/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230720.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, July 20, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 145
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Dillow Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Stone Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Summitt Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: Supinger Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Traud Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Vacon Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
AMAZON.COM INC: Motion to Stay in Favour of Arbitration Discussed
AMC NETWORKS INC: Ickes Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Chisolm-Lucas Sues Over Unlawful Compensation
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Smith Suit Removed to C.D. California
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Faces Dagley Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Hours
AMP FINANCIAL: Defeated in Class Suit Over Unfair Business Policy
AMP LTD: Defeated in Class Suit Over 'Buyer of Last Resort' Policy
APRIA HEALTHCARE: B.B. Sues Over Privacy Rights Violations
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Bobbitt Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
ARKANSAS CONTINUED CARE: Jackson Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas
ASB BANK: Appeals Court Decision Allowing Suit to Proceed
ATLANTIC GENERAL: Law Firms Urge Clients to File Suit Over Breach
BANK OF AMERICA: Ordered to Pay Fine, Refund Over Illegal Fees
BELKIN INTERNATIONAL: Munoz Suit Removed to C.D. California
BIOXCEL THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Sept. 5
CHICAGO, IL: Faces Class Suit Over City Car Stickers
CHICAGO, IL: Pay $5M to Settle Class Suit Targeting Police Conduct
CITI TRENDS: Fails to Protect Employees' Personal Info, Thomas Says
COLES AND WOOLWORTHS: Underpays Workers, Class Action Suit Says
COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH: Withheld Employees' Wages, Suit Says
CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Water Island Sues Over False Proxy Statements
CREATIVE GENIUS: Wurm Sues Over Caller ID Rules Violations
CUZCO PERU BBQ: Burgos Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
DCD AUTO: Moves to Compel Arbitration in Fairfield TCPA Suit
DOLE PACKAGED: Broussard Sues Over Deceptive Products Marketing
ENZO BIOCHEM: Faces Wohl Suit Over Unprotected Health Info
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Shrem Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Mignery Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
FIRST NECK: Selvanathan Files Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
FIVE BELOW INC: Porras Suit Removed to C.D. California
FLORIDA POWER: Files Motion to Dismiss Suit Over Power Outages
FORD MOTOR: Skole Alleges Defective Automatic Transmission
FUNKO INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 1
GEICO INDEMNITY: Suit Over Unpaid Medical Bills Revived by Court
GLOBAL COURIER: Salzone Sues Over Drivers' Unpaid Wages
GOOGLE LLC: Stealing Data of Millions of Users to Pursue AI Profit
HANDY TECHNOLOGIES: Lagos Sues Over to Recover Unpaid Wages
HARVARD PILGRIM: Keenholtz Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach
HAWAII: Faces Class Suit Over Special Education Services
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN: Decision in Property Suit Spurs Class Action
INJURED WORKERS: Victims of Data Breach Have Standing for Lawsuit
J.D. WORKFORCE: Huerta Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination
JOHN E. FEREBEE: Jones Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages, Retaliation
JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Doe Suit
KURBAN HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Albkeirat Says
LAKESHORE LEARNING: Elder Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Wins Class Suit Over Driver's Dealer Fees
LIL PUFFS: Snacks Falsely Advertised as Healthy, Class Suit Says
M PIZZA INC: Ellison Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
MACY'S INC: Agrees to Settle CVC Sheets False Ads Suit for $10.5-M
MACY'S MERCHANDISING: Stock Sues Over Mislabeled Bedding Products
MDL 3037: Plaintiffs Appeal Claims Dismissal in Infant Formula Suit
MOHAWK COUNCIL OF KAHNAWAKE: Files Boarding Homes Class Suit
MONISON PALLETS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Garcia Says
NEW HORIZONS: Faces Class Suit Over Health Data Breach
OPENAI INC: FTC Probes Regarding Accuracy and Consumer Protections
PATRICK O'DANIEL: Cone Files Bid to Stay Filing Fee, Amended Suit
PATRICK O'DANIEL: Grisham Files Bid to Stay Filing Fee
PATRICK O'DANIEL: Guerra Files Bid to Stay Filing Fee, Amended Suit
PATRICK O'DANIEL: Johnson Files Bid to Stay Filing Fee
PATRICK O'DANIEL: Panus Files Bid to Stay Filing Fee, Amended Suit
PBI RESEARCH: Faces Class Suit Over Breach of Data Privacy
PETLAB CO: Hughes Sues Over Deceptive Advertising Practices
PHARMACARE US: Fact Discovery Due Dec. 20
PRO SERVICES: Garrido Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation
RIPPLE LABS: Court Certifies Class Suit Only to U.S. Investors
RIPPLE LABS: Court Certifies Zakinov Suit Over XRP Digital Asset
RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Fraud Class Suit Over Vehicle Prices
ROCKY MOUNTAIN ATV: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SAS SERVICES: Villanueva Suit Removed to S.D. California
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 9
SELENE FINANCE: Antonicic Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
SHOIS RESTAURANT: Briceno Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
SOUTH BAY MOTORS: Giliberti Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
SOUTHERN HEALTH: Mastrodonato Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SUN LIFE ASSURANCE: Genesett Files Suit in C.D. California
SUNLIGHT LINEN: Alvarado Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
SYNCHRONY BANK: Runzi TCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
T-MOBILE USA: Castellon Suit Removed to C.D. California
THYSSENKRUPP SUPPLY: Lopez Suit Removed to N.D. California
TWITTER INC: Elon Musk Facing Class Action From HR Executive
TWITTER INC: Faces $500M Lawsuit for Allegedly Not Paying Severance
UBS GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Inadequate Exchange Ratio
UNIFI AVIATION: Wyatt Suit Removed to s.D. California
UNISERVE PROJECT: Jackson Suit Removed to C.D. California
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: Judge Certifies COVID Tuition Class Suit
VIDEOTRON LTEE: Court Certifies Gagne Suit Over Billing Services
VITALITE HEALTH: Settles Suit Over Abuse of Patients for $17M
WEXFORD HEALTH: Denies Inmates' Opioid Addiction Medication
WM CORPORATE SERVICES: Bangus Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
*********
3M COMPANY: Dillow Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Dillow, as Heir to the Estate of Stephen Drew Dillow,
deceased, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; 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; 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; FIRE-DEX, LLC;
GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA,
INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC;
MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES,
INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC., Case No.
2:23-cv-03193-RMG (D.S.C., July 5, 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 Howard Dillow is an adult resident of the State of
Kansas who is the father of, and an Heir to the Estate of, Stephen
Drew Dillow. Stephen Drew Dillow ("Decedent") was, at the time of
death, an adult resident and citizen of Iola, Kansas 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 Pancreatic Cancer as a
result of exposure to 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: Stone Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Stone, 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-02782-RMG (D.S.C., June 16, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Summitt Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Scott Summitt, et al, and all others
similarly situated v. 3M Company, AGC Chemicals Americas Inc.;
Amerex Corporation; Archroma US Inc.; Buckeye Fire Equipment
Company; Carrier Global Corporation; ChemDesign Products Inc.;
Chemguard Inc.; Chemicals Inc.; Chemours Company FC LLC; Clariant
Corp.; Corteva Inc.; Deepwater Chemicals Inc.; Du Pont De Nemours
Inc. formerly known as: Dowdupont Inc.; Dynax Corporation; EI Du
Pont De Nemours and Company; Kidde PLC; Kidde-Fenwal Inc.; Nation
Ford Chemical Company; National Foam Inc.; Fire-Dex LLC; Globe
Manufacturing Company LLC; Honeywell Safety Products USA Inc.; Lion
Group Inc.; Mallory Safety and Supply LLC; Mine Safety Appliance
Company LLC; Municipal Emergency Services Inc.; PBI Performance
Products Inc.; Southern Mills Inc.; Stedfast USA Inc.; The Chemours
Company; Tyco Fire Products LP, As successor-in interest to The
Ansul Company; UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation Inc.
formerly known as: GE Interlogix Inc.; United Technologies
Corporation, W L Gore & Associates Inc, Case No. 2:23-cv-00682 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina on June 21, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02838-RMG to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for
Product Liability.
3M -- https://www.3m.com/ -- (originally the Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company) is an American multinational conglomerate
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare and
consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
The Defendant is represented by:
M. Christian King
Harlan I. Prater, IV
W. Larkin Radney, IV
Wesley B. Gilchrist
LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C.
The Clark Building
400 North 20th Street
Birmingham, AL 35203-3200
Phone: (205) 581-0700
Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com
hprater@lightfootlaw.com
lradney@lightfootlaw.com
wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com
3M COMPANY: Supinger Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Supinger, 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-02704-RMG (D.S.C., June 15, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was Squamous Cell
Carcinoma of the oral larnyx; and Hypothyroidism as a result of
exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Traud Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth J. Traud,, 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-02810-RMG (D.S.C., June 19,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during the Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with bladder cancer
as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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: Vacon Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Vacon, 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-02277-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
AMAZON.COM INC: Motion to Stay in Favour of Arbitration Discussed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
mondaq.com reports that in Davis v. Amazon Canada Fulfillment
Services ULC, 2023 ONSC 3655, Justice Perell of the Ontario
Superior Court put an end to a proposed class action brought on
behalf of over 70,000 delivery drivers who deliver packages for
Amazon in Canada.
What you need to know
In a claim against three Amazon entities, the proposed class
encompassed all delivery drivers who used an Amazon app to deliver
packages. The proposed class included independent contractor
drivers that contracted directly with Amazon, and drivers that were
employed by or contracted with third-party delivery companies, who
in turn contracted with Amazon.
The court enforced all the arbitration agreements class members
entered into, rejecting the Plaintiff's argument that arbitration
agreements in contracts of adhesion are inherently unconscionable
for employees or independent contractors. This decision signals
that Canadian courts continue to follow the Supreme Court's general
favourability to arbitration as a form of dispute resolution.
For the class members without arbitration agreements - who were all
drivers employed by or contracted with third-party delivery
companies - the court dismissed the certification motion. These
class members alleged that Amazon was a "common employer" with the
third-party delivery companies. The court found Amazon could not be
a common employer with the delivery companies because they were not
engaged in a common enterprise.
Background
In a proposed class action brought on behalf of approximately
73,000 delivery drivers, Amazon was successful in convincing the
Ontario Superior Court to: (i) stay the claims of all class members
who had entered into an arbitration agreements and (ii) deny
certification for the remaining class members.
The Plaintiff sought to certify a class consisting of drivers who
worked for 126 different delivery companies that provide delivery
services to Amazon, and in some cases other clients, alleging that
Amazon was a "common employer" of the drivers with the delivery
company. The Plaintiff also sought to include in the class
independent contractor drivers who contract directly with Amazon,
alleging that that these individuals had been misclassified and
ought to be classified as Amazon employees.
Stay in favour of arbitration
Justice Perell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted
Amazon's motion to stay the action for all drivers who entered into
arbitration agreements with Amazon or with their delivery company
employers. In doing so, Justice Perell rejected the Plaintiff's
arguments that the arbitration agreements were unconscionable or
contrary to public policy for allegedly contracting out of the
employment law statutes and for including a class action waiver. As
a result, the action for these drivers was stayed in favour of
arbitration.
Certification motion dismissed
With respect to the drivers whose claims were not stayed, all of
whom were employed by or contracted with delivery companies,
Justice Perell held that the Plaintiff failed to satisfy the cause
of action, common issues, and preferable procedure criteria
required for class certification. On the cause of action criterion,
Justice Perell held that the Plaintiff's common employer claim was
"doomed to failure" because, based on the facts plead, Amazon and
the 126 delivery companies were not operating together as one
seamless business, nor could an intention be inferred for Amazon to
be a common employer with the 126 delivery companies, who had not
been joined to the action. Justice Perell likewise rejected the
Plaintiff's causes of action for unjust enrichment, negligence, and
breach of the duty of good faith.
While the failure of the cause of action criterion alone was fatal
to the Plaintiff's motion, Justice Perell also held that the
Plaintiff failed to meet the common issues and preferable procedure
requirements. Justice Perell accepted Amazon's argument that the
question of whether Amazon was a common employer could not be
decided uniformly for the drivers due to the significant
idiosyncrasies between the delivery companies. With respect to the
preferable procedure criterion, Justice Perell held that the action
on behalf of drivers is "unmanageable", with or without the 126
delivery companies being joined, that the proposed action was
really "126 discrete proposed class actions that have been joined
together", and that the resolution of one class members' claim
would not be determinative for class members employed by a
different company. Finally, even if the proposed class action were
certifiable, Justice Perell would not have certified aggregate
damages as a common issue, because liability could not be
determined in common, and there was no viable method to quantify
aggregate damages.[GN]
AMC NETWORKS INC: Ickes Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Trisha Ickes, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AMC NETWORKS INC., doing business as
AMC+, Case No. 3:23-cv-00803 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 New York on July 5, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-05730-UA to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.
AMC Networks Inc. -- http://www.amcnetworks.com/-- is an American
entertainment company headquartered in 11 Penn Plaza, New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kate Jeffery Stoia, Esq.
REESE LLP
4030 23rd Street
San Francisco, CA 94114
Phone: (415) 260-0147
- and -
George V. Granade, Esq.
REESE LLP
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
Los Angeles, California 90211
Phone: (310) 393-0070
Email: ggranade@reesellp.com
- and -
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, New York 10025
Phone: (212) 643-0500
Email: mreese@reesellp.com
- and -
Charles D. Moore, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 South 5th Street, Suite 1900
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Phone: (212) 643-0500
Email: cmoore@reesellp.com
- and -
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW
737 Bainbridge Street, #155
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19147
Phone: (215) 789-4462
Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Ashley Lynn Shively, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP (SF)
101 Second Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 659-5695
Fax: (415) 391-8269
Email: ashively@reedsmith.com
- and -
Caitlin Saladrigas, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1900 West
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: (561) 650-8349
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Chisolm-Lucas Sues Over Unlawful Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barron Chisolm-Lucas, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Case No.
1:23-cv-05177 (E.D.N.Y., July 6, 2023), is brought against the
Defendant for unlawful compensation in violation of the New York
Labor Law ("NYLL") and the ("Wage Theft Prevention Act").
The Defendant failure to timely pay hourly wages in violation of
the NYLL, and failure to provide accurate wage statements in
violation of NYLL and the Wage Theft Prevention Act during the
applicable six year statute of limitations period prior to the date
of the filing of this action (the "Class Period"), says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is an American Airline flight attendant who until
March 2023 was based out of LaGuardia and John F. Kennedy
International Airports in New York, New York, and a resident of
Greensboro, North Carolina.
American Airlines provides retail air transportation in New York
and on a national and international basis.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catherine E. Anderson
GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP
90 Broad Street, Second Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 847-8315
Email: canderson@gslawny.com
- and -
Roosevelt N. Nesmith, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ROOSEVELT N. NESMITH LLC
400 Broadacres Drive, Suite 260
Bloomfield, NJ 07003
Phone: (973) 259-6990
Fax: (866) 848-1368
Email: roosevelt@nesmithlaw.com
- and -
David R. Markham, Esq.
Maggie Realin, Esq.
THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
888 Prospect St., Suite 200
La Jolla, CA 92037
Phone: (619) 399-3995
Fax: (619) 615-2067
Email: dmarkham@markham-law.com
mrealin@markham-law.com
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Smith Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Todd Smith, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware
corporation doing business in California, and DOES 1 through 250,
inclusive, Case No. 23STCV12501 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on July 6, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-05404.
The Plaintiff purports to bring this lawsuit as a class action for
damages under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
("FEHA"), California Government Code, and common law tort
principles on behalf of himself and other putative class members.
Plaintiff brings claims against American under the FEHA for, inter
alia, alleged discrimination, harassment, and refusal to reasonably
accommodate based on age, disability, or medical condition, and
American's alleged failure to prevent the same. Plaintiff also
asserts claims in tort for intentional infliction of emotional
distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Based on
the allegations in the Complaint, and on behalf of himself and the
putative class members, Plaintiff seeks damages, attorneys' fees,
interest, and costs, along with job disability accommodations or
monetary compensation in lieu thereof.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Mark W. Robertson, Esq.
Kelly S. Wood, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
610 Newport Center Drive, 17th Floor
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 823-6900
Facsimile: (949) 823-6994
Email: mrobertson@omm.com
kwood@omm.com
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Faces Dagley Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nathanial Dagley, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. American Medical Response, Inc.
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01681-MEH (D. Colo., June 30, 2023)
seeks Plaintiff's overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 in
a workweek pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and others similarly
situated paramedics and emergency medical technicians were
misclassified as independent contractors. The Defendant failed to
pay them one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all
hours worked over 40 in a workweek as required by federal law, says
the suit.
The Plaintiff worked as a paramedic for Defendant from
approximately May 2019 to October 2022 at its deployment sites
located throughout the United States, including in California, New
Jersey, Nevada, Oregon, Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, and North
Carolina.
American Medical Response, Inc. is a provider of ground medical
transportation and the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency's
prime emergency medical service response provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center 80 S. 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
E-mail: srey@nka.com
AMP FINANCIAL: Defeated in Class Suit Over Unfair Business Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Dew of Money Management reports that the Federal Court has
issued its verdict in the class action case against AMP Financial
Planning (AMPFP).
The class action was filed with the Federal Court in Melbourne back
in 2020 on behalf of advisers who had been authorised by AMPFP. The
claim related to changes made by the firm to its Buyer of Last
Resort (BOLR) policy in 2019.
This had seen AMPFP cut its BOLR terms without notice from 4x
recurring revenue to a maximum of 2.5x.
Justice Mark Moshinsky ruled in favour of the class action group on
July 5, 2023 morning, finding that the changes made by AMP with
immediate effect were not authorised under the legislative,
economic or product (LEP) provisions and "were ineffective".
Lead applicant Equity Financial Planners is entitled to damages in
the sum of $813,560, while sample group member Wealthstone is
entitled to damages in the sum of $115,533.51. There will be a
further process to determine the impact on other group members.
In a statement to the ASX, AMP said: "The Court has on July 5, 2023
ruled in favour of the claims of the lead applicant and the sample
group member.
"The Court accepted evidence of the loss incurred by the two group
members, being the lead applicant (Equity Financial Planners
-$813,560) and the sample group member (Wealthstone - $115,533).
The Court determined amounts payable to the lead applicant and the
sample group member only.
"Subject to any appeal, a process will be required to determine the
impact of the decision on the other group members.
"Noting the complexity of the matter, AMP is reviewing the
judgement in detail to determine the full effect of the judgement
and its next steps. AMP will provide an update in due course."
Neil Macdonald, chief executive of The Advisers Association, who
was a witness in the case, said: "'We are pleased for our AMP
members and may make further comment when we have had time to read
Justice Moshinsky's judgement in detail."
Shares in AMP fell 6.1 per cent after the verdict was released.
Last year, Money Management spoke with a former AMPFP adviser who
said the change to the BOLR policy had left him fearing bankruptcy
and that his home could be taken from him.
"I had a $600k business and it went to zero and left me with debt,"
he said.
"I understand that change occurs but you can't fundamentally change
a relationship at a moment's notice and pass the costs on. That's
unreasonable behaviour."
"I wanted to sell my book at 65 and retire and be financially
sorted, that's gone now. AMP has stolen from my retirement."
The class action was commenced by Corrs Chambers Westgarth. [GN]
AMP LTD: Defeated in Class Suit Over 'Buyer of Last Resort' Policy
------------------------------------------------------------------
Himanshi Akhand of Reuters reports that Australia's AMP Ltd
(AMP.AX) tanked on July 5, 2023 after the country's federal court
ruled against the wealth manager in class action proceedings that
challenged the validity of some of the changes to its 'buyer of
last resort' policy.
Shares of the company fell as much 7.5% to their lowest level in
over a month. AMP was also the top loser on the benchmark index
(.AXJO), which was last down 0.4%.
Under the changes made to the 'buyer of last resort' policy in
August 2019, AMP re-negotiated arrangements with its financial
planners to lower the amount it would pay them for their business
when they retire.
The court, on July 5, 2023, determined amounts payable in the
amount of A$813,560 and A$115,533 to the class action's lead
applicant Equity Financial Planners and sample group member
Wealthstone, respectively.
AMP acknowledged the court's decision and noted a process will be
required to determine the impact of the decision on other group
members of the class action suit, subject to any appeal.
"Noting the complexity of the matter, AMP is reviewing the judgment
in detail to determine the full effect of the judgment and its next
steps," AMP added. [GN]
APRIA HEALTHCARE: B.B. Sues Over Privacy Rights Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
B.B., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. APRIA HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01187-RLY-TAB
(S.D. Ind., July 6, 2023), is brought seeking to redress
Defendant's willful and reckless violations of their privacy rights
on behalf of the Plaintiff and the other Class Members who are
customers of the Defendant and entrusted their Protected Health
Information ("PHI") and Personally Identifiable Information ("PII")
to Defendant.
On April 5, 2019 through May 7, 2019 and August 27, 2021 through
October 10, 2021, an unauthorized third party or person accessed
and downloaded Plaintiff's and the Class Members' PHI and PII.
Defendant Apria has an independent, non-delegable duty to its
customers to safeguard their PHI and PII and are responsible for
the wrongful disclosure of Plaintiff's and the Class Members' PHI
and PII.
This action pertains to Defendant's unauthorized disclosure of the
Plaintiff's PHI and PII that occurred between on or around April 5,
2019 through May 7, 2019 and August 27, 2021 through October 10,
2021 (the "Breach"). The Defendant disclosed Plaintiff's and the
other Class Members' PHI and PII to unauthorized persons as a
direct and/or proximate result of Defendant's failure to safeguard
and protect their PHI and PII. The wrongfully disclosed PHI and PII
included, inter alia, Plaintiff's and the other Class Members'
name, date of birth, phone numbers, medical history and
information, and medical device descriptions.
