUS
FRAZIER, and LYNN CHADWICK, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, v THE TRUMP CORPORATION and DONALD J. TRUMP, in
his personal capacity, Case No. 1:18-cv-09936-LGS-SLC (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Sarah L. Cave entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to depose
non-party witnesses Al Plumb, Devonne Richardson, John Barringer,
and Angelique Davis, and to subpoena non-party ACN Opportunity, LLC
for the Witnesses' Independent Business Owner files.
1. The Plaintiffs' request to depose the Witnesses is granted,
to
the extent set forth below.
-- The Defendants concede that they did not identify the
Witnesses in their initial Rule 26(a) disclosures, and the
Court agrees that the Defendants’ belated disclosure of
the
Witnesses did not provide the Plaintiffs with sufficient
opportunity to depose them during the fact discovery
period.
-- While the Defendants are correct that the Plaintiffs could
have made the Motion sooner, the Court finds that it was
reasonable for the Plaintiffs to do so only after the
Defendants submitted the Witnesses' declarations in
connection with the class certification and summary
judgment
motions.
-- Accordingly, the Plaintiffs may depose the Witnesses as
follows:
a. The Court grants the Plaintiffs a total of eight (8)
hours
on the record to depose the Witnesses.
b. The depositions shall be completed by July 24, 2023.
c. By July 25, 2023, the Plaintiffs shall file a letter
certifying the completion of the depositions.
2. The Plaintiffs' request to subpoena ACN for the Witnesses'
IBO
files is denied without prejudice to renewal on a showing of
good cause following the Witnesses' depositions.
On September 27, 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed
request for leave to seek to depose "any witness that a party seeks
to call at trial but who was not previously identified in the
parties' initial Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) disclosures
or previously deposed in this action." Specifically, the Court
ruled that, "should any party designate an Undisclosed Witness to
testify at trial, or submit an affidavit from an Undisclosed
Witness in support of a dispositive motion, the opposing party will
have an opportunity to seek to depose them in a timely fashion and
on a proper showing."
A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44rF2yL at no extra charge.[CC]
TWITTER INC: Ma Seeks to Compel Arbitration, Pay Arbitrator Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
FABIEN HO CHING MA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Petitioner v. TWITTER, INC.; and X CORP.,
Respondents, Case No. 3:23-cv-03301-SK (N.D. Cal., July 3, 2023) is
a petition seeking to compel the Respondents to arbitrate their
cases, pursuant to the terms of the arbitration agreement that
Twitter drafted and signed, which included Judicial Arbitration and
Mediation Services ("JAMS") Rules and thereby incorporated the
Minimum Standards for employment cases, requiring the employer to
bear the full arbitrator fees.
TWITTER, INC. provides online social networking and microblogging
service. The Company offers users the ability to follow other users
activity, read, and post tweets.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Thomas Fowler, Esq.
Bradley Manewith, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
Email: sliss@llrlaw.com
tfowler@llrlaw.com
bmanewith@llrlaw.com
UNITY SOFTWARE: Faces Assad Stockholder Suit in Delaware Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Unity Software Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K for the current
report dated June 12, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 12, 2023, that the company and the members of
its board of directors were named as defendants in a putative
stockholder class action lawsuit filed in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware captioned "Assad v. Botha, et al.," C.A. No.
2022-0691-LWW. The court subsequently entered an order dismissing
the action as moot and retaining jurisdiction solely for the
purpose of adjudicating the anticipated application by Plaintiff
for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.
The complaint alleged that the disclosures made in the its Form S-4
filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on July 9, 2022, as
subsequently amended on August 26, 2022, September 2, 2022, and
September 8, 2022, omitted certain allegedly material information
in connection with the stockholder vote to approve a share issuance
in connection with Unity's acquisition of IronSource Ltd.
Plaintiff sought, among other forms of relief, an injunction
against the stockholder vote. While Unity does not believe that any
supplemental disclosures were required or necessary under
applicable laws, or that any such information was material, on
August 26, 2022, and September 21, 2022, Unity issued supplemental
disclosures in the S-4 and on a Form 8-K, respectively, solely to
moot Plaintiff's claims in the Action.