The Defendant flagrantly disregarded Plaintiff's and the other
Class Members' privacy and property rights by intentionally,
willfully and recklessly failing to take the necessary precautions
required to safeguard and protect Plaintiff's and the other Class
Members' PHI and PII from unauthorized disclosure. Plaintiff's and
the other Class Members' PHI and PII was improperly handled,
inadequately protected, readily able to be copied by anyone with
nefarious intent and not kept in accordance with basic security
protocols. Defendant's obtaining of the information and sharing of
same also represent a flagrant disregard of Plaintiff's and the
other Class Members' rights, both as to privacy and property, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff and the Class Members are and/or were customers of
Defendant and, as a result, provided their PHI and PII to
Defendant.
Apria is a national healthcare company pursuant to state and
federal law, providing healthcare and medical services to the
general public.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon W. Smith, Esq.
MORGAN AND MORGAN
117 East Washington Street, Suite 201
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Email: brandonsmith@forthepeople.com
- and -
Jean S. Martin, Esq.
Francesca Kester Burne, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX
LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 559-4908
Email: jeanmartin@ForThePeople.com
fburne@ForThePeople.com
- and -
Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
McSHANE & BRADY, LLC
1656 Washington Street, Suite 120
Kansas City, MO 64108
Phone: (816) 888-8010
Facsimile: (816) 332-6295
Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Bobbitt Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
---------------------------------------------------------
Debbie Bobbitt, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. APRIA HEALTHCARE, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01166-JPH-MJD
(S.D. Ind., July 3, 2023), is brought against the Defendant for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's
and Class Members' personally identifiable information stored
within Defendant's information network, including without
limitation name, address, date of birth, medical history, patient
account number, and dates of service (these types of information,
inter alia, being hereafter referred to, collectively, as
"personally identifiable information" or "PII") Defendant failed to
properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and Class
Members' PII stored within Defendant's information network.
The Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms
they caused and will continue to cause Representative Plaintiff and
countless other similarly situated persons in the massive and
preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendant on
September 1, 2021, by which Defendant received notification
regarding access to its systems by an unauthorized third party that
had access to its systems from April 5, 2019 to May 7, 2019, and
again from August 27, 2021 to October 10, 2021 (the "Data
Breach").
While Defendant claims to have discovered the breach as early as
September 1, 2021, Defendant failed to inform Representative
Plaintiff until June 6, 2023, vis-a-vis a mailed letter. The
Defendant knew or should have known that Defendant's networks
stored and/or shared sensitive data, including highly confidential
PII. Of Representative Plaintiff and Class Members.
By obtaining, collecting, using and deriving a benefit from
Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII, Defendant
assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals. These
duties arise from state and federal statutes and regulations as
well as common law principles.
The Defendant disregarded the rights of Representative Plaintiff
and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly or
negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable
measures to ensure that Representative Plaintiff's and Class
Members' PII was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to
prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data and failing to follow
applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and
procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal
use.
As a result, the PII of Representative Plaintiff and Class Members
was compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized
third party--an undoubtedly nefarious third party that seeks to
profit off this disclosure by defrauding Representative Plaintiff
and Class Members in the future. Representative Plaintiff and Class
Members have a continuing interest in ensuring that their
information is and remains safe, and they are entitled to
injunctive and other equitable relief, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a victim of the Data Breach.
The Defendant is a provider ot home medical equipment for sleep
apnea and other medical conditions, serving medical providers and
patients across the country.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Daniel Srourian, Esq.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 474-3800
Email: daniel@slfla.com
ARKANSAS CONTINUED CARE: Jackson Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Sharon Jackson, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated v. ARKANSAS CONTINUED CARE HOSPITAL OF
JONESBORO, LLC; ARKANSAS CONTINUED CARE HOSPITAL OF HOT SPRINGS,
LLC; ARKANSAS CONTINUED CARE, LLC; G&A PARTNERS; G&A OUTSOURCING,
LLC; and MICHAEL COOPER, Case No. 47BCV-23-l 50 was removed from
the Circuit Court for Mississippi County, Arkansas, to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on July
3, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00152-DPM.
The Plaintiff asserts claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"). The Plaintiff also asserts state-law claims under the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA").[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeff Weintraub, Esq.
J. Gregory Grisham, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
1715 Aaron Brenner Drive, Suite 312
Renaissance Center
Memphis, TN 38120
Phone: (901) 526-0431
Fax: (901) 526-8183
Email: jweintraub@fisherphillips.com
ASB BANK: Appeals Court Decision Allowing Suit to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------
Steven Byerley at mpamag.com reports that ASB, one of New Zealand's
leading banks, is appealing a High Court decision that allowed a
class action lawsuit to proceed against the bank. The Court of
Appeal hearings began and are scheduled to continue.
The lawsuit, filed in September 2021 by litigation funders CASL and
LPF Group, seeks multimillion-dollar compensation on behalf of
approximately 150,000 customers of ANZ and ASB, according to a
report by interest.co.nz. The plaintiffs argue that the two banks
should refund customers for interest payments they were not
entitled to retain due to inadequate disclosure of certain changes.
They aim to represent all affected customers, even those who have
not opted into the case.
ASB is challenging the High Court's ruling that allowed the case to
proceed on an "opt-out basis." In a statement to the NZX, ASB
stated that the proposed class action would cover all customers who
had a home or personal loan with the bank between June 2015 and
2019 and were not provided with compliant disclosure. The bank
argues that the case should not be treated as an opt-out proceeding
and denies the claims made against it, which it intends to defend
in court, interest.co.nz reported.
The plaintiffs contend that ASB should not be allowed to retain any
interest or fees paid by affected customers during the period of
insufficient disclosure. Both ASB and ANZ have previously settled
with the Commerce Commission, admitting to breaching their
responsible lending obligations and agreeing to multimillion-dollar
settlements. However, the plaintiffs argue that these settlements
do not prevent customers from pursuing further legal action.
The class action is being brought under the Credit Contracts and
Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA) and asserts that the banks should
refund interest and fees that they were not entitled to charge due
to breaches of their disclosure obligations.
"If a bank fails to comply with its disclosure obligations, it is
not legally entitled to charge interest or fees on the affected
loan until the failure is remedied," solicitor Scott Russell,
representing the plaintiffs, told interest.co.nz. "To the extent a
bank receives interest or fees it is not entitled to, it must
refund or credit those amounts to the customer as soon as
practicable."
During the court proceedings, ASB's lawyer, Jack Hodder KC, argued
that the opt-out class action was overly broad and poorly defined
in terms of the class of affected customers. He highlighted the
variability of the disclosures made to customers, making it
challenging to determine if the alleged breaches applied to all or
only some of the customers in question.
In response, Davey Salmon KC, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, said
that a broad class action allows justice to be served for customers
who may not be motivated to take individual action against
influential financial institutions. He noted that many customers
are reluctant to challenge such institutions for fear of negative
consequences.
ASB's lawyer also argued that customers who may have received
insufficient disclosure and continued paying interest did not
suffer any specific harm. He suggested that the plaintiffs'
motivation was simply a desire for interest-free loans and that
there was no significant harm beyond customers not wanting to pay
interest.
The plaintiffs' lawyer countered this argument by stating that the
issue was not about customer loss but rather about the banks taking
money they were not entitled to. He maintained that ASB and ANZ
were legally prohibited from charging interest without appropriate
disclosure and were now attempting to retain funds that were not
rightfully theirs.[GN]
ATLANTIC GENERAL: Law Firms Urge Clients to File Suit Over Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charlene Sharpe at mdcoastdispatch.com reports that Atlantic
General Hospital continues to encourage patients impacted by
January's data breach to remain vigilant in notices mailed to those
affected.
About five months after initial reports of a ransomware incident at
Atlantic General Hospital (AGH), notices have been sent to impacted
individuals and lawyers are trying to drum up clients for class
action lawsuits related to the data breach. While the hospital
would not comment on the potential for lawsuits, the letter mailed
to patients June 22 provides details of the incident, AGH's
response and steps to protect against the misuse of personal
information. This was the second mailer addressing the incident.
"AGH takes the privacy and security of the information in out care
seriously," the letter from AGH President and CEO Don Owrey reads.
"We sincerely regret any inconvenience or concern this incident may
cause you."
On Jan. 29, AGH discovered encrypted files on certain computer
systems. An investigation revealed unauthorized use of certain AGH
servers beginning on Jan. 20, according to the letter.
Through our investigation, we learned that certain files within our
network were subject to unauthorized access during the period of
unauthorized access," the letter reads. "AGH then undertook a
comprehensive review of these files to determine what data was
contained within the files and to whom the data relates."
AGH has seen no evidence of misuse of any information related to
the incident but the letter advises recipients that their name and
patient account number, date of birth, medical billing/claims
information and treatment information was present on the impacted
servers.
"AGH encourages you to remain vigilant against incidents of
identify theft and fraud by reviewing your account statements and
monitoring free credit reports for suspicious activity and to
detect errors," the letter reads.
In the wake of the notification, lawyers started seeking clients
for potential class action suits against the hospital.
Advertisements from law firms on social media outlined the
ransomware attack and stressed the array of personal information
that could be involved. Other law firms have added links to their
websites addressing the AGH incident.
"Regardless of the reason for a security breach, victims have the
right to file a claim against a company for failing to protect
their information," The Lyon Firm's website reads. "All companies
and organizations must exercise reasonable care in protecting
patient information, and if they do not, they can be held liable
for the damages that result, including identity theft."[GN]
BANK OF AMERICA: Ordered to Pay Fine, Refund Over Illegal Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Decker at verifythis.com reports that federal watchdog
agencies ordered Bank of America to pay out more than $250 million
in fines and refunds for a series of deceptive practices, including
illegally charging junk fees.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau revealed that between 2018
and 2022, the bank commonly charged its customers "non-sufficient
fund" fees - similar to overdraft fees - multiple times for the
same attempted transactions.
In addition to $150 million in fines, Bank of America will have to
pay $80.4 million in refunds to customers who were charged these
fees. CFPB estimates Bank of America will make $20 million more in
payouts to customers in a separate case involving deceptive credit
card practices.
VERIFY looked into who might receive these payments, and whether
they have to make a claim to receive them.
THE QUESTION
Do Bank of America customers have to make a claim in order to
receive a refund for illegal fees? [GN]
BELKIN INTERNATIONAL: Munoz Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Cieara Munoz, individually and on behalf of
all others similar situated v. BELKIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., a
Delaware corporation d/b/a WWW.BELKIN.COM, Case No. 23STVC12438 was
removed from the Superior Court of California in the County of Los
Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on July 3, 2023, and assigned Case No.
2:23-cv-05287.
The Complaint seeks statutory damages pursuant to the Video Privacy
Protection Act of 1988 ("VPPA").[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Edward Totino, Esq.
Nancy Nguyen Sims, Esq.
Peter Shapiro, Esq.
BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
10250 Constellation Blvd, Suite 1850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 310.201.4728
Fax: 310.201.4721
Email: edward.totino@bakermckenzie.com
nancy.sims@bakermckenzie.com
peter.shapiro@bakermckenzie.com
BIOXCEL THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Sept. 5
----------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues this
alert to shareholders of BioXcel Therapeutics, Inc. (NasdaqCM:
BTAI), if they purchased the Company's securities between December
15, 2021 and June 28, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Shareholders have until September 5, 2023 to file lead plaintiff
applications in the securities class action lawsuit.
Shareholders are encouraged to contact us at
https://kclasslaw.com/cases/securities/nasdaqcm-btai/, by calling
toll-free at 1-833-835-1495 or by email (dk@kclasslaw.com).
Kuznicki Law PLLC is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to
responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.[GN]
CHICAGO, IL: Faces Class Suit Over City Car Stickers
----------------------------------------------------
Leah Hope of ABC 7 Eyewitness News reports that likely thousands of
car owners qualify for a class action lawsuit that was just granted
last week against the city of Chicago, involving city stickers.
West Side resident Rodney Shelton said his grandmother's old car
needed lots of repairs.
It wasn't functioning, so he parked it in a friend's private lot.
One day in 2015, a friend called to say there were tickets on that
car.
Shelton discovered he had 77 tickets for not having a city
sticker.
With the penalties, he said he owed the city $20,000.
"Just the fact that you have a municipal code that allows you to go
on someone's private property because it's open, to do that it's
just not right. It's just not right," Shelton said.
Shelton and likely thousands of other car owners qualify for a
class action lawsuit that was just granted last week against the
city.
Anyone who got a fine or penalty between Jan. 1, 2010 to present
over $250 can be part of the litigation.
"You get one or two of these tickets and someone is in a lot of
trouble because they can't afford to pay them, and what happens
then is they lose their car because the city tows it or they lose
their job," said Jacie Zolna, attorney for the plaintiffs.
Zolna said most of those who got the penalties over $250 got
violations for not having city stickers.
"We discovered through this lawsuit is that not only are they
ticketing, not only are they disproportionately ticketing
minorities in low-income communities, but they are ticketing them
in amounts that are higher than allowed in the law," Zolna said.
As for Shelton, he hopes to recoup some of the penalties he did
eventually pay. But he said he almost lost his job because his
driver's license was suspended due to debt. He had to file for
bankruptcy to get his license back and allow him time to pay off
the $20,000.
"This is egregious at the end of the day; at the end of the day
this is egregious," Shelton said.
The city would not comment, as the litigation is ongoing.
Anyone who qualifies for the class action suit should get a notice
later this year informing them of next steps to try to get back
money from the city for parking ticket penalties. [GN]
CHICAGO, IL: Pay $5M to Settle Class Suit Targeting Police Conduct
------------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Cherone at wttw.com reports that Chicago taxpayers should
pay nearly $5 million to resolve a 2015 class-action lawsuit
claiming their civil rights were violated when Chicago police
officers stopped and frisked them, city lawyers recommended.
The proposed settlement is set to be considered next week by the
City Council's Finance Committee. A final vote of the City Council
could come.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs did not respond to a request for comment
from WTTW News. If approved, the lawsuit settlement could be shared
among all Chicagoans who were improperly stopped and frisked by the
Chicago Police Department.
Pedestrian and traffic stops have been a flashpoint in the
half-dozen serious efforts to reform the Chicago Police Department,
since they put officers in close contact with Chicagoans, often
under tense circumstances.
For decades, Chicago officers had to fill out a "contact card"
every time they stopped a person but did not arrest them. Those
cards were supposed to include the person's age, address and race
as well as the time and location of the stop and the reason for the
stop.
If an officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is
engaged in criminal activity, the officer can conduct what's
officially known as a protective pat-down but more often referred
to as a stop-and-frisk.
The number of Chicagoans who were stopped and frisked by Chicago
police officers soared under former Police Supt. Garry McCarthy,
hired by former Mayor Rahm Emanuel. In 2013, McCarthy defended the
practice as a crucial tool in the fight against crime.
In the wake of the deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri,
Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Ohio, and Eric Garner in New York at the
hands of police, the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois
released a report in March 2015 that found officers stopped Black
Chicagoans at a far higher rate than Latino or White Chicagoans.
Instead of suing Chicago, the ACLU reached an agreement with city
officials in August 2015 requiring the Police Department to change
its policies on stops, pat-downs and searches. Officers must now
fill out investigatory stop reports, rather than contact cards, and
document all stops as well as how often those stops result in
pat-downs, the reason officers stopped that individual and whether
the citizen gave permission for a pat-down or more intrusive
search.
Between 2014 and 2016, the number of pedestrian stops dropped by
more than 85%, according to Chicago Police Department data.
However, even as the total number of stops dropped precipitously,
both Black and Latino Chicagoans were more likely than White
Chicagoans to be stopped and frisked, according to a report from
the team overseeing court-ordered reforms of the Chicago Police
Department.
Black Chicagoans were nine times more likely to be stopped by
Chicago Police officers than White Chicagoans in 2018 and 2019,
even though officers were 29% more likely to find drugs or weapons
if they searched someone who is White, according to the report.
Latino Chicagoans were three times more likely to be stopped by a
police officer than White Chicagoans, according to the report.
Officers rarely found drugs or weapons after stopping Chicagoans on
the street, the report said.
The results of the independent monitoring team replicate the
findings of Chicago's inspector general in an audit released in
March 2022 that found that not only were Chicago Police were more
likely to stop Black Chicagoans than White Chicagoans but also that
officers were more likely to use force against Black
Chicagoans.[GN]
CITI TRENDS: Fails to Protect Employees' Personal Info, Thomas Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SIENNA THOMAS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITI TRENDS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:23-cv-00175-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga., June 27, 2023) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff against Defendant for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information of
Defendant's current and former employees and prospective
employees.
On January 14, 2023, Defendant learned of a data breach on its
network that occurred around that time. The Defendant determined
that, during the data breach, an unknown actor accessed files
containing the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members. On June 21,
2023, Defendant began notifying Plaintiff and Class Members of the
data breach.
The complaint alleges that the Defendant disregarded the rights of
Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully,
recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate
and reasonable measures to ensure that the PII of Plaintiff and
Class Members was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to
prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow
applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and
procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use.
As the result, the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was
compromised through disclosure to an unauthorized third party, the
suit alleges.
Citi Trends, Inc. sells clothing, shoes, accessories, and home
decor and operates more than 600 stores in 33 states in the
U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth M. Diamond, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
200 Stephenson Avenue, Ste. 200
Savanah, GA 31405
Telephone: (912) 443-1012
E-mail: sdiamond@forthepeople.com
- and -
Patrick A. Barthle, Esq.
Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX BUSINESS DIVISION
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
E-mail: pbarthle@ForThePeople.com
rmaxey@ForThePeople.com
COLES AND WOOLWORTHS: Underpays Workers, Class Action Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Sinclair of Nine.com.au reports that Coles and Woolworths
love to promote cheap prices, but what they probably wouldn't want
you to know is they're also accused of using cheap labour.
Class action lawsuits, which could potentially affect tens of
thousands of workers, claim the supermarket giants underpaid staff
millions of dollars.
"I should have been spending that time with my kids, enjoying it
with them," single mum-of-two Maria said.
"Coles took that away from me."
Maria is part of the class action against Coles, claiming she
worked a ridiculous amount of unpaid overtime.
"I reckon I was doing an extra 30 to 40 hours a week," Maria said.
"I was drinking Red Bulls at the time, I was sleeping three to four
hours a day.
"I'd be getting text messages from team members (at) three to four
o'clock in the morning, saying they couldn't come in so I'd be
working, replacing shifts."
Maria said some days she would start at 5am and wouldn't end until
9pm, which took a toll on her and her family.
"I was on the verge of having breakdowns all the time. I was having
fights with my ex-husband, because he thought I was working
ridiculous hours," Maria said.
"I'm like, 'I need to do this, I can't lose my job'.
"I was trying to do a good job and trying to do what they expected
me to do and they would just continue adding tasks on it.
"They would set expectations saying, 'this needs to be done before
you go home'."
Maria believes she's out of pocket more than $200,000 for all of
the overtime she worked, but Coles doesn't agree.
"They're also saying I did it out of choice . . . that I chose to
do the excessive hours, I chose to come in on my own time and do
that stuff, no one had ever asked me to do that. They're saying
that it was a lack of time management skill," Maria said.
Melbourne father Cameron is part of the class action against
Woolies.
He worked there for five years as a night manager.
"As manager, I would always be there first. My team would work
between the hours of 9pm and 6am," Cameron said.
"I was always there first, dealing with rostering issues, setting
up the store room and setting up the load for the night.
"The reality is that we were never really given sufficient staffing
levels to put those loads away, so it was a fast-paced environment
to work in and in order to complete the tasks I had to work the
extra hours.
"So basically I was getting paid for eight hours a night, when I
was actually working 11 hours a night."
Cameron said he raised his salary concerns with Woolworths and got
a pay rise, but also claims he was treated unfairly.
"I was getting investigated once a month for really tedious things
that made very little sense," Cameron said.
"By June 2019, my employment was terminated for various
investigations that I was being hassled with."
Cameron said he's since been backpaid around $90,000 but believes
he's owed more.
"One of the real issues of this case is that Woolworths did not
keep accurate clock-in and clock-out data for salaried employees,"
Cameron said.
Rory Markham from Adero Law is spearheading the class action
lawsuits against Coles and Woolworths, as the Fair Work Ombudsman
also takes the supermarket giants to task in the Federal Court for
alleged underpayments, which could cover claims totalling hundreds
of millions of dollars.
"I hope that Cameron and Maria get vindicated," Markham said.
"They should never have put up with the underpayments that went on
year after year in our major supermarkets."
"Had Woolworths done the right thing from the start and paid
everyone according to the retail award, we wouldn't be here on July
7, 2023," Cameron said.
"They need to stop treating people like we're just numbers, because
we have things going on in our lives, we have families you know and
the stuff they're doing affects us," Maria said.
Statement by Woolworths:
Woolworths self-reported its failure to pay salaried store team
members in full compliance with the General Retail Industry Award
in October 2019. Woolworths apologised unreservedly to the team
members affected, and has since carried out an extensive
remediation program to those team members.
Each of the specific matters about which questions have been asked,
has been the subject of evidence in the Federal Court proceedings.
As Mr Baker's claim is currently before the Court, it is not
appropriate for Woolworths to make any further comment.
Statement by Coles:
We know how hard our team members work and are committed to paying
them correctly. The underpayment of any team member is something we
deeply regret, and we apologise unreservedly to those who were
affected.
We conducted a comprehensive review in 2020 and worked quickly to
rectify the issue. Since then, we have put new processes and
measures in place to help ensure this doesn't happen again and
continue to work hard to improve and to get this right.
There are many complexities to the General Retail Industry Award
and we look forward to the clarity these court proceedings will
bring.
As the matter is before the court, we cannot comment further. [GN]
COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH: Withheld Employees' Wages, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
Mallory Gruben of Northwest Labor Press reports that Nothing spoils
a Sweet 16 quite like illegally garnished wages. In October, LaRae
Ernst had to scrap plans for her daughter’s surprise birthday
party because her employer, CommonSpirit Health, had withheld
almost $800 from her paycheck without asking. Now the emergency
room nurse is part of a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of
2,000 Oregon healthcare workers who also had money taken from their
paychecks without permission. Under state law, it's illegal to
withhold wages without an employee's permission.
Ernst and three other nurses, all represented by Oregon Nurses
Association (ONA), filed the suit in Marion County Circuit Court in
February against CommonSpirit, the Chicago-headquartered healthcare
non-profit that owns Mercy Medical Center in Roseburg and St.
Anthony Hospital in Pendleton. The lawsuit asks a judge to order
CommonSpirit to determine how much money each employee is actually
owed, pay those wages, and pay any statutory penalties for
withholding money from checks without their permission.
In October, after CommonSpirit learned it had been the target of a
ransomware attack, it temporarily shut off the payroll software it
uses in Oregon to track workers' hours. On the first payday
following the outage, CommonSpirit issued checks based on estimates
of each employee's hours worked, Ernst said. Some workers missed
pay and some were overpaid.
CommonSpirit tried to fix the errors in a "game of whack a mole,"
said ONA spokesperson Kevin Mealy: It issued supplementary checks
to underpaid workers, then realized those payments also were wrong.
Some of the extra checks were still short. Others resulted in new
overpayments.
In a series of increasingly demanding emails, CommonSpirit asked
overpaid workers to give back any extra money they'd received,
Ernst said. But it refused to provide the workers with detailed
accounting of how it had calculated the money they owed.
As of June, CommonSpirit still hasn't provided that information.
The health system did not return requests for comment.
"A lot of us were saying, 'Fine, I'll pay it back if I owe it, but
I want to see where it went,'" Ernst said. "Then the last paycheck
of November, they just took the money out with no prior consent. .
. . I had been planning a huge surprise Sweet 16 party for my
daughter's birthday. I had vendors I'd already booked and deposits
I had put down. I had to call and cancel everything because my
paycheck was almost $800 short."
Many of her coworkers were hit harder, she said. Some workers
worried they couldn't afford groceries and Christmas gifts because
of the shorted checks, she said. Others told her they couldn't pay
their bills that month.
""Honestly what fired me up the most was seeing people crying in
the lunchroom on break because they didn't know how they'd make
their car payment," Ernst said. "People should not be coming into
work and crying."
Ernst and other nurses notified ONA about the missing payments, and
the union helped them seek a legal solution. Ernst agreed to be
named in the lawsuit to stand up for workers who were wronged.
Mealy, the ONA spokesperson, said the CommonSpirit in March did
provide account worksheets for two workers, as an example of how it
did its math. But the calculations were wrong. For example, one
worksheet showed that the company withheld money for one nurse's
special certification, which usually provides a bonus payment. ONA
hasn't met with CommonSpirit on this matter since then, as both
sides await the ruling in the lawsuit.
A judge is currently deciding where the case will be heard.
CommonSpirit attorneys say the case should be heard in federal
court because the total amount of requested damages exceeds $5
million. In court filings, the health network claimed it would cost
$3.3 million just to figure out how much every employee is owed.
But nurses' attorneys dispute those claims. They've submitted
testimony from an expert accountant that estimated the total
accounting cost would be $184,500 to $271,500, and they've asked
the case stay in Marion County Circuit Court.[GN]
CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Water Island Sues Over False Proxy Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WATER ISLAND MERGER ARBITRAGE INSTITUTIONAL COMMINGLED MASTER FUND,
LP, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CORNERSTONE BUILDING BRANDS, INC.; GEORGE L. BALL;
GARY L. FORBES; JOHN J. HOLLAND; WILLIAM E. JACKSON; WILBERT W.
JAMES JR.; DANIEL JANKI; JOHN KRENICKI JR.; ROSE LEE; JAMES
METCALF; TIMOTHY O'BRIEN; JUDITH REINSDORF; NATHAN K. SLEEPER;
JONATHAN L. ZREBIEC; JEFFREY S. LEE and ALENA S. BRENNER,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00701-UNA (D. Del., June 27, 2023)
arises from the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.14a-9
promulgated thereunder based on the deficient Definitive Proxy
Statement filed on May 24, 2022 in connection with the
"take-private" transaction of Cornerstone by Clayton, Dubilier &
Rice, LLC.
This action arises out of the said transaction of Cornerstone
announced by the Company on March 7, 2022, and the materially false
and misleading Proxy issued in connection with the transaction.
Prior to the Merger, CD&R controlled Cornerstone through its
ownership of 49% of the Company's outstanding common stock and its
control over Cornerstone's Board of Directors. Pursuant to an
Agreement and Plan of Merger dated March 5, 2022, CD&R acquired the
Cornerstone stock it did not already own for $24.65 per share in
cash. The Merger had an enterprise value of approximately $5.8
billion.
On May 24, 2022, Defendants issued the Proxy, which allegedly
contained materially false and misleading statements that deprived
Plaintiff and the Class of their right to cast a fully informed
vote on the Merger. The Proxy misrepresented and omitted material
facts concerning, among other things, (i) the scope of the
standstill provisions and the fact that CD&R made actual offers and
proposals to acquire Cornerstone in breach of the standstill
provisions; (ii) the fact that Cornerstone's financial projections
used by its financial advisor in connection with Merger
negotiations were revised downward at CD&R's direction; and (iii)
Cornerstone's parallel sales process to divest its metal coil
coatings business for $500 million and Defendants' failure to
account for this sale in the valuation of the Company.
Plaintiff Water Island Merger Arbitrage Institutional Commingled
Master Fund LP is a hedge fund formed on January 24, 2018 and
organized under Delaware law.
Cornerstone is the largest manufacturer of exterior building
products in North America and is engaged in both the new
construction and the repair and remodel markets for residential and
commercial customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sue L. Robinson, Esq.
Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
FARNAN LLP
919 North Market Street, 12th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 777-0300
Facsimile: (302) 777-0301
E-mail: srobinson@farnanlaw.com
bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
- and -
Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq.
Robert N. Cappucci, Esq.
ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
230 Park Avenue, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 894-7200
Facsimile: (212) 894-7272
E-mail: vcappucci@entwistle-law.com
rcappucci@entwistle-law.com
CREATIVE GENIUS: Wurm Sues Over Caller ID Rules Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Charming Wurm, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CREATIVE GENIUS, LLC, Case No. CACE-23-015326 (Fla.
17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., July 3, 2023), is brought for
injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations Of
the Caller ID Rules Of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act
("FTSA").
The FTSA's Caller ID Rules apply to solicited and consented to
Telephonic Sales Calls, and as such, claims for Caller ID Rules
violations, which requires notice and an opportunity to cease
sending unwanted text message solicitations, before claims for
"text message solicitations the called party does not consent to
receive" can be brought. The FTSA's Caller ID Rules require that
persons making Telephonic Sales Calls transmit--to the consumer's
caller identification service--a telephone number that is capable
of receiving telephone calls.
In direct contravention of the Caller ID Rules, however, many
callers, such as Defendant, make Telephonic Sales Calls a central
part of their marketing strategy, and in doing so, intentionally
transmit telephone numbers to recipient's Caller ID services that
do not connect to the call or seller, because the transmitted
telephone number is not configured for two-way communication. As
such, Plaintiff, brings this action alleging that Defendant
violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number
that was not configured for two-way communication when it made
Telephonic Sales Calls by text message ("Text Message Sales
Calls").
As such, Plaintiff, brings this action alleging that Defendant
violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number
that was not capable of receiving phone calls and does not connect
to either the telephone solicitor or the Defendant when it made
Telephonic Sales Calls by text message ("Text Message Sales
Calls"). Specifically, Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that
promoted Pura Vida ("Pura Vida Text Message Sales Calls") and
violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients'
caller identification services a telephone number that was not
capable of receiving telephone calls and that did not connect the
recipient to either the caller or the Defendant (collectively, the
"Pura Vida Callers"), says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is the regular user of a cellular telephone number
that receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls ("Plaintiffs Cell
Phone"), and Plaintiff resides in Broward County, Florida.
The Defendant is a Foreign Limited Liability Company, which sells
various goods to persons throughout the country, including Florida,
through its online store.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Phone: (202) 709-5744
Fax: (866) 893-0416
Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollective.com
CUZCO PERU BBQ: Burgos Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carolina Burgos, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Cuzco Peru BBQ Chicken Inc., Adriana Torres, and Alex Torres,
Case No. 1:23-cv-05015 (E.D.N.Y., July 3, 2023), is brought to
recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, spread of hours,
liquidated and statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA"), and violations of Articles 6 and 19 of the New York
State Labor Law ("NYLL"), their supporting New York State
Department of Labor regulations, and the NYLL's Wage Theft
Prevention Act ("WTPA").
The Plaintiff was ostensibly employed as a tipped worker. However,
she was required to spend a considerable part of her workday
performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to
cleaning, and prepping food (collectively, the "non-tipped
duties").
The Defendants employed the policy and practice of disguising
Plaintiff's actual duties in payroll records by designating her as
a tipped worker instead of a non-tipped employee. This allowed
Defendants to avoid paying Plaintiff at the minimum wage rate and
enabled them to pay Plaintiff at or below the tip-credit rate.
However, under both the FLSA and NYLL, Defendants were not entitled
to take a tip credit because these Plaintiff's non-tipped duties
exceeded 20% of each workday, or 2 hours per day, whichever is less
in each day.
The Plaintiff was required to work over forty hours per week, but
never received an overtime premium of one and one-half times her
regular rate of pay for all of her hours worked. The Defendants'
conduct extended beyond Plaintiff to all other similarly situated
employees. No notification, either in the form of posted notices,
or other means, was ever given to Plaintiff regarding wages are
required under the FLSA or NYLL, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was ostensibly employed as a server, bartender, and
general worker at Defendants' restaurant known as "Cuzco Peru."
The Defendants own, operate and/or control Cuzco Peru a restaurant
located in Queens, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 792-0046
Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com
DCD AUTO: Moves to Compel Arbitration in Fairfield TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
David Krueger at jdsupra.com reports that the District of
Massachusetts's recent decision in Fairfield v. DCD Auto. Holdings,
Inc., No. 22-cv-11977, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109463 (D. Mass. June
26, 2023) serves as a key reminder for businesses not only to have
arbitration provisions in consumer-facing agreements but as
importantly to ensure that such provisions are drafted in a clear
manner that can encompass their affiliates and related operating
entities.
The plaintiff, Heather Fairfield, alleged that DCD Automotive
Holdings, Inc. (DCD), a holding company that owns and operates
several car dealerships, sent her unwanted text messages. These
messages, she claimed, were in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA), a federal law designed to protect consumers
from unwanted and intrusive communications, and she sought to
represent a nationwide putative class.
DCD moved to compel arbitration on the basis that when Fairfield
purchased the car from one of its subsidiaries, Bocha Honda, she
signed an arbitration provision contained in a Vehicle Services
Contract (VSC). The court's analysis revolved around a question of
arbitration. Specifically, the court was tasked with determining
whether the VSC Fairfield signed with Boch Honda could be enforced
by DCD, a non-signatory to the agreement.
The court's analysis hinged on two key elements: the delegation of
arbitrability and the status of DCD as a third-party beneficiary.
The arbitration provision in the VSC that Fairfield signed at the
time of purchase provided for arbitration under the American
Arbitration Association (AAA) rules. And the agreement did not
simply provide for arbitration. Rather, it also delegated the
question of "arbitrability"—that is, whether a dispute is subject
to an arbitration agreement in the first place—to the arbitrator
(commonly called a "delegation" provision). The court found that
such provisions and language constituted "clear and unmistakable"
evidence of the delegation of the determination of arbitrability to
the arbitrator.
Fairfield also contested whether DCD could enforce any delegation
or arbitration provision because DCD was not a party to the VSC.
However, the court found that a non-party to an arbitration
agreement can enforce the same if it was an intended third-party
beneficiary. The court noted that DCD, as the owner and operator of
Boch Honda, arguably had a basis to conclude that it was an
intended beneficiary of the agreement to arbitrate. And because of
the arbitration provision's delegation clause, the court found that
it was up to the arbitrator, not the court, to determine whether
the arbitration agreement was enforceable by DCD as a
non-signatory.
This case serves as a reminder for businesses to ensure their
arbitration agreements are clear and legally sound, and consider
the potential implications for third-party beneficiaries and any
subsidiaries or affiliated entities. Given recent Supreme Court
precedent, there is simply no excuse for arbitration agreements not
to have delegation provisions (and unlike DCD, there are still
plenty of arbitration agreements litigated that do not).
Businesses should take note of this ruling and review not only
their communication practices to ensure compliance with the TCPA,
but also to ensure that any arbitration agreements they have are
sufficiently tailored to the scope and nature of their business.
When in doubt, consult with your legal counsel to ensure your
practices align with the evolving legal landscape. Stay informed,
stay compliant, and navigate the TCPA regulations with
confidence.[GN]
DOLE PACKAGED: Broussard Sues Over Deceptive Products Marketing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shamea Broussard and Michael Schirano, on behalf of themselves, all
others similarly situated, and the general public v. DOLE PACKAGED
FOODS, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-03320 (N.D. Cal., July 3, 2023), is
brought against the Defendant to enjoin the Defendants from
deceptively marketing the Products, and to recover compensation for
injured the Plaintiffs and Class Members.
Dole manufactures certain packaged snacks, including parfaits,
gels, and juice products, that it markets and labels with
representations designed to convince consumers that they are
generally healthy or good for you, and also specifically beneficial
to immune system function. For example, on its website, Dole
invites consumers to "experience our healthy and delicious
ingredients" and, on the label of these products, Dole "promises
that these products will provide everyone, everywhere with good
nutrition!" and "help support a healthy immune system." While
representing that these packaged products are healthy and
beneficial to the immune system, Dole simultaneously manufactures
them so that they contain at least 29% and up to 96% of their
calories from added or free sugar.
Contrary to the Dole's manufacturing practices and marketing of the
products, a vast body of reliable scientific evidence establishes
that excessive consumption of FA Sugar--any amount above
approximately 5% of daily caloric intake--is toxic to the human
body and greatly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease,
diabetes, liver disease, and a wide variety of other chronic
diseases. Likewise, consumption of FA Sugar impairs rather than
benefits the immune system.
Because loading these products with FA Sugar and marketing them as
good for you is directly contrary to the science, Dole's claims are
false or at least highly misleading. For example, Dole packs its
popular gel snack products, which are marketed towards children as
"good nutrition," with up to 20 grams of added sugar. This is 166%
more added sugar than the AHA's recommended daily limit for
children 4-8 years old.
Because the Products are not healthy, but rather are the type of
foods and beverages that detriment bodily health, Plaintiffs bring
this action against Dole on behalf of themselves,
similarly-situated Class Members, and the general public, to enjoin
Dole from deceptively marketing the Products, and to recover
compensation for injured Class Members, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased Products from the Defendant.
Dole Packaged Foods, LLC, is a California limited liability
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
Paul K. Joseph, Esq.
Melanie Persinger, Esq.
Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
Caroline S. Emhardt, Esq.
FITZGERALD JOSEPH LLP
2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92110
Phone: (619) 215-1741
Email: jack@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
paul@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
melanie@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
trevor@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
caroline@fitzgeraldjoseph.com
ENZO BIOCHEM: Faces Wohl Suit Over Unprotected Health Info
----------------------------------------------------------
MELANIE WOHL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENZO BIOCHEM, INC. and ENZO CLINICAL LABS,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-04770-GRB-ARL (E.D.N.Y., June
26, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of an implied contract, unjust
enrichment, and declaratory judgment, seeking actual and putative
damages, with attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and appropriate
injunctive and declaratory relief.
As a healthcare provider, Enzo knowingly collects and stores a
litany of highly sensitive, personally identifying information or
protected health information from its patients. In turn, Enzo has a
resulting duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard the PII
and PHI that it collects and stores against unauthorized access and
disclosure through reasonable and adequate data security measures.
Despite Enzo's duty to safeguard its patients' PII and PHI,
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI was accessed and
exfiltrated by an unknown third party who gained access to
Defendants' computer systems between April 4 and April 6, 2023, the
suit alleges.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' inadequate data
security measures, and its breach of their duty to handle patient
PII and PHI with reasonable care, Plaintiff's and Class Members'
PII and PHI have been accessed by hackers and exposed to an untold
number of unauthorized individuals, asserts the suit.
Enzo Biochem, Inc. operates a full-service clinical laboratory and
is one of the regional clinical labs in the U.S., providing
diagnostic testing services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
E-mail: jcorrigan@srkattorneys.com
- and -
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
nickc@lcllp.com
- and -
Katrina Carroll, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
111 W. Washington St., Suite 1240
Chicago IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 750-1265
E-mail: katrina@lcllp.com
- and -
Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
923 Fayette Street
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 234-6486
E-mail: jjagher@fklmlaw.com
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Shrem Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Gilad Shrem, in his individual capacity and
on behalf of all similarly situated consumers v. EXPERIAN
INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., TRANS UNION, LLC, and WESTLAKE
FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. CACE 23-014356 was removed from
the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for
Broward County, Florida, to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on July 3, 2023, and assigned Case
No. 0:23-cv-61268-JEM.
The claims for relief against Experian, Trans Union, LLC and
Westlake Financial Services, Inc. alleged in the State Court Action
arise under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michelle Hogan, Esq.
JONES DAY
600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: 305-714-9700
Facsimile: 305-714-9799
Email: Mhogan@jonesday.com
- and -
Will R. Taylor, Esq.
JONES DAY
717 Texas, Suite 3300
Houston, TX 77002
Phone: 1.832.239.3860
Facsimile: 1.832.239.3600
Email: wrtaylor@jonesday.com
FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Mignery Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Mignery, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. FINANCIAL BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SOLUTIONS INC d/b/a
FBCS INC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00278 (N.D. Ind., July 4, 2023), is
brought suing the Defendant for violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").
This action involves debt arising from a transaction between the
original creditor, JP Morgan Chase Bank, and Plaintiff, of which
was primarily for the personal benefit of Plaintiff, Plaintiff's
family, as well as members of Plaintiff's household (the "Consumer
Debt").
On a date better known by Defendant, Defendant sent Plaintiff a
letter (the "Collection Letter") in an attempt to collect the
Consumer Debt. The Collection Letter is a communication from
Defendant to Plaintiff in connection with the collection of the
Consumer Debt. The Collection Letter represents Defendant's initial
communication with Plaintiff in connection with the collection of
the Consumer Debt. The Collection Letter is an attempt to collect a
time-barred debt from Plaintiff by Defendant.
In the Collection Letter, Defendant asserts that the amount of the
Consumer Debt is $14,397.42. The Consumer Debt is a time-barred
debt, in that, the creditor of the Consumer Debt cannot sue
Plaintiff to recover or otherwise collect the Consumer Debt.
Defendant, by way of the documentation and information it
(Defendant) was provided by the current creditor of the Consumer
debt, knew that the Consumer Debt was a time barred debt. Defendant
failed to disclose in the Collection Letter that the Consumer Debt
is a time-barred debt. Defendant failed to disclose in the
Collection Letter that, because of the age of the Consumer Debt,
Plaintiff cannot be sued for its (the Consumer Debt's) collection,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person, and a citizen of the State of
Indiana and is the alleged debtor of the Consumer Debt.
The Defendant is a Pennsylvania corporation and is a debt collector
governed by the FDCPA.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Candace Aroyo, Esq.
PRICE LAW GROUP
6345 Balboa Bvld, Building 2 Suite 247
Encino, CA 91316
Phone: (818) 600-5542
Email: candace@resolvelawgroup.com
FIRST NECK: Selvanathan Files Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MAYAN SELVANATHAN, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIRST NECK PEMBROKE PINES LLC, DBA
SNAPBOX SELF STORAGE PEMBROKE PINES, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-23-015127 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., June 26,
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 her 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.
First Neck Pembroke Pines LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, with its principal place of business located in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
Shannon E. Gilvey, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th 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.corn
FIVE BELOW INC: Porras Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Nathanael Porras, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. FIVE BELOW, INC., a Pennsylvania
Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23GDCV01090
was removed from the Superior Court of California in the County of
Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on July 3, 2023, and assigned Case No.
2:23-cv-05299.
The Complaint seeks damages, penalties, and restitution on behalf
of a putative class for: failure to pay overtime/double time wages;
failure to pay minimum wages; failure to provide meal periods;
failure to provide itemized wage statements; untimely payment of
wages at separation; failure to timely pay earned wages during
employment; failure to provide rest periods; failure to reimburse
business expenses; and unlawful business practices.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Carrie A. Gonell, Bar No. 257163
David J. Rashé, Bar No. 318400
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
Phone: +1.714.830.0600
Fax: +1.714.830.0700
Email: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com
david.rashe@morganlewis.com
FLORIDA POWER: Files Motion to Dismiss Suit Over Power Outages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Saunders of The Brunswick News reports that after Gov. Ron
DeSantis last week signed a measure that gave a legal protection to
utilities, Florida Power & Light is asking a judge to toss out a
class-action lawsuit stemming from power outages in Hurricane
Irma.