The first supplemental disclosure in Unity's amended Form S-4 filed
August 26, 2022, disclosed the amount and conditions upon the fee
to be paid by Unity to Goldman Sachs. The remaining supplemental
disclosures were contained in Form 8-K filed by Unity on September
21, 2022.
On March 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed an application with the court
seeking an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of
$850,000 in full satisfaction of the claim for attorney's fees and
expenses in the Action. Unity disagrees and has opposed the Fee
Application. The Court has scheduled a hearing to consider the Fee
Application on July 13, 2023.
Unity Software Inc. is a software company based in California.
VIKING RIVER: Rodriguez Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Danny Rodriguez, an individual, on behalf of himself, all aggrieved
employees, and the State of California as a Private Attorneys
General v. VIKING RIVER CRUISES, INC., a California corporation and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV13398 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., June 12, 2023), is brought pursuant to the Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") on a representative basis as
a result of the Defendants' failure to pay wages and failure to
comply with California Labor Code requirements due to erroneous,
willful and intentional employment practices and policies.
The Defendant has had a consistent policy and/or practice of:
failing to pay for all hours worked, including overtime hours
worked; failing to properly calculate and pay sick leave wages;
failing to pay all wages owed twice per month; failing to pay wages
due upon termination; failing to reimburse for required business
expenses; failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements.
Defendant is therefore liable for civil penalties under the Cal.
Labor Code, including the Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"),
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked as an employee for Defendant.
The Defendant is a river cruise company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
KOUL LAW FIRM
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 761-5484
Facsimile: (818) 561-3938
Email: nazo@koullaw.com
- and -
Sahag Majarian, Esq.
Garen Majarian, Esq.
MAJARIAN LAW GROUP, APC
18250 Ventura Blvd.
Tarzana, CA 91356
Phone: (818) 609-0807
Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
Email: sahagii@aol.com
garen@majarianlawgroup.com
VISION PATH: Africa Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Wesley Africa, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Vision Path, Inc.,
Does 1-25, inclusive, Case No. 2023CUBT008371 was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of Ventura, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on June 9,
2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04570-GW-MRW to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability.
Vision Path, Inc., doing business as Hubble --
http://www.hubblecontacts.com/-- provides optical instruments. The
Company offers direct-to-consumer contact lenses and eye
glasses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Annette C. Clark, Esq.
Ryan J. Carlson, Esq.
CALLAHAN THOMPSON SHERMAN AND CAUDILL, LLP
350 10th Avenue Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 232-5700
Fax: (949) 261-6060
Email: aclark@ctsclaw.com
rcarlson@ctsclaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Timothy K Branson, Esq.
Patrick Mulkern, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP
633 West Fifth Street 52nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (619) 230-7441
Fax: (213) 680-4470
Email: tbranson@grsm.com
pmulkern@grsm.com
VMWARE INC: Securities Suit in California Court Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
VMware, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended May 5, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 8, 2023, that In March 31, 2020, a securities
class action lawsuit was filed against VMware and certain present
and former officers of the Company in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.
On September 18, 2020, the plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint alleging that the Company's statements about the backlog
and the related internal controls during the period from August
2018 through February 2020 were materially misleading.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted with
leave to amend on September 10, 2021. On October 8, 2021, the
plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Consolidated Complaint based
on the same alleged disclosure deficiencies.
The defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Consolidated
Complaint was filed on November 5, 2021. On April 2, 2023, the
California court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding
that the plaintiffs had adequately stated claims under Sections 10
and 20A of the Exchange Act. The parties are currently in the
discovery stage of the proceedings.
VMware, Inc. is a private cloud and mobility management based in
California.
WAAWAATESI LLC: Garcia Files Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
LAZARO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WAAWAATESI LLC D/B/A GREENLINE LOANS,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-014962 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial,
Broward Cty., June 22, 2023) arises from the Defendant's violation
of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent multiple electronic
communications to Plaintiff in connection with the collection of
consumer debt. Each of the electronic communications were sent to
Plaintiff between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM in the time zone
of Plaintiff. The Defendant did not have the consent of Plaintiff
to communicate with Plaintiff between the said hours. As such, by
and through each of the electronic communications, Defendant
violated the law, says the suit.