FPL filed a motion on July 5, 2023 in Miami-Dade County circuit
court to dismiss the long-running lawsuit. It pointed to part of
the new law that says a "utility is not liable for damages based in
whole or in part on changes in the reliability, continuity, or
quality of utility services which arise in any way out of an
emergency or disaster" and gives the Florida Public Service
Commission authority to resolve issues about disaster preparedness
and response.
"The Florida Legislature enacted this statute to provide that the
Public Service Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over
public-utility service 'issues' that arise 'in any way' from an
emergency or disaster," FPL's attorneys wrote in the motion.
"Plaintiffs' complaint in this case directly implicates myriad
issues of utility disaster preparedness and response -- all of
which must be 'resolved' by the PSC -- so this court cannot
continue to exercise jurisdiction over this case."
Even if the lawsuit is not dismissed, FPL said it should win the
case because of the new law.
"By its terms, (the law) renders utilities immune from any action
that seeks damages based 'in whole or in part' on loss or
impairment of electric services that 'in any way' resulted from an
'emergency or disaster,'" the utility's lawyers wrote. "Plaintiffs'
complaint is plainly barred by this provision because it seeks
damages based on claims that 'FPL customers experienced prolonged
power outages' when 'Hurricane Irma's spiral bands unleashed
tropical storm force winds in the South Florida area.'"
The lawsuit, filed in 2017, contends that FPL did not meet
obligations to help prevent outages, such as carrying out a storm
"hardening" plan, replacing aging poles and adequately clearing
vegetation near lines. Irma made landfall in September 2017 in
Monroe County, as a Category 4 storm and caused widespread damage
and power outages as it barreled up the state.
The plaintiffs' attorneys argued in the lawsuit that FPL was
“grossly unprepared” for the hurricane and that customers who
lost power suffered damages such as lost profits and lost
perishable goods and faced expenses. The lawsuit said FPL had
collected money from customers to strengthen the power system.
"This case arises from acts and damages that are above and beyond
disappointed expectations of the benefit of the bargain," the
lawsuit said. "Specifically, the nature of relief sought by
plaintiffs flow from FPL's gross negligence and breach of
contractual undertaking to replace defective equipment and clear
vegetation overgrowth."
The utility has disputed the allegations and cited the Public
Service Commission's oversight of utilities.
"FPL has at all times been in full compliance with the requirements
of the PSC for vegetation management, pole inspections and
replacement, and for all other elements of storm hardening as
established by the state agency with the exclusive jurisdiction to
establish, monitor and enforce such requirements," the utility's
attorneys wrote in a 2018 court document. "Accordingly, there can
be no basis for the imposition of liability against FPL on the
bases asserted in the amended complaint (the lawsuit)."
A panel of the 3rd District Court of Appeal in March upheld a
circuit judge's decision that certified the lawsuit as a class
action. FPL has asked the full appeals court to review that
ruling.
The new legal protection for utilities was included in a broader
disaster-response bill (SB 250) that emerged after Hurricane Ian
and Hurricane Nicole caused massive damage last year. The bill
received almost-unanimous approval in the Legislature and was
signed by DeSantis on June 28. [GN]
FORD MOTOR: Skole Alleges Defective Automatic Transmission
----------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW SKOLE, MARC CHAMBERS, DAVID DIERSEN, PETER ADDUCI, CHRIS
MEREDITH, and TERRY ABBATE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-04130 (N.D. Ill., June 27, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendant for breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied
warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, negligence,
fraud/fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, and violations of
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Practices Act.
The Plaintiffs bring this case individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons who purchased or leased a Ford vehicle
equipped with a 10R80 10-speed transmission that were designed,
manufactured, distributed, marketed, sold, and leased by Defendant
or Defendant's parent, subsidiary, or affiliates thereof.
According to the complaint, the Defendant knew or should have known
that the vehicles contain one or more design and/or manufacturing
defects, including but not limited to defects contained in the
vehicles' 10R80, a 10-speed automatic transmission that can shift
harshly and erratically, causing the vehicle to jerk, lunge, clunk,
and hesitate between gears. Some consumers have even reported
experiencing a sudden loss of power while driving their vehicle,
says the suit.
Had Plaintiffs and Class Members known about the transmission
defect at the time of sale or lease, as well as the associated
costs related to the transmission defect, Plaintiffs and the Class
Members would not have purchased the Class Vehicles or would have
paid less for them. The transmission defect makes the Class
vehicles unreasonably dangerous. Because of the defect, the Class
vehicles are likely to suffer serious damages and potentially catch
fire if accidents occur, and there is an unreasonable and extreme
risk of serious bodily harm or death to the vehicle's occupants and
others in the vicinity, the suit asserts.
Ford Motor Company is an American multinational automobile
manufacturer headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark R. Miller, Esq.
WALLACE MILLER
150 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 1100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 589-6280
Facsimile: (312) 275-8174
E-mail: mrm@wallacemiller.com
- and -
Mitchell Breit, Esq.
Leland H. Belew, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN
405 E. 50th Street
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (630) 796-0903
E-mail: mbreit@milberg.com
tlitke@milberg.com
- and -
John R. Fabry, Esq.
THE CARLSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
1717 N. Interstate Highway 35, Suite 305
Round Rock, TX 78664
Telephone: (512) 671-7277
Facsimile: (512) 238-0275
E-mail: JFabry@carlsonattorneys.com
- and -
Sidney F. Robert, Esq.
BRENT COON AND ASSOCIATES
300 Fannin, Suite 200
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 225-1682
Facsimile: (713) 225-1785
E-mail: sidney.robert@bcoonlaw.com
FUNKO INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due August 1
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of
Funko, Inc.
Shareholders who purchased shares of FNKO during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead
plaintiff appointment. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.
CONTACT US HERE:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/funko-loss-submission-form/?id=42051&from=3
CLASS PERIOD: May 6, 2022 to March 1, 2023
ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Funko was experiencing
significantly larger delays in implementing its enterprise resource
planning ("ERP") software than it was disclosing to investors; (ii)
having moved into a new warehouse without functioning ERP software
in place would lead to dramatically higher costs and poorer
inventory management practices; and (iii) Funko's inability to
efficiently operate the new distribution center would have a
substantial, undisclosed impact on Funko's earnings before
interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization ("EBITDA") margin.
DEADLINE: August 1, 2023 Shareholders should not delay in
registering for this class action. Register your information here:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/funko-loss-submission-form/?id=42051&from=3
NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who
purchased shares of FNKO during the timeframe listed above, you
will be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you
with status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The
deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is August 1, 2023. There is
no cost or obligation to you to participate in this case.
WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is a nationally recognized
class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of
all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and
illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to
ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices
and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery
on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or
misleading statements or the omission of material information by a
company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes. [GN]
GEICO INDEMNITY: Suit Over Unpaid Medical Bills Revived by Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ufonobong Umanah at news.bloomberglaw.com reports that GEICO
Indemnity Co. must again face a proposed class action alleging it
failed to advance pay medical bills, after the Ninth Circuit said
federal courts might not have jurisdiction.
Brandon Moe was rear-ended by a GEICO-insured driver, and a dispute
arose first over whether GEICO was obligated to pay his medical
bills in advance under Montana law. Moe sued in state court because
when GEICO did pay, it allegedly excluded roughly $855 in
collection fees and interest incurred while GEICO disputed the
original bill.[GN]
GLOBAL COURIER: Salzone Sues Over Drivers' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
JOHN SALZONE, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL COURIER SERVICES, INC., a Florida
Profit Corporation, and HERIBERTO CAZANAS, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 176228449 (Fla. Cir., 11th Judicial, Miami
Dade Cty., June 27, 2023) is an action by the Plaintiff and others
similarly situated against the Defendants seeking to recover unpaid
wage and overtime wages and an additional equal amount as
liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and
for retaliation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff began working for Defendant as a non-exempt driver on
January 27, 2016 and worked until his termination on March 8, 2023.
Throughout his employment, Plaintiff worked an average of 60 hours
per week and was not properly paid his overtime hours at one times
his hourly rate. The Plaintiff asserts that he was not paid
overtime for hours worked for Defendant in excess of 40 weekly in
violation of the law.
Global Courier Services, Inc. offers courier and delivery services
along with electronic tracking.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason S. Remer, Esq.
REMER, GEORGES-PIERRE, & HOOGERWOERD, PLLC
2745 Ponce De Leon Blvd.
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 416-5000
Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
E-mail: JRemer@rgph.law
GOOGLE LLC: Stealing Data of Millions of Users to Pursue AI Profit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Styf at topclassactions.com reports that:
Google class action overview:
Who: Plaintiffs identified only by initials as J.L., C.B., K.S.,
P.M., N.G., R.F., J.D. and G.R. filed a class action lawsuit
against Alphabet Inc., Google Deepmind and Google LLC.
Why: Google collected information across the internet without
permission or copyright to train its artificial intelligence
product, Bard, according to the Google AI lawsuit.
Where: The Google class action was filed in federal court in
California.
A group of eight individuals identified by only their initials
filed a class action lawsuit against Alphabet, Inc., Google
Deepmind and Google LLC about data that was used to train Google's
artificial intelligence (AI) products, including Bard.
Google allegedly spent years scraping data from all corners of the
internet without permission and then used that data to train the AI
to develop human-like responses.
"As part of its theft of personal data, Google illegally accessed
restricted, subscription-based websites to take the content of
millions without permission and infringed at least 200 million
materials explicitly protected by copyright, including previously
stolen property from websites known for pirated collections of
books and other creative works," the Google class action says.
"Without this mass theft of private and copyrighted information
belonging to real people, communicated to unique communities for
specific purposes, and targeting specific audiences, many of
Google's AI products including Bard would not exist."
The class is asking for Google to stop production of the AI
products until class members are fairly compensated for using their
data as well as awarding damages and attorney's fees.
Google data collection used in AI products that put 'world at
peril,' lawsuit claims
The private and copyrighted information was not placed on the
internet to profit Google "while putting the world at peril with
untested and volatile AI products," the Google class action
claims.
Google also could have purchased the data instead of just taking
it, the lawsuit claims.
Google has faced a number of legal challenges.
IN 2022, company agreed to a $23 million settlement to resolve
claims it shared search information with third-party websites and
companies without user consent. That settlement is now open and
accepting claims.
Do you believe Google took your personal information to train its
AI? Let us know in the comments.
The plaintiffs are represented by Ryan J. Clarkson, Yana Hart,
Tiara Avaness, Valter Malkhasyan, Tracey Cowan and Timothy Giordano
of Clarkson Law Firm PC.
The Google AI class action lawsuit is J.L., et al. v. Alphabet
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-3440, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.[GN]
HANDY TECHNOLOGIES: Lagos Sues Over to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wilfredo Lagos, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HANDY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV15644 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 6, 2023), is brought seeking only to
recover unpaid wages and penalties for himself, on behalf of all
Aggrieved Employees that worked for Defendants, and on behalf of
the State of California. Plaintiff does not seek to recover
anything other than penalties as permitted by California Labor
Code.
The Plaintiff for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004, California Labor Code ("PAGA") stemming from
the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to
authorize and permit rest periods, failure to maintain accurate
records of hours worked and meal periods, failure to timely pay all
wages to terminated employees, failure to indemnify necessary
business expenses, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a California resident that worked for Defendants
in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, as a handyman
from September 2022 to October 2022.
The Defendants own/owned and operate/operated an industry,
business, and establishment within the State of California,
including Los Angeles County.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
Mariam Ghazaryan, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 232-3128
Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
scott.leviant@moonyanglaw.com
mariam.ghazaryan@moonyanglaw.com
HARVARD PILGRIM: Keenholtz Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Keenholtz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HARVARD PILGRIM HEALTH CARE, INC. and
POINT32HEALTH, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-11522 (D. Mass., July 6,
2023), is brought arising out of the recent targeted cyberattack
and data breach where unauthorized third-party criminals retrieved
and exfiltrated personal data from Point32Health and Harvard
Pilgrim's systems that resulted in unauthorized access to the
highly-sensitive data1 of Plaintiff, and, according to Defendants,
at least 2,550,922 Class Members ("Data Breach").
After learning of the Data Breach, Defendants took nearly two
months to notify affected individuals. Despite its vast experience
as a healthcare provider, Harvard Pilgrim and its parent
Point32Health, did not protect the personally identifying
information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") of
their patients—the Class Members.
The Defendants maintained Class Members' Private Information in a
negligent and/or reckless manner. In particular, the Private
Information was maintained on Defendants' computer system and
network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. Upon information
and belief, the mechanism of the cyberattack and potential for
improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private
Information was a known risk to Defendants, and thus Defendants
were on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure
Private Information from those risks left that Private Information
in a vulnerable condition.
As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members face a
substantial risk of imminent and certainly impending harm.
Plaintiff and Class Members have and will continue to suffer
injuries associated with this risk, including but not limited to a
loss of time, mitigation expenses, and anxiety over the misuse of
their Private Information, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff obtained healthcare from Harvard Pilgrim through June
30, 2021, and Private Information was stored with Harvard Pilgrim
and Point32Health as part of their provision of healthcare
services.
Harvard Pilgrim is one of the largest healthcare insurers in the
Northeast United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
Brendan Jarboe, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617) 398-5600
Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
Email: jason@blockleviton.com
brendan@blockleviton.com
- and -
James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20006
Phone: 202.540.7200
Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
- and -
Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street
Fourteenth Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: 646.357.1100
Email: snathan@hausfeld.com
- and -
Amy Keller, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: 312.214.7900
Email: akeller@dicellolevitt.com
HAWAII: Faces Class Suit Over Special Education Services
--------------------------------------------------------
Diane Ako of KITV Island News reports that a Honolulu attorney says
he's a few weeks away from filing a class action lawsuit against
the state over special education services.
Lawyer Eric Seitz was part of a group of attorneys who did this
once before, in 1993, and won. Seitz says he now has to take the
state to court, again.
Six-year-old Keala Rothwell doesn't speak and isn't potty trained.
And for most of the last four years, his parents, Summer and Corey,
say they have been fighting with the Hawaii Department of Education
(DOE) to get him services for his severe autism.
"Having autism at the level he does means there are no programs for
him, no summer camp. Not even a babysitter that would know how to
work with him," Summer said.
They hired Seitz and won, but the victory was short-lived. The
Rothwells are currently in talks with the DOE but say they are
expecting to have go back to court.
Enough parents have had similar stories that Seitz decided to sue
the state.
"The class action would be on behalf of all of the children in
Hawaii entitled to special education and mental health services in
relation to their special education care. It's estimated that
should be 10%-11% of kids in school."
This is a redux for Seitz, whose legal action resulted in the
historic 1994 Felix Consent Decree. It cost the state over $1
billion in special education reforms.
"It's become as it was in the '90s when we first filed a class
action; it's become a pitched war between the families of kids with
disabilities, and the DOE and Department of Health as well," Seitz
pronounced.
From Summer's perspective, Keala's special education classes have
kids with a range of physical and mental challenges.
"To expect that all those kids are going to progress and move
forward and gain new life skills is a crazy thought," she said.
According to Seitz, Hawai'i is underserving special education
children. "We're accepting federal money for special education and
not spending it on the children entitled to receive it," he claims.
Summer and Seitz urge parents to always be their child's best
advocate. "So many other families think if the school says no, that
means no. That the school has the best interest of our child in
mind, so when they say something's not available, it truly isn't
available. But it is," she pauses. "You just have to get a lawyer
to get it.
We asked the state for comment on July 5, 2023 and haven't heard
back.
"We have come to the understanding that every time we need the DOE
or Kahala Elementary do so something we have to hire an attorney,"
Summer said. [GN]
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN: Decision in Property Suit Spurs Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kirsti Marohn of MPRNews reports that in May, the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled that Hennepin County violated a Minneapolis woman's
rights when it sold her property for more than she owed in taxes,
and kept the surplus.
In the wake of that decision, three law firms have filed a
class-action lawsuit on behalf of other Minnesotans who, in similar
fashion, lost out on recouping their home's equity after it was
seized for unpaid property taxes.
One of the attorneys, Vildan Teske of Minneapolis, said there could
be many potential plaintiffs.
"We are still completing our investigations and discovery, but
believe class members likely number in the thousands and they are
located throughout Minnesota," Teske said.
In the Tyler v. Hennepin County decision, a unanimous Supreme Court
gave a 94-year-old Geraldine Tyler of Minneapolis a chance to
recoup some money after the county kept the entire $40,000 when it
sold her condominium in 2016.
Tyler stopped paying the property taxes on the condo after she
moved into a senior apartment in 2010. She owed about $15,000 in
unpaid property taxes, interest and fees.
The Supreme Court decided Hennepin County's action was an
unconstitutional "taking" of private property without just
compensation.
Lawsuit seeks equity
On June 23, Teske and other attorneys filed a class-action lawsuit
in Ramsey County on behalf of Sharon Sporleder, who lost her
Robbinsdale home to tax forfeiture in 2021, and "all others
similarly situated."
The lawsuit names the state, current and former revenue
commissioners, Hennepin and several other counties and their tax
officials.
The complaint provides few details about Sporleder's situation, and
her attorneys said she did not wish to speak to the media.
The complaint states that after the taxes on her property in
Hennepin County went unpaid, the county seized it. The state of
Minnesota currently holds the title. It has not been resold.
Sporleder did not intend to abandon the home, and has "no way" to
obtain any of the excess equity, the lawsuit states.
Hennepin County property tax records show Sporleder's property had
an estimated market value of about $224,000 the year before it went
into forfeiture. She owed about $33,000 in taxes and special
assessments, plus penalties, fees and interest.
The class-action lawsuit likely can't proceed until the details of
the Tyler decision are sorted out. The Supreme Court remanded that
case back to district court to determine how much compensation
Tyler is entitled to receive and who’s liable.
Awaiting changes
Meanwhile, Minnesota counties are scrambling to figure out how to
handle property forfeitures in the wake of the Tyler decision.
State lawmakers are expected to consider changes to the state’s
forfeiture law during the next legislative session, but that
doesn’t start until February.
Hennepin County continues to sell tax-forfeited properties, but
isn't distributing the excess money to local governments and school
districts until it receives direction from the Legislature, said
Dan Rogan, assistant county administrator and county auditor.
The Association of Minnesota Counties has created a work group that
will meet throughout the summer and fall to propose solutions for
lawmakers to consider, said Matt Hilgart, government relations
manager.
Hilgart said the main goal is to settle on a policy that reflects
the Supreme Court's findings while limiting financial impacts to
other property taxpayers, assuming that the cost of the tax
forfeiture process will increase.
Counties have argued that overall, they don't make a profit on tax
forfeitures, because they have to maintain the properties and
prepare them for sale.
But opponents of the practice say it disproportionately affects the
elderly, disabled and people with low incomes, who may not
understand notices they receive in the mail or don't have the means
to pay back taxes.
Minnesota is among roughly a dozen states and the District of
Columbia that allow local jurisdictions to keep the excess money,
according to the Pacific Legal Foundation, a not-for-profit public
interest law firm focused on property rights that represented Tyler
at the Supreme Court.
Pacific Legal is not involved in the class-action lawsuit. But in a
statement, Christina Martin, the attorney who argued the case
before the Supreme Court, said the decision makes it clear that the
government cannot take more than what it is owed.
"We are glad to see class action attorneys pressing to protect the
rights of the many people like Ms. Tyler across the state of
Minnesota who are owed just compensation," Martin stated. [GN]
INJURED WORKERS: Victims of Data Breach Have Standing for Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric T. Berkman at masslawyersweekly.com reports that the 1st U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that patients of an online
pharmacy who suffered a data breach can bring a class action
alleging that the theft of their personal information created a
risk of future harm.
In January 2021, hackers infiltrated the patient record systems of
defendant Injured Workers Pharmacy and allegedly stole personally
identifiable information -- or PII -- that included patient names
and Social Security numbers.
One of the lead plaintiffs, Alexsis Webb, claims the breach
resulted in a fraudulent tax return being filed on her behalf,
while the other lead plaintiff, Marsclette Charley, asserts that,
as a result of the breach, she suffered significant emotional
distress and expended considerable time and effort taking measures
to protect herself from identity theft.
A U.S. District Court judge granted Injured Workers Pharmacy's
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' putative class action on grounds
that their complaint did not plausibly allege an injury in fact as
required for Article III standing to bring a claim.
But the 1st Circuit reversed.
"The district court concluded that the complaint did not plausibly
allege a connection between the data breach and the filing of the
false tax return. . . . We disagree," Judge Sandra L. Lynch wrote.
"In our view, the complaint plausibly alleges a connection between
the actual misuse of Webb's PII and the data breach."
And though the complaint did not allege actual misuse of Charley's
information, Lynch said the panel concluded that, "in light of the
plausible allegations of some actual misuse, the complaint
plausibly alleges a concrete injury in fact based on the material
risk of future misuse of Charley's PII and a concrete harm caused
by exposure to this risk."
The 25-page decision is Webb, et al. v. Injured Workers Pharmacy,
LLC, Lawyers Weekly No. 01-119-22.
'Logically Consistent'
Washington, D.C., attorney David K. Lietz, who represents the
plaintiffs, said the ruling applies the Article III standing
analysis that the U.S. Supreme Court articulated in its 2021
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez decision, doing so in a "common sense and
logically consistent manner" with respect to the real-world fact
patterns that data breach cases pose.
"The Webb decision demonstrates that the federal court is still a
viable forum for data breach cases based upon the material risk of
future misuse," he added.
The attorney for Injured Workers Pharmacy, Claudia D. McCarron,
also of Washington, did not respond to requests for comment.
But Boston attorney Melanie A. Conroy, who defends companies in
data breach cases, said the ruling is certain to have ripple
effects that are both obvious and unintended.
For one thing, Conroy said, the decision will likely lead to an
uptick in data breach and privacy class actions in the 1st Circuit,
even when plaintiffs cannot demonstrate monetary harm, identity
theft or other tangible harms.
Meanwhile, she said, the ruling leaves open the question of whether
emotional distress, diminution in the value of PII, loss of
personal time, or even exposure of PII in a breach alone can
establish a concrete injury.
"I expect that plaintiffs' attorneys will attempt to apply the Webb
decision as expansively as possible, opening the door for
previously unsustainable cases to make their way through the
courts," she said.
Providence attorney Linn F. Freedman, who also represents
businesses in data breach cases, said the next step for the parties
is discovery, in which the plaintiff alleging that a fraudulent tax
return was filed on her behalf will face a barrage of deposition
questions to determine whether there was actually a causal
relationship between the fraudulent tax return and this particular
breach.
"There are so many data breaches, and there are lots of ways for
criminals to get personal information," Freedman said. "She'll be
asked whether she's ever received another data breach letter or
whether she was part of the Equifax breach, among other things."
Practically speaking, Freedman said she is not sure the case will
ever get to trial due to the cost of doing so, which is why so many
of the cases settle.
More broadly, Freedman said Webb is an unfortunate ruling.
"Now, if a plaintiff alleges a fact that could or could not be
related, it's precedent that you can't get out on a motion to
dismiss," Freedman said. "And a lot of these cases, frankly, are
opportunistic."
Peter N. Wasylyk, a Providence attorney who has represented
plaintiffs in data breach class actions, said the case will have
"resonating implications" for breach victims seeking to survive
motions to dismiss on the standing issue.
"Although not a panacea for all data breach cases, this case will
provide plaintiffs' attorneys with legal precedent that will lead
the way for data breach victims to bring claims for data breaches
in cases where those victims have not yet suffered identity theft
or other financial harm," he said.
Stolen information
Injured Workers Pharmacy, a home-delivery pharmacy service based in
Massachusetts, maintains records of patients' full names, Social
Security numbers and birthdates, as well as sensitive information
about their financial accounts, credit cards, health insurance,
medical treatment, prescriptions and providers.
Patients provided the pharmacy with the information in order to
receive its services. In turn, Injured Workers Pharmacy promised to
keep their data secure.
In January 2021, hackers infiltrated the pharmacy's patient record
systems, gaining access to the PII of more than 75,000 patients.
Injured Workers Pharmacy apparently did not discover the breach
until May 2021. Once it learned of the breach, instead of
immediately alerting patients, it allegedly undertook a seven-month
investigation and worked to implement new data security
safeguards.
When the pharmacy finally circulated a notice letter in February
2022, it allegedly failed to fully convey the size and scope of the
breach and claimed that it had no evidence that any information had
been misused.
As a result of the breach, Webb allegedly suffered fear for her
personal financial security, spent considerable time and effort
monitoring her accounts, and suffered anxiety and sleep
disruption.
She also claims the breach resulted in her PII being used to file a
fraudulent tax return, causing her to spend considerable time with
the Internal Revenue Service to resolve issues associated with it.
Charley alleges that Injured Workers Pharmacy's representatives
would not provide specific details on the type of information that
was accessed. Though she does not allege any specific misuse of her
information that subsequently occurred, she also claims she
suffered fear for her financial security, spent an exorbitant
amount of time taking measures to protect against identity theft,
and experienced rage, stress, anxiety, sleep disruption, fear and
physical pain.
In May 2022, the two plaintiffs filed a class action in U.S.
District Court seeking damages and injunctive relief.
Judge Richard G. Stearns granted Injured Workers Pharmacy's motion
to dismiss for lack of standing, and the plaintiffs appealed.
Plausible injury in fact
Reversing the lower court ruling, the 1st Circuit found that the
complaint indeed alleged a concrete injury in fact as required for
Article III standing.
Noting that prior precedent supports the conclusion that actual
misuse of PII may constitute an injury in fact, Lynch stated that
the complaint's plausible allegations of actual misuse of Webb's
stolen PII to file a fraudulent tax return was enough to state a
concrete injury.
"This conclusion accords with the law of other circuits," Lynch
said.
Accordingly, the panel rejected the defendant's argument that the
alleged actual misuse is not itself a concrete injury absent even
more resulting harm to Webb.
At the same time, the panel acknowledged that Charley's standing
"is more difficult."
Still, it found that given that the complaint made plausible
allegations of actual misuse of patients' PII, as illustrated by
the fraudulent tax return, the material risk of future misuse of
Charley's PII constituted a concrete injury as well.
"That at least some information stolen in a data breach has already
been misused also makes it likely that other portions of the stolen
data will be similarly misused," Lynch wrote. "And the risk of
future misuse may be heightened where the compromised data is
particularly sensitive."
Finally, Lynch said, the 1st Circuit joined other circuits "in
concluding that time spent responding to a data breach can
constitute a concrete injury sufficient to confer standing, at
least when that time would otherwise have been put to profitable
use."[GN]
J.D. WORKFORCE: Huerta Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE HUERTA, VINICIO MERA, and JOSE FLOREZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. J.D.
WORKFORCE, INC., MARAV USA LLC d/b/a BINGO WHOLESALE, HAMWATTIE
BISSOON, STEVEN DEANE, and DAVID WEISS, Defendants, Case No.
7:23-cv-05382 (S.D.N.Y., June 26, 2023) is an action seeking
equitable and legal relief on behalf of all Plaintiffs for
Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law; and on behalf of Plaintiff Huerta for violations of
the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human
Rights Law.
According to the complaint, Defendants knowingly failed to pay
Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs overtime wages of one
and one-half times their regular hourly rate of pay or the
applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a
week; failed to timely pay Plaintiffs and the Class members all
their earned wages on a weekly basis and not later than seven
calendar days after the end of the week in which the wages were
earned; failed to provide Plaintiffs and the Class members with
payroll notices; and failed to furnish to Plaintiffs and the Class
members with each wage payment.
Further, the Defendants failed to engage in a good faith
interactive process with Plaintiff Huerta, denied his requested
reasonable accommodations, and discriminated against Huerta because
of his known disability, says the suit.
Plaintiff Huerta was employed by the Defendants as a stocking clerk
at the Monsey location from October 1, 2020 until September 12,
2022.
Plaintiffs Mera and Florenz were employed by the Defendants as
cleaners at the Monsey Location from October 2, 2020 until March
14, 2022 and from January 7, 2022 until July 1, 2022,
respectively.
J.D. Worforce, Inc. is a staffing and payroll agency that provides
services to businesses in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania,
including coordinating payroll services and placement of workers to
supplement its clients' core workforce.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katherine Morales, Esq.
KATZ MELINGER PLLC
370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 460-0047
Facsimile: (212) 428-6811
E-mail: kymorales@katzmelinger.com
JOHN E. FEREBEE: Jones Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages, Retaliation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Jones, Terrell Bolling, Levy Ayers, Quanika Drake and J.K.
(a minor), and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v.
John E. Ferebee Farming, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00760
(M.D. Fla., June 30, 2023) is an action seeking to recover monetary
damages from the Defendant for Plaintiffs' unpaid regular wages and
retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The complaint asserts that Plaintiffs Jones, Bolling, and Drake,
did not receive wages corresponding with the number of hours
worked. The Plaintiffs were not paid for four hours of training
time, which is compensable time, and they were paid at an hourly
rate lower than the required minimum wage. Furthermore, Plaintiffs
Levy Ayers and J.K. (a minor) did not receive wages at all.
The Plaintiffs complained to their superiors about the number of
hours paid, the wage rate applied, the illegal deductions, or
penalties for unauthorized reasons, and about their working
conditions. As a response to Plaintiffs' complaints, Defendant
fired Plaintiffs immediately, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs were hired in Palatka, Putnam County, Florida to
work as farm laborers for the Defendant from approximately June 13,
2023, to June 21, 2023, or one week.
John E. Ferebee Farming, Inc. is a farm dedicated to growing a
variety of potatoes.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Doe Suit
------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. filed an appeal from the District Court's
Opinion and Order dated June 12, 2023 entered in the lawsuit
entitled JANE DOE 1, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff v. JAMES EDWARD STALEY, Third-Party
Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-10019 (JSR), in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The questions presented are: 1. Did the district court err by
certifying a class in the absence of a common policy or practice
that affected the class in a uniform manner? 2. Did the district
court err by certifying a class when the determination of liability
will require individualized, claimant-by-claimant inquiries that
will predominate over common issues? 3. Did the district court err
by certifying a class whose definition is broader than the
underlying causes of action at issue and necessarily includes a
substantial proportion of class members without viable claims?
Plaintiff Jane Doe brought this action against JPMC on behalf of
all women who were sexually abused or trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein
between August 1, 1998 (when Epstein began banking at JPMC) and
August 10, 2019 (when Epstein died by suicide), even though JPMC
discontinued Epstein as a client in 2013. Two categories of claims
remain. First, Doe argues that JPMC knowingly benefitted from
participating in a sex-trafficking venture in violation of the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act and obstructed enforcement of
the Act. Second, Doe argued that JPMC is liable under the New York
negligence law for failing to exercise reasonable care to prevent
physical harm and for failing to exercise reasonable care as a
banking institution providing non-routine banking services.
On June 12, 2023, Judge Jed S. Rakoff entered an Order granting
Plaintiff Jane Doe's motion for class certification. The Court
certified the proposed class, appointed Jane Doe as class
representative, and appointed Boies Schiller Flexner, LLP and
Edwards Pottinger, LLC as class counsel. Additionally, the Court
denied JP Morgan's motion to exclude the expert reports of Jane
Khodarkovsky as moot.
The appellate case is captioned as Jane Doe 1, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Respondent v.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Defendant-Petitioner, Case No. 23-939,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed
on June 23, 2023.[BN]
Defendant-Petitioner JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is represented by:
John Butts, Esq.
Felicia H. Ellsworth, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 526-6000
- and -
Boyd Johnson, Esq.
Alan E. Schoenfeld, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
7 World Trade Center
250 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 230-8800
KURBAN HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Albkeirat Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMRO SHEHADEH ALBKEIRAT, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KURBAN HOSPITALITY, LLC, a Florida
Corporation, d/b/a AMAR DELRAY, and NICOLAS KURBAN, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 9:23-cv-80970-DMM (S.D. Fla., June 27, 2023)
arises from the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and the other
non-exempt restaurant employees, similarly situated to him, at time
and one-half of their applicable regular rates of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per week pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendants during the three
year statute of limitations period between approximately January
2023 and April 2023, Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40
hours per week and Defendants paid Plaintiff based upon regular
rates between approximately $17.00 per hour and $19.00 per hour but
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff time and one-half wages for the
full extent of all of Plaintiff's actual overtime hours worked each
week, says the suit.
Kurban Hospitality, LLC owns and operates a Mediterranean
restaurant doing business as "AMAR DELRY" situated in Palm Beach
County, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith M. Stern, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 2000
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 901-1379
Facsimile: (561) 288-9031
E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
LAKESHORE LEARNING: Elder Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARIAH ELDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-015132 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial,
Broward Cty., June 26, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for
injunctive and declaratory relief as well as damages for violations
of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
The Plaintiff brings this action alleging that Defendant violated
the FTSA's Caller ID Rules. Specifically, Defendant made text
message sales calls that promoted Lakeshore Learning and violated
the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller
identification services a telephone number that was not capable of
receiving telephone calls and that did not connect the recipient to
either the caller or the Defendant, says the Plaintiff.
Lakeshore Learning Materials, LLC operates as a toy and game
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
E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollective.com
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Wins Class Suit Over Driver's Dealer Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
Daphne Zhang of Bloomberg Law reports that A Liberty Mutual
Insurance Co. unit defeated a Florida driver's proposed class
action seeking car dealer fee coverage related to an accident after
the Eleventh Circuit said the insurer correctly calculated the
insurance payment.
Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois doesn't have to pay dealer
fees for the driver, Gina Signor, to purchase a new car after her
old car was totaled in an accident, a 2-1 majority panel at the US
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit said on July 3, 2023.
[GN]
LIL PUFFS: Snacks Falsely Advertised as Healthy, Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter at classaction.org reports that the maker of Lil
Puffs faces a class action that claims the snacks are falsely
advertised as nutritious and healthy given that they contain
dangerously high levels of saturated fats.
The maker of Lil Puffs faces a proposed class action that claims
the snacks are falsely advertised as nutritious and healthy given
that they contain "dangerously" high levels of saturated fats.
The 48-page lawsuit against defendant LesserEvil, LLC says the Lil
Puffs products - which include the Veggie Blend, Strawberry Beet,
Sweet Potato Apple and Non-Dairy Cheddar flavors - are specifically
marketed as a "healthier" snack option for children under the age
of two.
However, the complaint contends that these health-focused
representations and label claims that the products are made with "0
Grams [of] Sugar" and "Good Fat from Organic Coconut Oil" are
misleading since the snacks contain "unsafe" fats in amounts
considered nutritionally and developmentally harmful for toddlers.
According to the suit, the consumption of saturated fats at levels
found in the defendant's products increases the risk of coronary
heart disease, stroke and other potentially life-threatening
ailments.
The lawsuit argues that LesserEvil's advertising of Lil Puffs
violates federal regulations, which prohibit certain products from
being represented as "healthy" when they contain more than three
grams of fat.
Federal regulations also mandate that food products that bear
nutrient content claims while containing more than 13 grams of fat
and four grams of saturated fat must include disclosure statements
directing consumers to examine the nutrition information, such as
"see nutrition information for fat content," the complaint relays.
Although Lil Puffs "far exceed" these saturated and total fat
amounts per serving, the products fail to include any mandatory
disclosure statements, the suit contends.
The case further claims that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) prohibits companies like LesserEvil from making nutrient
content claims on products intended for children under two because
the agency "lacks evidence that a more restrictive dietary pattern
for other nutrients such as sodium or an increased intake for
nutrients such as fiber are appropriate and recommended for infants
and toddlers."
"Intending to profit from parents' and caretakers' increasing
desire to purchase food for young children that provides physical
health benefits, Defendant misbrands its baby and toddler food
products by making nutrient content claims on the product packages
that are strictly prohibited by the [FDA]," the filing charges.
The plaintiff, a California consumer, says she purchased Lil Puffs
on multiple occasions based on the defendant's representations that
the product would be a healthy snack for her toddler. Like other
consumers, the woman would not have bought the snacks, or she would
have paid less for them, had she known the products contained a
"dangerously high" amount of saturated fat, the case claims.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone who purchased LesserEvil's
Lil Puffs within the United States and during the applicable
statute of limitations period.[GN]
M PIZZA INC: Ellison Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Ellison, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. M Pizza, Inc.; Michael Clise; Margaret Clise; Robert
Clise; Doe Corporation 1-10; and John Doe 1-10, Defendants, Case
No. 1:23-cv-01715-BPG (D. Md., June 26, 2023) seeks appropriate
monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on Defendants'
willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals with minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Maryland Wage
Payment and Collection Law, and for unjust enrichment.
According to the complaint, the Defendants repeatedly and willfully
violated the FLSA, MWHL, and MWPCL by failing to adequately
reimburse delivery drivers for their delivery-related expenses,
thereby failing to pay delivery drivers the legally mandated
minimum wages for all hours worked.
The Plaintiff worked at the Domino's Pizza store in Hagerstown, MD,
owned and operated by Defendants, from November 2020 through
November 2021 as a delivery driver.
The Defendants' Domino's stores are owned and/or operated by a
number of entities and individuals, each of whom employ Plaintiff
and the delivery drivers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John B. Stolarz, Esq.
THE STOLARZ LAW FIRM
6509 York Road
Baltimore, MD 21212
Telephone: (410) 532-7200
Facsimile: (410) 372-0529
E-mail: stolarz@verizon.net
- and -
Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
Laura E. Farmwald, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515
Cincinnati, OH 45209
Telephone: (513) 715-8712
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
akimble@billerkimble.com
lfarmwald@billerkimble.com
MACY'S INC: Agrees to Settle CVC Sheets False Ads Suit for $10.5-M
------------------------------------------------------------------
topclassactions.com reports that Macy's agreed to pay $10.5 million
to resolve claims that CVC sheets were falsely advertised with an
inflated thread count. No proof of purchase is required for class
members to benefit from the settlement.
The settlement benefits consumers who purchased one or more CVC
Sheets supplied by AQ Textiles LLC from a Macy's store between Nov.
8, 2013, and March 24, 2023.
The Macy's class action lawsuit claims CVC Sheets were labeled with
an inflated thread count. This alleged false advertising caused
consumers to overpay for the sheet sets, the plaintiffs contend.
Macy's is a national retailer. The department store sells CVC
Sheets supplied by AQ Textiles.
Macy's hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $10.5 million
settlement to resolve the CVC Sheets false advertising class action
lawsuit.
Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive a cash
payment based on the number of CVC Sheets they purchased from
Macy's.
Claimants who provide proof of purchase or whose purchases can be
verified by Macy's records can receive $7.50 per unit of CVC
Sheets.
Claimants without proof of purchase can receive $2.50 per
household, regardless of the number of sheets they purchased.
If the number of claims exceeds the net settlement fund, payments
may be reduced on a pro rata basis.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 6, 2023.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Oct.
20, 2023.
In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit
a valid claim form within 180 of the effective date. Based on the
scheduled final approval hearing, the estimated claim form deadline
is April 17, 2024.
Who's Eligible
Consumers who purchased one or more CVC Sheets supplied by AQ
Textiles LLC from a Macy's store between Nov. 8, 2013 and March 24,
2023
Potential Award
$7.50 per unit of CVC sheets
Proof of Purchase
Receipts or other proof of purchase.
Claim Form
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
04/17/2024
Case Name
Hawes v. Macy's West Stores Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00754, and
Chiaraluce, et al. v. Macy's Inc., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00081,
both in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Final Hearing
10/20/2023
Settlement Website
CVCSheetSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
CVC Sheets Claims Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
info@CVCSheetSettlement.com
844-483-0488
Class Counsel
Michael McShane
AUDET & PARTNERS LLP
Charles Schaffer
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
Charles LaDuca
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
Defense Counsel
Jennifer K Van Zant
Andrew L Rodenbough
BROOKS PIERCE McLENDON HUMPHREY & LEONARD, LLP
Beth A Bryan
TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP[GN]
MACY'S MERCHANDISING: Stock Sues Over Mislabeled Bedding Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Stock, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Macy's Merchandising Group, Inc. and Macy's,
Inc. Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-05113 (C.D. Cal., June 27, 2023)
is a class action against the Defendants for breaches of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, unjust
enrichment/quasi-contract, and violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, and
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
This class action seeks to challenge Defendants' false and
deceptive practices in the labeling, marketing and sale of its Oake
brand "100% Cotton" products including comforters, coverlets,
quilts, duvets, and shams. Specifically, the front label of the
products prominently state that such are "100% Cotton," indicating
that the products are made solely with cotton. Unbeknownst to
consumers however, the products are not "100% Cotton" because they
contain polyester filling. Indeed, only the cover of the products
is made with cotton, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and other class members purchased the products and
paid a premium price based upon their reliance on Defendants' front
label representation that the products are "100% Cotton." Had
Plaintiff and Class members been aware that the products are not
"100% Cotton," Plaintiff and Class members would not have purchased
the products or would have paid significantly less for them.
Accordingly, Plaintiff and Class members have been injured by
Defendants' deceptive business practices, the suit alleges.
Macy's Merchandising Group, Inc. provides retail sale of apparels
and accessories with headquarters in New York City, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq.
Joshua Nassir, Esq.
TREEHOUSE LAW, LLP
10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 751-5948
E-mail: bheikali@treehouselaw.com
rglezakos@treehouselaw.com
jnassir@treehouselaw.com
MDL 3037: Plaintiffs Appeal Claims Dismissal in Infant Formula Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation styled IN RE:
RECALLED ABBOTT INFANT FORMULA PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL
No. 3037, pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, took an appeal from the District
Court's Order dated May 22, 2023.
This MDL involves lawsuits by numerous Plaintiffs who allege that
they have suffered injuries caused by infant formula manufactured
by Abbott Laboratories. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation consolidated the cases before the Court for pretrial
proceedings. The cases in the MDL involve two categories of claims:
(1) individual claims seeking recovery for personal injuries
allegedly caused by Abbott's formula and (2) putative class claims
premised on alleged economic losses from purchases of Abbott's
formula.
The Plaintiffs allege that Abbott failed to disclose that its
infant formula risked containing harmful bacteria. In their
consolidated amended complaint, they assert claims on behalf of a
nationwide class and twenty state classes for violations of state
consumer fraud acts, unjust enrichment, breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability, and negligent misrepresentation.
Abbott has moved to dismiss all the claims under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of standing and Rule 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim.
On May 1, 2023, the Court held a hearing on Abbott's motion to
dismiss.