Waawaatesi LLC is a Tribal Limited Liability Company, with its
principal place of business located in Lac Du Flambeau,
Wisconsin.[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
WALMART INC: Sells Harmful Toys, Kim Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------
JINHUI KIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART INC., and BOLEY CORPORATION,
Defendants, Case No. 23STCV1 5245 (Cal. Super., June 29, 2023)
arises out of the Defendants' alleged violations of California's
Unfair Competition Law and California’s Consumers Legal Remedies
Act.
This is a consumer protection action brought by Plaintiff for
injunctive relief to halt Defendants' continuing sale, manufacture,
and distribution of their Spark Toys which are intended for use by
children under the age of three that can be placed in child's mouth
and contain high levels of the harmful phthalate called Di-n-octyl
phthalate (DNOP). Allegedly, the Defendants made partial
disclosures that mislead consumers because the DNOP content of the
toys was not disclosed.
Walmart maintains approximately 320 retail stores in California and
has directed the sale of the Spark Toys to California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
Chad A. Saunders, Esq.
Craig W. Straub, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (866) 276-7637
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
E-mail: zach@crosnerlegal.com
chad@crosnerlegal.com
craig@crosnerlegal.com
WALT DISNEY: Faces Class Suit Over Gender Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------
Mike Mack of Laughing Place reports that the Walt Disney Company is
facing a potential class-action lawsuit over gender discrimination
in regards to pay levels at Walt Disney Studios, according to
Deadline.
More than four years ago, LaRonda Rasmussen and Karen Moore filed a
complaint against Walt Disney Studios, accusing them of
discriminating against female workers by paying them less than
men.
Attorneys representing the women have asked a California judge to
allow them to turn the matter into a class-action lawsuit.
A filing from the plaintiffs' attorneys - Lori Andrus, Joseph M.
Sellers and Christine E. Webber of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll -
reads as follows:
Disney systematically pays women in California less than men. This
pay disparity is not based on legitimate factors, it is based on
sex, with a less than one in one billion chance it occurred in the
absence of discrimination. The class as a whole was thus deprived
of over $150 million in wages. Disney violated the Fair Employment
& Housing Act ("FEHA") because its common practices caused a
disparate impact on women. It also violated California's Equal Pay
Act ("EPA"), which does not require Plaintiffs to identify the
cause of the disparities, because it pays women less for
substantially similar jobs. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek
certification of a class of non-union, female employees in
California, below the level of Vice President, challenging sex
discrimination in compensation at Disney on or after April 1,
2015.
The redacted filing can be read in its entirety here.
Disney has reportedly attempted to dismiss the claims of the
plaintiffs on a number of occasions since they were made in 2019,
but have so far been unsuccessful.
If the plaintiffs succeed in getting the matter certified as a
class action by L.A. Superior Court Judge Elihu M. Berle at a
proposed November 15 hearing, and if the plaintiffs are then
successful at trial, the $150 million in wages could be doubled
under California's Equal Pay Act, in addition to any further
damages and sanctions named by the judge.
What they're saying:
Lori Andrus: "We are pleased to be taking the next step in this
important litigation. "As our experts explain, women who work for
Disney face a persistent gender wage gap. Over the last eight
years, that has added up to more than $150 million in stolen
wages." [GN]
WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Suit Over Predatory Lending Program
------------------------------------------------------------
Ciro Scotti of TheMessenger Business reports that Wells Fargo Bank
instructed bi-lingual representatives at a customer-service call
center in Texas to offer "predatory lending options to
Spanish-speaking customers" without mentioning the financial cost,
a new class action filed in federal court alleges.
The suit was reported on July 1, 2023 by TV station KENS 5 in Sn
Antonio, Texas, where the customer-service call center is located
and the alleged program was implemented.
In April, a class action was filed in Northern California alleging
that Wells Fargo discriminated against Black mortgage applicants,
including those with high credit scores.
The Texas lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in San Antonio,
claims that "In the fall of 2022, management created a mandatory
Bilingual team program whereby employees were instructed to offer a
'Refinance Cash Out' product without directly mentioning the
substantial financial cost of the product to borrowers. [GN]
WELSPUN PIPES: Judge Threatens Defense Counsel for Citing Contempt
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dale Ellis of Arkansas Democrat Gazette reports that a disagreement
between a federal judge and a Little Rock law firm over attorney
fees in a civil lawsuit against a pipe manufacturing company
reached a new level this week after an 8th Circuit Court of Appeals
ruling in the judge's favor sparked an order from the district
judge for the law firm to show cause why it should not be held in
contempt.
A 2018 class action lawsuit against Welspun Pipes Inc.'s Little
Rock facility over unpaid overtime that was settled in favor of the
plaintiffs resulted in a denial of $96,000 in fees to the Sanford
Law Firm after U.S. District Judge Billy Roy Wilson decided the
fees were excessive and reduced the amount to $1. He later raised
the amount to $500 after a three-judge panel on the 8th Circuit
vacated the award in 2021 and remanded the matter back to him.
The lawsuit was filed in April 2018 on behalf of Anthony Vines and
Dominique Lewis, who represented a class of workers at Welspun
Pipes Inc., accusing the company of underpaying the workers for
overtime hours they worked. The case was settled in 2020 after
Welspun agreed to pay $211,666 to be divided among 160 people, and
an additional $57,673 to be divided among another 74 people who
comprised a second class of employees who opted into the lawsuit
after the settlement was reached.
Trouble started after Wilson nixed $96,000 in attorney fees
requested by the Sanford Law Firm of Little Rock, which represented
the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. In June 2020, Wilson issued a
blistering order denying the $96,000 request, lowering the amount
instead to $1, and added a provision to award $25,000 if the lower
figure was deemed improper, saying that was the amount rejected by
the Sanford Law Firm that was contained in an earlier settlement
offer.
After the 2020 ruling, the firm's managing partner, Josh Sanford,
told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette he found the order
"flabbergasting."
"We often don't get every dollar we ask for," Sanford said, "but we
never have judges attack the legitimacy of our request."
Sanford regularly represents employees in wage and hour disputes
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Wilson wrote that years
ago, Congress allowed the prevailing party in such cases to seek
fees from the defendants "so citizens would have access to the
courts to enforce their federal rights."
"While that concept is good in theory," he said, "it has become
apparent that, in practice, lawyers' fees are the driving force in
many [Fair Labor Standards Act] cases. This case presents the
problem perfectly."
The ruling was immediately appealed to the 8th Circuit, which
vacated Wilson's order and remanded the case back to him in August
2021, ordering Wilson to calculate an award of attorney fees using
the lodestar calculation, in which a trial court multiplies the
number of hours reasonably spent by trial counsel by a reasonable
hourly rate to arrive at a final calculation.
The following month, Wilson awarded the Sanford Law Firm $500 in
attorney fees and $2,790.87 in costs. In that order, Wilson wrote,
"This case continues to be drawn out because the Sanford Law Firm
(SLF) wants to be paid for work it never performed and never
intended to perform. Additionally, the work SLF actually did
perform was billed at inflated hourly rates and far exceeded the
number of reasonable hours that should have been devoted to this
case."
According to his September 2021 order, Wilson calculated a lodestar
of $14,056.50 which he reduced to $500 "based on SLF's egregious
conduct," and $2,790.87 in costs, a decision that was appealed.
A three-judge panel unanimously ruled on June 29, 2023 that Wilson
did not abuse his discretion in the ruling, saying that Wilson,
"complied to the letter with our directive on how to calculate an
award of attorneys' fees and provided ample justification for
reducing the lodestar based on SLF's unprofessional conduct."
On the heels of that order on June 29, 2023, Wilson issued the
order to Sanford Law Firm to appear July 19 at 2 p.m. before his
court to show cause "as to why it should not be held in contempt of
court and sanctioned under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. More
specifically, Rules 11(b)(1) and (b)(2), which relate to
"needlessly increas[ing] the cost of litigation" and certifying
that "legal contentions are warranted by existing law."