On May 22, 2023, Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly granted Abbott's
Rule 12(b)(1) motion. In its opinion addressing Abbott's motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint filed by the Plaintiffs
solely alleging economic losses, the Court dismisses Plaintiff
Andriana Sanders's negligent misrepresentation claim; Jane
Hernandez, Magdalena Maggie Mendoza, Clarissa Ornelas, Cynthia
Salinas, and Trevor Stephens's (Texas plaintiffs) fraudulent
concealment claims; Luis A. Suarez's claim for breach of warranty
of fitness for a particular purpose; Toledo-Vega's implied warranty
claim; Jessica Williamson and Kilpatrick's negligence per se
claims; and Contreras, Hernandez, William Holdridge, Mendoza,
Ornelas, Salinas, Stephens, Toledo-Vega, and Williamson's unjust
enrichment claims and requests for injunctive and/or declaratory
relief.
The appellate case is captioned as IN RE: RECALLED ABBOTT INFANT
FORMULA PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. 23-2233, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on
June 22, 2023.[BN]
MOHAWK COUNCIL OF KAHNAWAKE: Files Boarding Homes Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
indiantime.net reports that the Mohawk Council of Kahnawa:ke (MCK)
launched a Boarding Homes class action lawsuit. MCK informed the
community on July 7, 2023 of the pending class action lawsuit
settlement against the Government of Canada, for the implementation
of the Indian Boarding Home Program.
The program, which placed children from First Nations and Inuit
communities with private families (usually non-Indigenous) to stay
for the purpose of attending school, was found to create an
environment where children were abused, harassed, and suffered
other harms. The prolonged absence from family and community also
caused loss of culture, language, and community bonding.
According to MCK, the proposed settlement classes are defined as
follows:
Primary Class: Individuals who were placed in private homes, during
the period of September 1, 1951, and June 30, 1992, for the purpose
of attending school, not including placements for post-secondary
education. Individuals placed after June 3, 1992, are eligible if
Canada was responsible for their placement.
Family Class: members of the individual's family who lost the
guidance, care, or companionship they could expect from the
individual.
Although this class action suit is not related to the Indian Day
Schools Settlement, Louise Mayo is available to answer questions
and/or assisting persons who wish to participate and receive
compensation from the lawsuit. She can be contacted at 514-793-0662
or via email at louise.mayo@mck.ca. [GN]
MONISON PALLETS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Garcia Says
----------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER I. GARCIA, Plaintiff v. MONISON PALLETS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-22451 (S.D. Fla., June 30, 2023) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, to recover monetary damages for unpaid half-time
overtime hours under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked at Defendant's facilities in Miami, Florida as
a non-exempted, full-time hourly employee from approximately March
15, 2013, to June 09, 2023, or more than 10 years. While employed
by Defendant, Plaintiff says that he worked more than 40 hours
weekly, but he was not paid for overtime hours at any rate, not
even at that minimum wage rate as required by the FLSA.
Monison Pallets is a Florida-based manufacturer of pallets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
NEW HORIZONS: Faces Class Suit Over Health Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------
Skye Witley of Bloomberg Law reports that New Horizons Medical,
Inc. faces a proposed class action in Massachusetts federal court
alleging it failed to properly protect patient's health information
from cybercriminals, adding to the sector's growing number of data
breaches.
New Horizons, a mental health and substance abuse treatment
provider, was robbed of sensitive data—including health insurance
claims, medical diagnoses, and prescription information—in a
February hack, according to the complaint filed in the US District
Court for the District of Massachusetts said. [GN]
OPENAI INC: FTC Probes Regarding Accuracy and Consumer Protections
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin George at investopedia.com reports that the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) has opened an investigation into OpenAI, the
company behind ChatGPT, questioning its data accuracy and consumer
protections.
The FTC sent a letter to OpenAI seeking records related to its risk
management practices, according to reports by The Washington Post.
The move is the first regulatory action against the platform since
the agency said it would monitor AI technologies closely to see how
they align with existing consumer protection laws. The focus of the
FTC's investigation is reportedly to determine whether OpenAI "has
engaged in unfair or deceptive practices" with regard to the
reputational risk of consumers.
Last week, the actress, comedian, and writer Sarah Silverman filed
a class action lawsuit against OpenAI and Meta, alongside two other
authors. The claimants say the tech companies are using copyrighted
artists' work as material to train their Large Language Models
(LLM).
In June, a public interest law firm filed a suit against OpenAI in
a California federal court, alleging OpenAI engages in "unlawful
and harmful conduct in developing, marketing, and operating their
AI products, which use stolen private information from hundreds of
millions of internet users without their informed consent or
knowledge."
Both cases are part of a debate over whether artificial
intelligence technology is crossing the line with copyrighted
material, which Congress brought up when OpenAI CEO Sam Altman
appeared before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee in May.
Altman told Congress that content owners should receive a
"significant upside benefit" when their works are used to create
chatbot outputs.
The FTC issued a report to Congress in June 2022 warning over the
use of artificial intelligence to combat "online harms." The agency
cited inaccuracy, bias, and commercial surveillance as reasons to
be wary of adopting the new technologies.
Debate continues to rage over artificial intelligence after
Microsoft's (MSFT) integration of ChatGPT this year saw chatbots
become mainstream, with other tech firms such as Alphabet (GOOGL)
and Baidu (BIDU) racing to compete with their own LLM offerings.
The European Union is set to vote soon on an AI regulatory
framework, but the U.S. has not yet dedicated the resources
required to tackle the complexity of policing the nascent
technology.
News of the FTC's investigation comes one day after Elon Musk
announced the launch of a new company, xAI. Musk has been a critic
of ChatGPT and said he wanted to launch a rival "TruthGPT," citing
the inaccuracy and bias of the platform.[GN]
PATRICK O'DANIEL: Cone Files Bid to Stay Filing Fee, Amended Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY CONE V. PATRICK L.
O'DANIEL, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00136-H (N.D. Tex.), the
Plaintiff files a motion to stay filing fee and amended complaint.
On June 13, 2023, the Court severed Case No. 1:23-CV-00086-H and
ordered each Plaintiff to submit a complete amended complaint and
pay the filing fee of $402/file IFP.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 23, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PLsgqy at no extra
charge.[CC]
PATRICK O'DANIEL: Grisham Files Bid to Stay Filing Fee
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Benjamin Grisham v.
Patrick L. O'Daniel et al, Case No. 1:23-cv-00139-H (N.D. Tex.),
the Plaintiff files a motion to stay filing fee and amended
complaint.
On June 13, 2023, the Court severed Case No. 1:23-CV-00086-H and
ordered each Plaintiff to submit a complete amended complaint and
pay the filing fee of $402/file IFP.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 23, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JLGkfS at no extra
charge.[CC]
PATRICK O'DANIEL: Guerra Files Bid to Stay Filing Fee, Amended Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZACHARY GUERRA V. PATRICK
L. O'DANIEL et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00141-H (N.D. Tex.), the
Plaintiff files a motion to stay filing fee and amended complaint.
On June 13, 2023, the Court severed Case No. 1:23-CV-00086-H and
ordered each Plaintiff to submit a complete amended complaint and
pay the filing fee of $402/file IFP.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion order dated June 23, 2023, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JN41Vg at no
extra charge.[CC]
PATRICK O'DANIEL: Johnson Files Bid to Stay Filing Fee
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jeffrey Johnson v. Patrick
L. O'Daniel, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00142-H (N.D. Tex.), .the
Plaintiff files a motion to stay filing fee and amended complaint.
On June 13, 2023, the Court severed Case No. 1:23-CV-00086-H and
ordered each Plaintiff to submit a complete amended complaint and
pay the filing fee of $402/file IFP.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 23, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NPOLZ8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
PATRICK O'DANIEL: Panus Files Bid to Stay Filing Fee, Amended Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN PANUS, et al., v.
PATRICK L. O'DANIEL, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00086-H (N.D. Tex.),
the Plaintiff files a motion to stay filing fee and amended
complaint.
On June 13, 2023, the Court severed Case No. 1:23-CV-00086-H and
ordered each Plaintiff to submit a complete amended complaint and
pay the filing fee of $402/file IFP.
A copy of Plaintiff's motion dated June 23, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XLoKyG at no extra charge.[CC]
PBI RESEARCH: Faces Class Suit Over Breach of Data Privacy
----------------------------------------------------------
Cathie Anderson of The Sacramento Bee reports that CalPERS
pensioners David Berry and Bonnie Gayle Ng filed a lawsuit on June
30, 2023 in San Francisco federal court for damages they suffered
as a result of a data breach that exposed their names, social
security numbers, birth dates and other personally identifiable
information. The lawsuit seeks class-action status on behalf of all
California residents whose data was stolen in May from PBI Research
Services + Berwyn Group, alleging that the companies did not
maintain reasonable security measures or adequately protect
California residents' privacy. Both CalPERS and CalSTRS, the
nation's two largest public pension funds, contracted with PBI to
identify retirees or beneficiaries who had died, helping them to
prevent overpayments or other errors. PBI used a data transfer
software called MoveIt, made by Progress Software, to securely
exchange information with its clients.
In May, a ransomware group known as Clop or C10p discovered a flaw
or vulnerability in the MoveIt software and punched through it,
gaining access and foiling encryption protocols. Clop claimed to
have stole information from hundreds of organizations around the
world, and PBI is one of about 150 entities that have acknowledged
being victims. Roughly 16 million people around the world are
estimated to have had data compromised. PBI, based in Minneapolis,
did not reply to The Sacramento Bee's request on July 3, 2023 for
comment on the lawsuit. Its leaders posted a statement related to
the breach. In part, it read: "At the end of May, Progress Software
identified a cyberattack in their MOVEit software that did impact a
small percentage of our clients who use the MOVEit administrative
portal software resulting in access to private records. This
incident did not gain access to PBI's core systems or software. PBI
promptly patched its instance of MOVEit, assembled a team of
cybersecurity and privacy specialists, notified federal law
enforcement, and contacted impacted clients." The pension funds
announced the breaches on June 22, angering retirees who wanted to
know why they waited so long to tell them that their confidential
information was in the hands of hackers.
San Francisco-based attorneys Julie Erickson, Elizabeth Kramer and
Kevin Osborne brought the lawsuit on behalf of Ng and Berry. "PBI's
website heavily advertises itself as a secure host of personal
information, claiming, 'protecting and securing your information is
our highest priority,'" the attorneys stated in the lawsuit. "While
long on promises, PBI fell tragically short of expectations in
practice." CalSTRS said it learned June 4 that PBI had been
affected by the MoveIt hack, and CalPERS said June 6. But it took
several days before PBI confirmed that the pension funds’ data
were among the files breached. In total, roughly 1.2 million
retirees and beneficiaries had data stolen, according to figures
reported by the two funds. LAWSUIT: PBI DIDN'T GIVE ENOUGH DETAIL
ON DATA BREACH In the lawsuit, the attorneys cites CalPERS saying
that PBI's initial communication "did not provide sufficient detail
as to the scope of the data that was impacted and the individuals
to which that data belonged."
Both pension funds told The Bee that they did their own
investigations to determine which member accounts were compromised.
CalSTRS said that PBI indicated that the hackers accessed the data
between May 29 and May 30. "A substantial majority of the
funds'pensioners are fixed-income seniors," the lawsuit noted.
"They are now prime targets cyberthreats. Their personal
information is exposed in the dark corners of the internet because
of PBI's lax security." A cybersecurity expert told The Bee that a
recent texting scam aimed at Golden 1 Credit Union account holders
could be linked to the data stolen in the MoveIt software breach.
"Upon receiving news of the breach, pensioners were panicked," the
attorneys stated in the complaint. "Many immediately attempted to
contact the funds to determine the source of the breach or request
confirmation of the safety of their pensions. The nature of this
incident has caused and will continue to cause them stress, anger,
and fear for the safety of their identity and income." The lawsuit
noted that the National Institute of Standards and Technology has
found that hackers often steal data and hold it for use years or
even decades down the road.. It costs about $30 a month to pay for
identity protection, the attorneys said. The plaintiffs are
alleging that PBI was negligent and that it violated the California
Consumer Privacy Act, the Customer Records Act, the California
Constitution's right to privacy and the Unfair Competition Law.
[GN]
PETLAB CO: Hughes Sues Over Deceptive Advertising Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
DANA HUGHES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PETLAB CO., a Delaware corporation; and DOES
1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-05257 (C.D. Cal.,
July 2, 2023) is a class action complaint brought by the Plaintiff
to challenge PetLab Co.'s deceptive advertising practices in
violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and
California's Unfair Competition Law.
Allegedly, PetLab's automatic renewal and continuous service offers
in connection with a number of dog and cat supplies, treats, snacks
and chews available through its website
(https://thepetlabco.com/collections) violates clearly established
law. Among other things, PetLab (a) enrolls consumers in automatic
renewal and continuous service subscriptions without providing
clear and conspicuous disclosures about the program or the
associated charges; (b) charges consumers' credit and debit cards
without first obtaining their "affirmative consent" to the charge;
and (c) fails to provide a cost-effective, timely, and easy-to-use
mechanism for cancellation, says the suit.
The Plaintiff ultimately purchased PetLab's "Itch Relief Chew Pro"
for $29.96. After this initial transaction, however, PetLab
enrolled Plaintiff into an automatic renewal subscription --
automatically charging her another $29.96 one month later --
without providing the clear and conspicuous disclosures required by
California law, the suit contends.
PetLab Co. offers a number of dog and cat supplies, treats, snacks
and chews through its website.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin J. Cole, Esq.
KJC LAW GROUP, A.P.C.
9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1000
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 861-7797
E-mail: kevin@kjclawgroup.com
PHARMACARE US: Fact Discovery Due Dec. 20
-----------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONTIQUENO CORBETT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et
al., v. PHARMACARE U.S., INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00137-JES-AHG (S.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Allison H. Goddard entered an order resolving
opposed joint motion, granting in Part the Plaintiff's motion to
extend fact discovery deadline, and issuing fourth amended
scheduling order.
1. The briefing schedule and motion July 28, 2023
hearing regarding The Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification
remain unchanged. The Defendant's
opposition must be filed by:
2. All fact discovery must be completed Dec. 20, 2023
by all parties by:
3. A Settlement Conference will be Dec. 1, 2023
conducted on:
4. Each party must submit a Nov. 27, 2023.
Confidential Settlement Letter
to the Court via email(to efile
goddard@casd.uscourts.gov) by:
5. The parties shall designate their Jan. 16, 2024.
respective merits experts in
writing by:
6. All other pretrial motions must May 1, 2024
be filed by:
A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44modWs at no extra charge.[CC]
PRO SERVICES: Garrido Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation
------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID D. GARRIDO, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. PRO SERVICES GROUP, LLC, a/k/a
POOL PRO and ADAM EDISON, individually, Defendants, Case No.
9:23-cv-80986 (S.D. Fla., June 30, 2023) is an action brought by
the Plaintiff against the Defendants to recover money damages for
unpaid overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a pool technician
from approximately January 15, 2023, to June 09, 2023, or 21 weeks.
He asserts that Defendants willfully failed to pay him minimum
wages as well as overtime wages, at the rate of time and a half his
regular rate, for every hour that he worked in excess of 40. He
further contends that Defendant willfully and maliciously
retaliated against him by engaging in a retaliatory action
materially adverse to a reasonable employee and with the purpose of
dissuading him from exercising his rights.
Pro Services Group, LLC is a pool cleaning and maintenance company.
The Company provides pool cleaning and maintenance services to
commercial and residential accounts in the area of Palm Beach
County, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
RIPPLE LABS: Court Certifies Class Suit Only to U.S. Investors
--------------------------------------------------------------
Omono Okonkwo of Nairametrics reports that Port-Harcourt-based oil
and gas servicing firm, Eastline Energy Resources Limited, has
initiated a class action lawsuit against Conoil Producing Limited
over a $774,789 debt.
The lawsuit is intended to be a class action lawsuit domiciled in
the USA, as stated in a June 14 letter sent to various parties,
including the President's Chief of Staff, Femi Gbajabiamila, and
members of staff of Conoil and the Nigerian National Petroleum
Company Limited.
Eastline Energy Resources Limited accuses Conoil Producing Limited
of being one of the most notorious bad actors in Nigeria's oil and
gas industry, according to the letter signed by the company's CEO,
Obioma Chimechefulem.
Port-Harcourt-based oil and gas servicing firm, Eastline Energy
Resources Limited, has initiated a class action lawsuit against
Conoil Producing Limited over a $774,789 debt.
In a June 14 letter addressed to several parties including the
President's Chief of staff, Femi Gbajabiamila as well as members of
staff of Conoil and the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited
stated its intentions of a class action lawsuit domiciled in the
USA against Conoil.
The letter, which was signed by the company's Chief Executive
Officer, Obioma Chimechefulem, accused Conoil Producing Limited of
being one of the most notorious bad actors in Nigeria's oil and gas
industry.
Crux of the matter
According to the letter, Conoil Producing Limited has refused to
pay Eastline Energy Resources for services rendered on some of its
oil and gas assets. A part of the letter stated:
"We at Eastline Energy Resources Limited, an industry leader in a
variety of oil and gas services, worked for Conoil at its OML 59 &
OML 150 oil fields. The jobs were completed satisfactorily and as
per the contract, a balance of $774,789 was to be paid to Eastline
for services rendered.
"Conoil has used every measure to avoid paying us. One of the most
notorious "bad actors" in the oil & gas industry is Conoil
Producing Limited. The mere mention of the company's name elicits
fear, condemnation, and damnation.
For decades the Board and management of Conoil have deliberately
and systematically destroyed the fortunes and livelihoods of many
contractors that work for them. Conoil is synonymous with the word,
"debt".
"The company goes to extreme lengths, on purpose, to ensure that
once it has retained a service from a contractor for a job, it
ceases to pay any monies owed. We have it on good authority that it
currently owes Total E&P Nigeria - $70 million, Halliburton - $30
million, Depthwize - $15 million, and Shelf Drilling -$20 million,
to name a few-these do not take into account the billions of Naira
owed to local contractors."
The Way Forward
According to the company, it has decided to join a group of
aggrieved foreign and local contractors in a class action lawsuit
against Conoil which will be filed at the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York. This is because Conoil has
been known to subvert the course of justice of the legal system in
Nigeria when cases are brought against the company.
A part of the letter also stated:
"Most lawsuits against Conoil in Nigeria are trapped in a legal
quagmire. We are confident that our lawsuit in the United States
will get us the justice we deserve.
"Please note that we are not the first company to take Conoil to
court overseas-oil trading firm, Vitol, did so in 2009 in a United
Kingdom court and won its case handily. Conoil as an organization
is the poster child for corporate fraud at an unimaginable scale."
Call for a review of Conoil assets
As stated in the letter, Eastline Energy Resources has called for
an in-depth government review of Conoil and its non-producing
assets, which it has held for years without production. Eastline
claims that the OML 136 asset, which has been in Conoil's
possession since 1991, has not produced a drop of oil or gas.
Meanwhile, the OML 150 asset which was awarded to Conoil in 2007,
has also not produced any hydrocarbons and the central flow station
has been subjected to mismanagement & community attacks that have
led to kidnappings and the loss of life.
The letter also highlighted OML 153 which was also awarded to
Conoil in 2007, is yet to come into production, leading to loss of
revenue to the Nigerian state. It also mentioned the OPL 257
awarded decades ago that is yet to be converted to an OML, despite
being next to the Egina field which is effectively run by
TotalEnergies.
Leadership Challenge
Eastline Energy Resources also accused Conoil leadership of being
unfocused, nefarious, ill-equipped, and under-prepared for
challenges. The letter also highlighted Jeffrey Tesler, a former
lawyer, and convicted felon, of being a shadow director and advisor
at Conoil for years.
According to the letter, Mr. Tesler was sentenced to 21 months in a
US prison (Fort Dix, New Jersey) for his involvement in a $150
million bribery scandal. A part of the letter also stated:
"As part of the presidency's promise to clean up the oil and gas
sector, Conoil should be at the very top of this housekeeping and
house-clearing exercise. One rotten fruit can contaminate an entire
harvest.
"No organization is above the law or free of punitive measures for
its unjust actions. This letter will be part of the class action
lawsuit filed against Conoil at the United States District Court in
New York." [GN]
RIPPLE LABS: Court Certifies Zakinov Suit Over XRP Digital Asset
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bitcoinist reports that in a significant development for XRP
investors, federal judge Phyllis J. Hamilton from the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California has
certified a class of investors in the class-action lawsuit Zakinov
vs. Ripple Labs Inc. The lead plaintiff alleges that Ripple
violated federal and state laws by failing to register its digital
asset, XRP, as a security.
The judge's order enables tens of thousands of XRP purchasers to
assert their securities claims against Ripple, its subsidiary XRP
II, and CEO Bradley Garlinghouse as part of the class. As
Bitcoinist reported, the last hearing in the XRP investor class
action lawsuit against Ripple took place two months ago.
Lead plaintiff Bradley Sostack, filed a motion to form a class
consisting of all XRP owners worldwide who bought and now hold XRP
or sold XRP at a loss.
What The Ruling Means For Ripple And XRP Investors
U.S. Senior District Judge Phyllis Hamilton, overseeing the
litigation, issued the class certification order on June 30,
affirming the right of U.S. investors to seek legal recourse.
However, it is important to note that the defense attorneys
successfully argued for limiting the case to U.S. investors,
despite Ripple’s global reach.