In the four-page order, Wilson accused Sanford Law Firm of drawing
out the case in order to "be paid for work it never performed and
never intended to perform" and of billing work it did perform at
inflated rates and of exceeding the "reasonable" number of billable
hours "that should have been devoted to the case."
"Please feel free to hire outside counsel," Wilson concluded in the
order.
Reached by phone on June 30, 2023, Sanford declined to discuss the
matter because of Wilson's order other than to say the fees his
firm requested had been negotiated with and agreed to by Welspun's
defense counsel. [GN]
WESTERN BAGEL BAKING: Rojas Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Claudia Rojas, an individual, on behalf of herself, all aggrieved
employees, and the State of California as a Private Attorneys
General v. WESTERN BAGEL BAKING CORPORATION, a California
corporation and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV13377 Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 9, 2023), is brought pursuant to
the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") on a
representative basis as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay
for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked.
The Defendant has had a consistent policy and/or practice of:
failing to comply with California law concerning payment of lawful
wage for all hours worked including overtime hours worked; failing
to pay minimum wage; failing to provide timely meal breaks; failing
to provide rest breaks; failing to provide proper cool-down rest
periods; failing to provide safe working conditions; failing to
provide suitable seating; failing to reimburse for required
business expenses; failing to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked as an employee for the Defendant.
The Defendant is company engaged in the baking and sale of bagel
and related items.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
KOUL LAW FIRM
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 761-5484
Facsimile: (818) 561-3938
Email: nazo@koullaw.com
- and -
Sahag Majarian, Esq.
Garen Majarian, Esq.
MAJARIAN LAW GROUP, APC
18250 Ventura Blvd.
Tarzana, CA 91356
Phone: (818) 609-0807
Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
Email: sahagii@aol.com
garen@majarianlawgroup.com
WILTON REASSURANCE: MOVEit Data Breach Affects Customers
--------------------------------------------------------
ClassAction.org reports that Wilton Reassurance, which offers life
insurance and reinsurance services, alerted the Maine Attorney
General's office in June 2023 that a data breach involving a tool
used by a third-party service provider may have exposed the
personal information of nearly 1.5 million individuals - likely
policyholders.
It's now being investigated whether Wilton Reassurance and its
vendors took the appropriate steps to safeguard customer
information and, if not, whether a class action lawsuit can be
filed on behalf of those affected.
Did you receive a letter stating that your information may have
been exposed in a data incident involving Wilton Reassurance or
otherwise believe you were affected?
If so, fill out the form on this page and get in touch. You may be
able to help get a class action lawsuit started.
Wilton Reassurance uses a third-party service provider called PBI
Research Services, which provides death verification services to
the insurance company.
On May 31, it was disclosed that file transfer software used by PBI
suffered from a vulnerability that was ultimately exploited and led
to compromised networks around the globe.
Specifically, it has been reported that internet-facing MOVEit
Transfer web applications were infected with malware used by
ransomware gang Clop (also known as CL0P) and then used to steal
data from underlying databases.
According to a lawsuit against the companies behind MOVEit,
"several hundred" businesses and organizations in the United States
may have been impacted by the hacking campaign. This includes
airlines, media companies, government agencies and other insurers
like Genworth Financial.
With regard to Wilton, it has been reported that names and Social
Security numbers were exposed in the breach. Wilton says it will be
sending letters to affected consumers on July 16.
If filed and successful, a class action lawsuit could give
consumers the chance to recover money for:
Loss of privacy
Reimbursement for lost time spent responding to the breach (e.g.,
monitoring accounts, placing credit freezes or alerts, filing
police reports, obtaining credit reports, addressing fraudulent
uses of information, etc.)
Out-of-pocket losses, such as the cost of credit monitoring and/or
identity theft protection services and money lost on stolen tax
refunds or other fraudulent transactions
Compensation for damage to credit
If you received a letter stating your information was exposed in a
data breach involving Wilson Reassurance Company - or you have
reason to believe you were affected - help this investigation by
filling out the form on this page.
It costs nothing to get in touch, and you're not obligated to take
legal action after speaking to someone about your rights. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***