Judge Hamilton acknowledged the evolving legal landscape
surrounding cryptocurrencies and emphasized that different
countries are grappling with the classification of digital assets.
She expressed the need to allow other jurisdictions to enforce
their own cryptocurrency regulations, stating, "Given the evolving
legal landscape in this area, the court is unwilling to apply
California law to a worldwide class of XRP purchasers."
This ruling is a significant win for the lead plaintiff and his
legal representatives, Susman Godfrey and Taylor-Copeland Law.
Sostack alleges that he suffered a loss of $118,100 after selling
his XRP in 2018 due to Ripple's misleading statements regarding the
status of the coin as a security. The decision paves the way for
other XRP investors to join the class action and seek compensation
for their alleged losses.
Unsurprisingly, Ripple and Garlinghouse's defense attorneys
contended that the class members held conflicting views on whether
XRP should be considered a security. They argued that this
divergence would create a conflict within the class.
However, Judge Hamilton dismissed this argument, stating that any
disagreements could be addressed through the standard opt-out
procedure, allowing dissenting class members to remove themselves
from the lawsuit.
Looking ahead, Nick Spear of Susman Godfrey expressed satisfaction
with the court's decision and looks forward to the next phase of
the litigation. On the other hand, a spokesperson from Ripple
highlighted the rejection of the plaintiffs' request for a
"worldwide class" and emphasized the importance of allowing other
countries to regulate cryptocurrencies as they see fit.
The spokesperson also mentioned the court's willingness to await
the outcome of the ongoing SEC v. Ripple case before proceeding
further:
With this ruling, the court also indicated its willingness to await
the outcome of the SEC v. Ripple case before moving forward with
this suit, brought by professional plaintiff lawyers seeking to
profit off the United States' failure to provide regulatory
clarity. [GN]
RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Fraud Class Suit Over Vehicle Prices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel of Reuters reports that a federal judge said
Rivian Automotive (RIVN.O) must face a lawsuit claiming it
defrauded shareholders during and after its blockbuster 2021
initial public offering by concealing that had underpriced its
electric vehicles, leading to unpopular price hikes.
U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton in Los Angeles said
shareholders could try to prove that Rivian, which is not
profitable, knew it would have to raise prices on its R1S SUV and
R1T pickup truck because of higher materials costs, to avoid even
bigger losses.
Rivian's share price slid 39% over 10 days after the Irvine,
California-based company on March 1, 2022 raised the R1S price to
$84,500 from $70,000 and the R1T price to $79,500 from $67,500,
angering customers on social media and elsewhere.
The company backtracked two days later, saying customers who
pre-ordered vehicles before March 1 would not face the higher
prices. RJ Scaringe, Rivian's founder and chief executive,
apologized and told customers "we broke your trust."
In her July 3 decision, Staton called the alleged higher costs a
"major obstacle to profitability unique to Rivian," not merely a
"garden-variety" problem.
"The inference that Rivian senior executives knew that the (bill of
materials) cost for each R1 EV exceeded its retail price by
approximately $40,000 leading up to the IPO is far more plausible
than the inference that those executives were in the dark about the
issue," Staton added.
Rivian spokesman Harry Porter declined to comment, saying Rivian
does not discuss pending litigation.
Lawyers for Swedish pension fund Sjunde AP-Fonden, the lead
plaintiff in the proposed class action, did not immediately respond
to requests for comment.
Staton also refused to dismiss claims against the IPO's lead
underwriters Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley.
Backed by Amazon.com (AMZN.O), Rivian went public at $78.00 per
share on Nov. 10, 2021, raising about $12 billion in that year's
largest IPO. read more
The lawsuit covers shareholders from that date to March 10, 2022.
In morning trading, Rivian shares were down 20 cents at $20.23 on
the Nasdaq.
The case, which names a different plaintiff, is Crews v. Rivian
Automotive Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Central District of
California, No. 22-01524. [GN]
ROCKY MOUNTAIN ATV: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rocky Mountain ATV,
Inc. The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Rocky Mountain ATV, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-05786-PGG-VF (S.D.N.Y., July 6, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Rocky Mountain ATV/MC -- https://www.rockymountainatvmc.com/ -- is
your one-stop shop for motocross, ADV, UTV, ATV, dirt bike and
street bike gear.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
SAS SERVICES: Villanueva Suit Removed to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Allison Villanueva, as an individual, on
behalf of herself, and all persons similarly situated v. SAS
SERVICES SAN DIEGO, INC, a California Corporation., G2 SECURE
STAFF, L.L.C., a Texas Corporation. and G2 SECURE STAFF CA, L.P., a
Texas Corporation, and DOES 1-10, Case No.
37-2023-00016073-CU-OE-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of San Diego, to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on July 6,
2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01243-LAB-DEB.
On June 29, 2023, Plaintiff served counsel for Defendants with an
amended class and representative action Complaint in the Superior
Court Action (the "FAC"). The Plaintiff's FAC alleges the following
class and representative claims based on alleged violations of the
California Labor Code: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages, Overtime
and/or Double Time Compensation; Failure to Provide Legally
Complaint Meal Periods or Compensation In Lieu Thereof; Failure to
Provide Legally Compliant Rest Periods or Compensation In Lieu
Thereof; Failure to Pay All Wages Owed Upon Separation; Failure to
Provide Paid Sick Leave And Written Notice of the Amount of Sick
Leave Available; Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage
Statements; Failure to Maintain Accurate Records; Failure to
Provide Copies of Signed Documents; Failure to Reimburse for
Necessary Work Expenses; Violation of Unfair Competition Law
(Business & Professions Code); and Private Attorneys General Act of
2004.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
John S. Battenfeld, Esq.
Kathy H. Gao, Esq.
Daniel R. Rodriguez, Esq.
300 South Grand Avenue
Twenty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
Phone: +1.213.612.2500
Fax: +1.213.612.2501
Email: john.battenfeld@morganlewis.com
kathy.gao@morganlewis.com
daniel.rodriguez@morganlewis.com
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 9
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Seagate Technology Holdings Plc ("Seagate" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: STX) in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Seagate securities
between September 15, 2020 and October 25, 2022, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until September 8,
2023 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.
Seagate is a leading global supplier of data storage products,
including hard disk drives ("HDDs"). By the start of the Class
Period, Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. ("Huawei"), a Chinese
multinational technology, had emerged as a significant global
purchaser of data storage products, including HDDs, produced by
Seagate and other U.S.-based suppliers.
On May 16, 2019, Huawei and certain of its non-U.S. affiliates were
added to the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and
Security's ("BIS") Export Administration Regulations ("EAR") Entity
List ("Entity List"). The EAR Entity List is a list of names of
certain foreign persons and entities that are subject to specific
license requirements for the export, re-export, and/or transfer
(in-country) of specified items. The Entity List designation was
based on a determination made by multiple U.S. government agencies
"that there is reasonable cause to believe that Huawei has been
involved in activities contrary to the national security or foreign
policy interests of the United States."
Then, on August 17, 2020, the BIS imposed export controls over
certain foreign-produced items "to better address the continuing
threat to U.S. national security and U.S. foreign policy interests
posed by Huawei and its non-U.S. affiliates."
On October 26, 2022, Seagate disclosed that it received a Proposed
Charging Letter from the BIS alleging that Seagate violated the EAR
by providing Seagate HDDs to "a customer and its affiliates listed
on the BIS Entity List between August 2020 and September 2021."
On this news, the price of Seagate common stock fell nearly 8%,
damaging investors. Over the following three trading days,
Seagate's stock price continued to drift lower, falling an
additional nearly 7%.
As the Seagate class action lawsuit alleges, defendants throughout
the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose: (i) the nature and magnitude of Seagate's HDD
sales to Huawei, including that Seagate experienced a significant
acceleration in sales to Huawei immediately after the BIS rules
went into effect and Seagate's competitors stopped selling to
Huawei; and (ii) that the underlying details of Seagate's HDD
manufacturing process, including the use of covered U.S. software
and technology in "essential 'production'" processes, rendered its
sales to Huawei in violation of the BIS export rules As a result,
Seagate was in blatant violation of the BIS export rules which
resulted in an ongoing investigation by the U.S. Department of
Commerce and exposed Seagate to hundreds of millions of dollars in
fines and penalties.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Seagate shares and suffered
a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Marion Passmore by email
at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by
filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.[GN]
SELENE FINANCE: Antonicic Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher J. Antonicic and Anastasia Antonicic, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SELENE FINANCE LP,
Case No. 2023LA000692 (Ill. 18th Judicial Cir. Ct., DuPage Cty.,
July 5, 2023), is brought seeking redress for the Defendant's
violation(s) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the
"FDCPA").
On September 5, 2008, the Plaintiffs obtained a loan secured by a
mortgage lien on their home in Woodridge, Illinois. On May 28,
2010, the Plaintiffs filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The Plaintiffs
did not reaffirm the mortgage debt. The bankruptcy court entered a
discharge order which functioned as an injunction that generally
prohibited the Plaintiffs' creditors from taking any steps to
collect discharged debts. With respect to the mortgage debt, the
discharge order released the Plaintiffs from personal liability on
the mortgage, but the mortgage holder continued to have a lien
against the property. When the Plaintiffs defaulted on the loan,
the holder of the mortgage lien filed a foreclosure action.
About twelve years after the discharge order was entered, Selene
took over servicing the Plaintiffs' loan. Despite the discharge, on
April 3, 2023. Selene sent the Plaintiffs monthly mortgage
statements that appeared to seek payment on the mortgage debt. In
the top right corner of these statements was a box listing the
"Payment Date" and "Payment Amount." Below was an "Explanation of
Amount Due," which itemized the principal, interest, escrow,
monthly payment due, total fees and charges, and overdue payments
on the loan. The bottom of the page included a detachable payment
coupon that listed a "Payment Date," a "Payment Amount," and
instructions to make checks payable to Selene, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are "consumers."
Selene is a residential mortgage company with strong experience in
all aspects of mortgage loan servicing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arthur C. Czaja, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ARTHUR C. CZAJA
7521 North Milwaukee Avenue
Niles, IL 60714
Phone: +1 847-647-2106
Email: arthur@czajalawoffices.com
SHOIS RESTAURANT: Briceno Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Briceno, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. SHOIS RESTAURANT II, CORP. d/b/a BAKU ASIAN FUSION BAR
BY SHOIS a Florida For Profit Corporation, and YRENE D. BRUNO DE
ESCARAY, individually, Case No. 1:23-cv-22468-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July
3, 2023), is brought against the Defendants for unpaid overtime
compensation, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(the "FLSA").
The Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 40 hours during each
workweek. Despite working more than 40 hours each workweek, the
Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation at a
rate of no less than time and one half their regular rate of pay
for all hours worked over forty in a workweek. The Plaintiff was
only paid 40 hours despite working in excess of 40 hours each
workweek. the Plaintiff and those similarly situated were eligible
for overtime provided they worked more than 40 hours per week. As a
result, the Plaintiff and those similarly situated, should have
received compensation at time and one half their regular rate of
pay for all hours worked beyond the 40 hours in a workweek, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff was an hourly paid employee ("mixologist") and
performed related activities for Defendants in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.
The Defendant is a restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward W. Wimp, Esq.
Anthony J. Hall, Esq.
THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
631 S. Orlando Ave., Suite 300
Winter Park, FL 32789
Direct: 407-574-6339
Phone: (407) 574-4999
Facsimile: (833) 813-7513
Email: ewimp@theleachfirm.com
ahall@theleachfirm.com
SOUTH BAY MOTORS: Giliberti Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
----------------------------------------------------------
Davide Giliberti, on behalf of the State of California, and others
similarly situated and aggrieved v. SOUTH BAY MOTORS, LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company; SULLIVAN AUTOMOTIVE GROUP,
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; LACARGUY WHOLESALE
DIVISION, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Case No. 23STCV15499 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
July 3, 2023), is brought against the Defendant, pursuant to
California's Private Attorney General Act, Labor Code section 2698
et. seq. ("PAGA"), to recover civil penalties (75% payable to the
Labor and Workforce Development Agency and 25% payable to Aggrieved
Employees) for the Defendant' violations of the California Labor
Code.
The Defendant failed to compensate the Plaintiff and Aggrieved
Employees for all hours worked, resulting in the underpayment of
minimum and overtime wages. the Defendant failed to compensate the
Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees for all hours worked by virtue
of, the Defendant' automatic deduction and time rounding policies,
and failure to relieve employees of all duties/employer control
during unpaid meal periods or otherwise unlawful practices for
missed or improper meal periods, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a salesperson, sales
consultant, customer service representative.
The Defendant own, operate and/or otherwise manage automotive
dealerships and/or automotive dealership groups, with multiple
locations, facilities and/or dealerships in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
Jamie Serb, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, PC
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Phone: (866) 276-7637
Fax: (310) 510-6429
Email: zach@crosnerlegal.com
jamie@crosnerlegal.com
SOUTHERN HEALTH: Mastrodonato Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Mastrodonato, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS, INC., Case No.
1:23-cv-00735-UNA (D. Del., July 6, 2023), is brought against the
Defendant for their failure to pay employees overtime wages,
seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 ("FLSA") ("the Ohio Wage Act").
The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees worked, or
they were scheduled to work, 40 or more hours in one or more
workweek(s) during the 3 years immediately preceding the filing of
this Complaint. During their employment with Defendant Plaintiff
and other similarly situated direct care employees were not fully
and properly paid for all overtime wages because Defendant required
an automatic 30-minute meal break deduction from their compensable
hours worked, even when Plaintiff and other similarly situated
direct care employees were unable to take a full, uninterrupted
30-minute meal break. However, Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees did not receive a bona fide meal break. Although
Defendant required the automatic deduction of a daily 30-minute
meal break, Plaintiff and other similarly situated direct care
employees were often unable to take a meal break or otherwise took
a shortened meal break because they had their meal break
interrupted with substantive job duties, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked as an hourly, non-exempt "employee" of the
Defendant in the positions of hourly Licensed Practical Nurse and
hourly Registered Nurse from June 2022 to the present.
The Defendant provides medical personnel such as Licensed Practical
Nurses, Medical Assistants, EMTs, Paramedics, and Registered Nurses
to correctional facilities throughout the United States where they
provide healthcare services to inmates.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7034 Braucher Street NW, Suite B
North Canton, OH 44720
Phone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
Email: hnilges@ohlaborlaw.com
- and -
Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
FARNAN LLP
919 North Market Street, 12th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 777-0300
Fax: (302) 777-0301
Email: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
SUN LIFE ASSURANCE: Genesett Files Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sun Life Assurance
Company of Canada. The case is styled as Genesett Corporation, as
Trustee of the Genesett Trust Dated 10/23/01, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated v. Sun Life Assurance Company of
Canada, Case No. 2:23-cv-05417 (C.D. Cal., July 6, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Breach of Contract.
Sun Life -- https://www.sunlife.com/en/ -- is a financial services
company providing financial planning, life insurance, health
insurance, investments and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
1900 Avenue of the Stars Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 789-3100
Email: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
SUNLIGHT LINEN: Alvarado Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alicia Alvarado, and others similarly situated v. SUNLIGHT LINEN
SUPPLY CORP, BARRY BROOMFIELD and BARRY GRUNFELD, individually,
Case No. 1:23-cv-05083 (E.D.N.Y., July 5, 2023), is brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York
Labor Law ("NYLL") as recently amended by the Wage Theft Prevention
Act ("WTPA"), and related provisions from Title 12 of New York
Codes, Rules, and Regulations ("NYCRR"), to recover, inter alia,
unpaid minimum wage and overtime wage compensation.
The Defendants were required, under relevant New York State law, to
compensate Plaintiff with overtime pay at one and one-half the
regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per work week. However,
despite such mandatory pay obligations, Defendants only compensated
Plaintiff at a rate of $405 per week approximately and failed to
pay Plaintiff her lawful overtime pay for that period from 2017
until June 2023, when she worked well in excess of 40 hours per
workweek.
The Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiff to all other
similarly situated employees; and at all times relevant to this
Complaint, Defendants maintain a policy and practice of requiring
Plaintiff and other employees to work without providing the minimum
and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and
regulations.
Plaintiff also brings this action under the Wage Theft Prevention
Act for Defendants' failure to provide written notice of wage rates
in violation of said laws. Accordingly, Plaintiff now brings this
Action on behalf of herself and those other similarly situated
individuals, for federal and state claims relating to unpaid
minimum wages, and unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the FLSA,
NYLL, as recently amended by the WTPA, NYLL, as well as those
related provisions in Title 12 of the NYCRR, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants.
The Defendants owned and operated Sunlight Linen Supply Corp., a
corporate entity principally engaged in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL PC
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: 212-203-2417
Web: www.StillmanLegalPC.com
SYNCHRONY BANK: Runzi TCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Debbie Runzi, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Synchrony Bank formerly known as: GE
Capital Retail Bank, Case No. 2023V-0494 was removed from the
Superior Court of Fayette County, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia on July 6, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00129-TCB to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Synchrony Financial -- http://www.synchrony.com/-- is a consumer
financial services company headquartered in Stamford,
Connecticut.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Clifton R. Dorsen, Esq.
James Marvin Feagle, Esq.
SKAAR AND FEAGLE
2374 Main Street, Suite B
Tucker, GA 30084
Phone: (404) 373-1978
Email: cdorsen@skaarandfeagle.com
jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com
- and -
Justin Tharpe Holcombe, Esq.
Kris Kelly Skaar, Esq.
SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP-WOODSTOCK
133 Mirramont Lake Drive
Woodstock, GA 30189
Phone: (770) 427-5600
Fax: (404) 601-1855
Email: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
kskaar@skaarandfeagle.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Julia B. Strickland, Esq.
Stephen J. Newman, Esq.
STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP-CA
2029 Century Park East
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 556-5800
Fax: (310) 556-5959
Email: jstrickland@stroock.com
lacalendar@stroock.com
- and -
Sarah Tope Reise, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
600 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 3000
Atlanta, GA 30308
Phone: (404) 885-3803
Fax: (404) 885-3900
Email: sarah.reise@troutman.com
T-MOBILE USA: Castellon Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Kenny Castellon, an individual and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., a Delaware
corporation; GERMAN ROA, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 23STCV09184 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on July 6, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-05422.
The Plaintiff's Complaint brings the following putative class
claims: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Minimum
Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest
Periods; Failure to Pay All Wages Due to Discharged and Quitting
Employees; Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements; Failure to
Timely Pay Wages; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; Failure
to Pay Vested Paid Vacation Time at Final Rate of Pay; and Unlawful
Business Practices.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Evan R. Moses, Esq.
Madeleine K. Lee, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213-239-9800
Facsimile: 213-239-9045
Email: evan.moses@ogletree.com
madeleine.lee@ogletree.com
- and -
Elizabeth A. Falcone, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
The KOIN Center
222 SW Columbia Street, Suite 1500
Portland, OR 97201
Phone: 503-552-2140
Facsimile: 503-224-4518
Email: Elizabeth.Falcone@ogletree.com
THYSSENKRUPP SUPPLY: Lopez Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Fabian Lopez, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated individuals and aggrieved employees v.
THYSSENKRUPP SUPPLY CHAIN SERVICES, NA INC., and DOES 1 to 100,
Case No. 23CV034331 was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Alameda, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on July 5,
2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-03368.
The Plaintiff filed his action as a putative class action based on
alleged violations of various California wage and hour laws.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Chad D. Greeson, Esq.
Nicholas Gioiello, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Treat Towers
1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Phone: 925.932.2468
Fax: 925.946.9809
Email: cgreeson@littler.com
ngioiello@littler.com
TWITTER INC: Elon Musk Facing Class Action From HR Executive
------------------------------------------------------------
news-journal.com reports that Elon Musk is facing a class action
lawsuit from a former human resources executive at Twitter.
Courtney McMillian filed the case against the company - bought last
year by Tesla billionaire Elon, 52, for $44 billion - alleging it
failed to pay approximately $500 million it owed in severance pay
to former staff.
The complaint claims Twitter owner Elon was aware of the severance
plan before he terminated thousands of staff but resisted the
"expense".
It is the latest in a series of legal actions against Twitter
following the mass layoffs that occurred after Elon's acquisition
of the company.
According to the lawsuit, the layoffs affected around 6,000
individuals.
The severance plan at Twitter stipulated workers would receive a
minimum of two months' base salary in severance pay, along with a
cash contribution towards health insurance and other benefits.
Senior employees, including Courtney, were entitled to six months'
base salary in severance pay, plus an additional week for each full
year of experience.
But the complaint states that employees received "at most" three
months' pay after being terminated.
It included one month of severance pay and an additional two
months' worth of pay to comply with a US law requiring notice of
firings.
Twitter, which no longer has a public relations department, did not
provide a comment on the matter.
In November, dad-of-ten announced that employees would receive
three months' of pay, claiming it was "50 per cent more than
legally required".
The complaint accuses the tech titan of misleading employees
regarding the company's commitment to honouring the severance plan,
resulting in some employees staying with the firm longer than they
would have otherwise.
Kate Mueting, the lawyer representing Courntey, said: "Musk
initially represented to employees that under his leadership
Twitter would continue to abide by the severance plan.
"He apparently made these promises knowing that they were necessary
to prevent mass resignations that would have threatened the
viability of the merger and the vitality of Twitter itself."[GN]
TWITTER INC: Faces $500M Lawsuit for Allegedly Not Paying Severance
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nikki Main at news.yahoo.com reports that Twitter's former head of
HR filed a proposed class action lawsuit against the company,
demanding Elon Musk pay out $500 million to former employees for
allegedly not paying severance fees to laid-off staff. Courtney
McMillan, the head of total rewards for the company's benefits
programs before she was laid off in January, claimed in the lawsuit
that Twitter's then-CEO Parag Agrawal promised employees they were
entitled to their paid severance under the Merger Agreement.
McMillan claimed Agrawal assured employees that their benefits,
including base salary, bonus, and severance pay, would remain the
same after Twitter changed hands and Musk took over the company in
October. The lawsuit said on the same day that employees were
notified that Musk had bought the company, Agrawal and
then-Chairman Bret Taylor told all employees "that Twitter would
continue to provide the severance Plan benefits for at least one
year following the change in company ownership."
Musk approved an FAQ document before officially stepping in as
owner and CEO of Twitter, which stated that "[i]n the event of a
layoff, any employee whose job is impacted would be eligible for
severance," the lawsuit said.
Musk allegedly confirmed in the FAQ he approved in May that in the
case of layoffs, the minimum severance would include "two months
base salary, prorated performance bonuses, cash value of any RSUs
vesting within three months of separation, and a cash contribution
for continued healthcare coverage," the lawsuit says.
Musk took over the company in October 2022 and shortly after, he
laid off thousands of employees in November amounting to about half
of the employee base, mere weeks after he started. Two other mass
layoffs followed, but several of those who were entitled to paid
severance only received one month's worth while a majority of other
former employees didn't receive any severance, the lawsuit claims.
In the wake of the layoffs, terminated employees were offered "at
most three months of compensation: two months to comply with the
notice requirements of the WARN Act, and then one month of
severance pay," according to the lawsuit. This was only "a
fraction" of the severance former employees were entitled to
receive, the lawsuit says.
It clarified that senior employees were entitled to receive six
months' base pay with an additional week per full year of service.
Non-senior employees, it said, were entitled to two months of
severance plus an additional week per year.
McMillan claims in the suit that Twitter planned to mislead
employees about the severance they were entitled to and their
eligibility, despite the FAQ confirming the agreement stated in the
merger would be upheld. "Upon information and belief, Mr. Musk and
the Defendants had no intention of fulfilling these promises," the
lawsuit says.
This is just the latest in a series of lawsuits filed against
Twitter, with third-party companies filing a class action lawsuit
accusing Twitter of not paying for their services. Another lawsuit
claims women and workers with disabilities were targeted during the
mass layoffs and another lawsuit filed last month claims Twitter
didn't pay millions of dollars in bonuses to its employees.[GN]
UBS GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Inadequate Exchange Ratio
----------------------------------------------------------
Zacks Equity Research of Zacks reports that since UBS Group AG's
emergency takeover of Credit Suisse, it has been facing legal
hassles and operational challenges. Per a Reuters article, former
shareholders of Credit Suisse have initiated a class action suit
looking for a better deal from UBS with respect to its
acquisition.
In March 2023, in government-backed efforts to fend off panic in
the global banking system, UBS had agreed to acquire Credit Suisse
in an all-stock deal valued at $3.2 billion. Following the
acquisition, Credit Suisse shareholders received one UBS share for
every 22.48 outstanding shares held.
The deal value was less than half of Credit Suisse's market value
calculated which was based on the last trading day before the deal
closure.
LegalPass, a start-up providing legal services instituted a class
action lawsuit for former Credit Suisse shareholders who have
suffered damages due to an inappropriate exchange ratio. Since
financial regulators had decided to withdraw shareholders' voting
rights regarding the acquisition, the only resort was to move to
the court.
With this suit, LegalPass intends to pay the distressed
shareholders a cash settlement equivalent to the difference between
the deal value decided by the court and the price paid by UBS.
Ethos Foundation, that held more than 3% in Credit Suisse, decided
to support LegalPass in its legal campaign. Ethos believes that the
acquisition of Credit Suisse was forceful as it was conducted
without the approval of its shareholders.
Apart from this class action lawsuit, UBS has been constantly
facing challenges and legal claims regarding this deal. Earlier, as
a result of this acquisition, Credit Suisse's additional tier 1
bonds were all written down to zero. Hence, such troubled
bondholders' have also been claiming compensation for their loss.
Further, a group of Credit Suisse's bondholders have filed a
lawsuit accusing former executives of the failed bank for its
downfall.
The integration of Credit Suisse does not come without operational
challenges. UBS and Credit Suisse have overlapping presence in the
investment banking (IB) business, mostly in Australia and China.
Hence, UBS is likely to cut IB jobs at Credit Suisse next month,
specifically in the Asia-Pacific region as part of the integration
process.
Post acquisition, UBS had stated that it intended to save around $6
billion in staff costs. In fact, per a source, UBS informed its
staff to expect three rounds of job cuts in the current year. The
first round of cuts is most likely to take place by the end of
July, with the other rounds tentatively planned for September and
October.
Such eliminations of IB jobs by UBS are likely to reduce expenses
and will help to navigate adverse market conditions causing
pressure on top-line growth.
UBS Group AG's shares have lost 0.5% on NYSE over the past six
months against the industry's growth of 6.1%. [GN]
UNIFI AVIATION: Wyatt Suit Removed to s.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Robin Wyatt, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. UNIFI AVIATION, LLC; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Case No. 37-2023-00022665-CU-OE-CTL was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on July 5, 2023, and assigned Case No.
3:23-cv-01241-LL-AHG.
The Complaint alleges seven causes of action: failure to pay
minimum wages for all hours worked in violation of Labor Code;
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of Labor Code; failure
to provide meal periods in violation of Labor Code; failure to
provide rest periods in violation of Labor Code; failure to provide
complete and accurate wage statements in violation of Labor Code;
failure to timely pay all earned wages and final paychecks due at
time of separation of employment in violation of Labor Code; and
unfair and unlawful business practices in violation of Business &
Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew P. Frederick, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1400 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Phone: +1.650.843.4000
Fax: +1.650.843.4001
Email: andrew.frederick@morganlewis.com
- and -
Joseph Lewis, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
Phone: +1.415.442.1000
Facsimile: +1.415.442.1001
Email: joseph.lewis@morganlewis.com
UNISERVE PROJECT: Jackson Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as James Jackson, individually and on behalf of
all other Aggrieved Employees v. UNISERVE PROJECT MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, INC., a California corporation; UNISERVE FACILITIES
SERVICES CORPORATION, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV12245 was removed from the Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on July 5,
2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-05369.
In his complaint, the Plaintiff alleges a claim under the Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), predicated on an alleged:
failure to provide employment records; failure to pay overtime and
double time; failure to provide rest and meal periods; failure to
pay minimum wage; failure to keep accurate payroll records and
provide itemized wage statements; failure to pay reporting time
wages; failure to pay split shift wages; failure to pay all wages
earned on time; failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or
resignation; failure to reimburse necessary, business-related
expenses; failure to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual;
employers, and individuals acting on behalf of employers, violating
or causing to be violated a section of the Labor Code or any Wage
Order; all in violation of the Cal. Labor Code and the applicable
Wage Orders.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Howard M. Knee, Esq.
Jeffrey Rosenfeld, Esq.
BLANK ROME LLP
2029 Century Park East | 6th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 424.239.3400
Facsimile: 424.239.3434
Email: howard.knee@blankrome.com
jeffrey.rosenfeld@blankrome.com
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: Judge Certifies COVID Tuition Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Clarridge of Axios Seattle reports that a King County
judge has certified a class of students in a lawsuit challenging
the University of Washington's decision to charge full tuition and
fees during the pandemic.
That means the judge recognized that a whole group of people may
have been injured by the university's actions and therefore may be
entitled to compensation or relief.
Details: The lawsuit accuses the university of unlawfully retaining
tuition payments amounting to millions of dollars when campuses
were closed and students had access only to limited online
learning.
Why it matters: Attorney Steve Berman told Axios the court's
decision to let the case proceed as a class-action lawsuit is a
"major step forward for tens of thousands of tuition payers who
were left paying fees and other costs to a university that had
effectively closed its doors."
"Those who were subjected to these excessive charges, as well as
subpar online-only education, deserve an answer from UW," Berman
said.
The judge's June 28 ruling affects over 50,000 UW students, and
means student tuition and fee-payers are one step closer to
reimbursement through the class-action lawsuit, according to
Berman's firm.
Flashback: The complaint, filed in September, 2020, alleges that
during the pandemic UW continued to charge full tuition and fees
despite sending students home, transitioning to online instruction
and closing its campuses, reaping millions.
Students lost access to much of what their fees were intended to
pay for, such as in-person opportunities, instruction, faculty
mentorship, campus amenities and the university's facilities, the
suit claims.
The other side: UW spokesperson Victor Balta told Axios he was
limited in what he could say about the ongoing litigation, however,
"it is important to note that the UW actually increased its
investment in educational costs during the period in which we were
remote and course evaluations were overwhelmingly positive, despite
the move to online instruction."
In addition, he said, UW was mindful of letting returning and
incoming students know that the subsequent quarter would be remote
so that they could make informed decisions about continuing their
education before their tuition payments were due.
"Our goal is to provide a high-quality education in a safe and
secure environment, and we believe we accomplished this in light of
a global pandemic," Balta said. "We do not believe this lawsuit has
merit and look forward to making our case in court."
The big picture: Nationally, more than 70 colleges and universities
have been sued by students seeking compensation for what they
described as significantly diminished opportunities as a result of
the switch to online-only learning.
Among the more than 15 cases being litigated by the Seattle-based
Hagens Berman firm, at least three so far have settled, including a
suit against Harvard that was initially halted but then settled
early this year after being brought back on appeal.
What's next: The parties are in discovery -- the period where they
exchange information in preparation for trial -- but no hearings
have been scheduled yet.
There is no opt-in required and affected students will be contacted
should a settlement be reached, Hagens Berman said. [GN]
VIDEOTRON LTEE: Court Certifies Gagne Suit Over Billing Services
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press of Montreal CTV News reports that the Canadian
Press Videotron residential customers may be eligible for a class
action authorized on July 3, 2023 by the Quebec Superior Court.
This class action for damages concerns the billing of interest not
provided for in the contract or the non-reimbursement of prepaid
services, after termination of a service agreement, that the
company's residential customers may have suffered between Oct. 20,
2018 and Feb. 3, 2023, according to a notice published by Videotron
on its website.
As the Court has not yet ruled on the basis for the class action,
it has not yet determined whether compensation should be paid to
the plaintiffs.
At issue is whether Videotron was entitled to charge interest to
its residential customers or to withhold an amount equivalent to
the payment for services not rendered after the termination of
other customers' service contracts.
"Videotron Ltd. denies Mr. Richard Gagne's allegations and disputes
the basis for the class action," the company states on its
website.
Customers affected by this class action do not have to do anything
to join. Those who wish to be excluded must contact the office of
the clerk of the Quebec Superior Court in the district of Quebec
City by 4:30 p.m. on Aug. 6.
The law firms involved in the class action are BGA Inc. and Garnier
Ouellette Avocats, both located in the capital. [GN]
VITALITE HEALTH: Settles Suit Over Abuse of Patients for $17M
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bobbi-Jean MacKinnon of CBC News reports that a proposed
$17-million settlement has been reached in a class-action lawsuit
alleging decades of negligence and mistreatment of psychiatric
patients at the Restigouche Hospital Centre in northern New
Brunswick, according to lawyers for the plaintiffs.
The action against Vitalite Health Network and the province,
launched in 2019, alleged the defendants breached their legal
duties and obligations in the way they operated the Campbellton
centre, and these breaches caused people there to suffer physical
and sexual assault.
Darrell Tidd, one of the two lead plaintiffs, said they are
"extremely pleased" with the tentative agreement, which still has
to be approved by the court for it to take effect.
"This avoids up to a 15-year court battle, and obtaining real
compensation for class members is a big win," he said.
"The trauma-informed claims process is particularly important for
this vulnerable class. We're proud of what we have achieved for the
class members."
Dates back to 1954
Tidd and Reid Smith started the lawsuit, acting as litigation
guardians on behalf of their sons Devan Tidd and Aaron Smith, who
were residents at the 140-bed hospital.
Tidd alleges his son, who has autism, was overmedicated and
complained of assault at the hands of other residents. Smith
alleges his son, who has autism and obsessive-compulsive disorder,
was also overmedicated at the centre.
The action, which was certified on Oct. 1, 2021, currently includes
all individuals who were admitted to or lived at Restigouche
Hospital Centre between May 24, 2004, and Oct. 1, 2021, and who
were alive as of May 24, 2017.
It also includes individuals who resided at the centre from Jan. 1,
1954, to Oct. 1, 2021, who claim they were sexually assaulted.
Restigouche Hospital Centre, known as the Provincial Hospital until
2015, has housed thousands of youth and adults since it opened in
1954, according to the statement of claim.
No finding or admission of wrongdoing
"The court has not decided which side is right or that the
defendants have done anything wrong," the plaintiffs' Toronto-based
law firm Koskie Minsky noted in a news release.
"The proposed settlement is also not an admission of liability or
wrongdoing by the defendants with respect to the allegations found
in the lawsuit.
"Trials can be expensive and may take years before a final decision
on who is right or wrong is made. By agreeing to the proposed
settlement, the representative plaintiffs, class members and the
defendants avoid the expenses, uncertainties and delays that come
with a trial."
A hearing is scheduled for Sept. 25, when the Court of King's Bench
will consider whether the settlement is "fair, reasonable, and in
the best interests of the class," and whether to approve the
settlement agreement.
Vitalite looks to 'close this chapter'
Vitalite agreed to participate in the mediation process in order to
allow the parties to reach an agreement, said president and CEO Dr.
France Desrosiers. "The proposed settlement has been established to
the satisfaction of all parties," she said in an emailed
statement.
"This approach was intended to avoid lengthy procedures that would
have negatively affected our employees, as well as patients,
families, and the community.
"Once the settlement is approved by the Court of the King's Bench,
we will be able to close this chapter and turn towards the future,
focusing on the positive changes that have been implemented in
recent years."
When CBC requested more information on these positive changes, an
unidentified Vitalite spokesperson said management of Restigouche
Hospital Centre has been committed to "promoting personalized care
and a recovery-oriented approach."
For example, the centre has "sought to reproduce a sense of
community life within a hospital environment, with community
outings, shared activities, and work experiences in the store,
workshop and greenhouse located within the facility," according to
an emailed statement.
It has worked to recruit activity workers to maintain patients'
level of independence and focus on their well-being, and care teams
have evolved to include a wider range of specialties, including
criminologists and a psychologist specializing in forensic
psychiatry.
In addition, employees are now being trained to deal with
situations of aggression and violence, the spokesperson said. "Our
procedures, training and practices are based on a thorough
understanding of trauma."
Department of Health spokesperson Sean Hatchard declined to comment
on the proposed settlement because the case is still before the
courts.
But the department "recognizes the positive changes that have been
implemented at the Restigouche Hospital Centre in recent years," he
said in an emailed statement. Hatchard did not respond to a request
to elaborate on these changes.
"Staff with the Vitalité Health Network and Restigouche Hospital
Centre are committed to providing quality care and services that
best meet the needs of their patients. The department supports our
colleagues at Vitalité and the Restigouche Hospital Centre as they
strive to make continuous improvements to the delivery of care at
the facility."
Compensation to be based on degree of harm
When the lawsuit was launched, it was seeking $500 million on
behalf of everyone who had been treated at the centre since Jan. 1,
1954, and were alive as of May 24, 2017.
If the proposed $17-million settlement fund is approved by the
court, it will be distributed to claimants based on the "degree of
harm they suffered" at Restigouche Hospital Centre, said James
Sayce, lead counsel for the plaintiffs and a partner at Koskie
Minsky.
One of the most important features of the proposed settlement is
the process, said Sayce.
"It's very user-friendly, it's very trauma-informed, and it takes
into account the particular vulnerabilities of this class, which is
made up of people who were resident at a mental health facility,"
he said.
"So you know some of these class members might have a difficult
time litigating their claims in court and this settlement takes
into account the reality of litigating claims on behalf of that
group."
Once the claims period opens, likely in the fall, claimants will
have one year to come forward and "tell their story," said Sayce.
"Our firm will help them with the claims process … and people
will be able to obtain compensation for the events that they
experienced."
Former New Brunswick child and youth advocate Bernard Richard
called the proposed settlement "good news" for patients and their
families.
It spares them years of going through the court process, and it's
"a significant amount of money," he said.
Although the defendants do not admit to any wrongdoing, that's
normal in this kind of settlement, said Richard.
"Clearly, they've paid $17 million. There have been a number of
reports -- I think of Dr. [George] Weber's report, I think of the
ombud report in 2019 -- listing all of the issues at this
psychiatric hospital.
"So clearly there's no admission of responsibility, but there's a
payment that is very significant. So we can read from that, I
think."
Ombud found 'mistreatment and inadequate care'
The lawsuit was launched after then-provincial ombud Charles Murray
released a scathing report that revealed vulnerable patients with
severe mental illnesses had been victims of "mistreatment and
inadequate care."
In one case, Murray said he believed gaps in care -- stemming from
chronic understaffing -- "may have resulted in the premature death
of a patient" in 2018.
He called at the time for the province to shrink the mandate of the
centre to a more realistic level that could be handled by the
existing staff.
Murray declined on July 4, 2023 to comment on the proposed
settlement.
Eligible claimants who do not live in the province and wish to be
part of the class action must submit an opt-in form by Aug. 25.
Anyone who wants to be excluded from the class action to retain
their right to sue to defendants on their own have until Aug. 25 to
submit an opt-out form. [GN]
WEXFORD HEALTH: Denies Inmates' Opioid Addiction Medication
-----------------------------------------------------------
wvrecord.com reports that a potential federal class action lawsuit
has been filed accusing a prison health care provider of routinely
denying thousands of people medication to treat Opioid Use
Disorder.
The complaint was filed July 7 in federal court against Wexford
Health Sources Inc. There are three named plaintiffs -- Lauren
Spurlock, Heather Smith and Shawn Zmudzinski -- who claim Wexford
"intentionally subjects patients entrusted to its care to
significant pain and suffering and an elevated risk of drug relapse
and overdose death."
The complaint says OUD is a chronic brain disease that "rewires the
brain," resulting in uncontrollable cravings for and use of
opioids. Without treatment, it says individuals are frequently
unable to control their use of opioids, resulting in overdose and
death. It says methadone, buprenorphine and naltrexone are the only
treatments proven to reduce opioid addition and symptoms of OUD.
"Jails and prisons are the epicenter of the opioid epidemic," the
complaint states. "Studies show that up to 65% of incarcerated
people have a substance abuse disorder and up to 25% of these
inmates suffer from OUD. One study found that incarcerated people
are 129 times more likely to die from an overdose in the first two
weeks after release compared to the general population."
The complaint says Wexford serves as a medical contractor for more
than 100 jails and prisons across the country, including West
Virginia. It says Wexford has no medical justification to deny
medications for OUD (or MOUD), but it says Wexford does so purely
for profit.
"But this decision saves Wexford millions of dollars in medical
expenses each year," the complaint states. "For every 10,000
patients who need MOUD, for example, the company's policy of
denying them methadone and buprenorphine saves Wexford
approximately $62.4 million per year."
The 44-page complaint also details the stories of the three name
plaintiffs.
Spurlock is a Huntington resident. She was jailed in early 2023 for
possession of opioids and was released May 11, 2023. She told
Wexford personnel at Western Regional Jail of her addiction and her
need for treatment, but she says Wexford failed to provide proper
care and MOUD. She says she experienced "terrible withdrawal"
including pain, difficulty sleeping, nausea and other physical
discomfort.
Smith was jailed at South Central Regional Jail in Charleston in
January 2023. She showed Wexford staffers her MOUD prescription,
but she still was denied the medication. She says she suffered
terrible withdrawal as well, including pain, jerking in her legs so
severe she was unable to sleep, sweating, nausea and cravings for
drugs.
Zmudzinski became addicted to opioids growing up in New Mexico.
When he was jailed in his home state, he says Wexford officials
denied his access to his MOUD. He says he experienced excruciating
pain, diarrhea, constipation, chills, cold sweats and the inability
to eat or sleep. He feared suffering a fourth heart attack, and he
says his cravings returned.
The plaintiffs accuse Wexford of negligence and of violating the
Eighth Amendment and 14th Amendment with deliberate indifference to
their medical needs. In addition to have the class certified, the
plaintiffs seek compensatory damages for pain and suffering,
punitive damages, court costs, attorney fees and other relief.
The plaintiffs are being represented by W. Jesse Forbes of Forbes
Law Offices in Charleston and L. Dante diTrapano of Calwell Luce
diTrapano in Charleston as well as by Anna C. Haac, Lauren A.
Kuhlik and Gemma Seidita of Tycko & Zavareei in Washington, D.C.
The case has been assigned to District Judge Robert C. "Chuck"
Chambers.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia case
number 3:23-cv-00476 [GN]
WM CORPORATE SERVICES: Bangus Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WM Corporate
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Mariah Bangus, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WM Corporate
Services, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UWT-2023-0006934 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
San Joaquin Cty., July 6, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Wrongful Termination."
WM -- https://www.wm.com/ -- formerly known as Waste Management, is
North America's leading provider of comprehensive environmental
solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jenny D. Baysinger, Esq.
MAYALL HURLEY P.C.
112 S. Church St.
Lodi, CA 95240-3501
Phone: 209-477-3833
Fax: 209-473-4818
Email: jbaysinger@mayallaw.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***