/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230725.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, July 25, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 148 Headlines 123 WASH: Underpays Truck Pressure Washer Staff, Martinez Claims 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Amirsoltani Class Suit Claims 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Brooks Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Moore Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Nana Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Swetland Class Suit Alleges 3M COMPANY: Agees Sue Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Crisp Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Curtis Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Davis Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama 3M COMPANY: Dillman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Flagler Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Garza Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama 3M COMPANY: Haist Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Hauser Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Herwig Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Horwath Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Johnson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Kiniski Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Oldani Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Pariseau Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Petitto Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Pizarro Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Ray Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Taylor Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ACTIVATE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Sheffler Says ALDERSON BROADDUS: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ALLSTATE COMPANIES: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Sept. 18 ALPHABET INC: Seeks to File Ghose Report Under Seal AMAZON.COM INC: McCarthy Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington APEX HUMAN SERVICES: Okokuro Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages APRIA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Rabinovich Says ARBOR GREEN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Holden Alleges ARC AUTOMOTIVE: Class Suit Over Airbag Defects Filed in Canada ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Seeks Nov. 14 Extension to Oppose Class Cert Bid ASCENSION MICHIGAN: Halczenko Appeals Denied Bid to Intervene ASSUMPTION UNIVERSITY: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BASIN SPORTS: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BAYER US: Huertas Appeals Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit BIOMARIN PHARMA: $39MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 8 BOSELLI INVESTMENTS: Seeks Decertification of Class in Rodriguez BOYNE USA: Anderson Wins Class Certification Bid BUFFALO, NY: Court Certifies Safety Program Tickets Class Suit CALIFORNIA: Parties Seek to File Portions of Class Chart Under Seal CALIFORNIA: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Sealing Procedures CAMPBELL SOUP: Popcorn Products Contain PFAS, Santiago Suit Says CAVA GROUP: Faces Toledo Suit Over Restaurant Cooks' Unpaid Wages CEREBRAL INC: Cullors Appeals Arbitration Ruling to 9th Circuit CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Expert Discovery Continued to August 4 in Loomis CLOVER HEALTH: $22MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 2 COLOURPOP COSMETICS: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Wurm Claims COMMUNITY HEALTH: $9.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 13 COUNTRY MUTUAL: Sudholt Appeals Remand Ruling in Insurance Suit CREDIT UNION: Parties Seek To Extend Class Cert Briefing Schedule DEUTSCHE BANK: $75MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 20 DIAMOND BRACES: Conditional Collective Status Bid Tossed DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE: Court OK's Bid to File Deal in Redacted Form EMPOWER FEDERAL: Class Settlement in Wellington Gets Final Nod EMPOWER FEDERAL: Settlement in Wellington Gets Final Nod EXELON CORP: $173MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 7 FEDERAL EXPRESS: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Nelson FEDEX GROUND: Taggart Suit Seeks Warehouse Staff's Unpaid Overtime FIRST ADVANTAGE: Wilson Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply FIRST TRANSIT: Class Cert Hearing Date Vacated in Azimihashemi FOR LIFE: Class Cert. Bid Filing Continued to Oct. 17 FORD MOTOR: Filing for Any Class Cert Bids Due July 26, 2024 FRANKLIN COUNTY, IL: Maurer Balks at Children's Inhumane Conditions GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Must File Redacted Versions of Transcript GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Plaintiffs' Bid for More Time to File Reply OK'd GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Seeks to Maintain Redactions in Class Cert Exhibit GENERAL MOTORS: Bid to Reconsider Court's May 5, 2023 Order Tossed GEO GROUP: Briefing of Gomez Class Certification Bid Stayed GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class Action GILEAD SCIENCES: Searcy TDF-Based Drug Suit Seeks to Certify Class GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Seeks to File Class Cert. Documents Under Seal GLENN O. HAWBAKER: Plaintiffs Seek to Amend Class Cert Record GLOBAL CUSTOM: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by Sept. 15 GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Party Depositions Extended to August 30 GRUBHUB INC: Court Stays All Proceedings in Davitashvili Suit HAIN CELESTIAL: Bid for Class Certification Continued to Sept. 5 HARD ROCK: White Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification HENRY INDUSTRIES: Scheduling Order Deadlines in Sarte Suspended HIGHGATE HOTELS: Seeks to Decertify Classes in Henkel Suit HOMEWORKS ENERGY: Giguere Files Bid for Class Certification HONEYWELL INT'L: Extension of Class Cert Deadline Partly OK'd HOWARD MEMORIAL: Bid to Modify Scheduling Order OK'd in Jones HOWARD MEMORIAL: Jones Seeks Sept. 1 Extension to File Class Cert HP INC: Mobile Emergency Seeks to Certify Three Classes HP INC: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Class Cert Portion Under Seal HUNT MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hardy Alleges IDAHO DEPARTMENT: Court Junks Nevarez Complaint w/o Prejudice ILLINOIS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Nov. 13 IMMUNITYBIO INC: Salzman Sues Over 55.14% Drop of Stock Price IQVIA INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 3 ISRAEL: Court Rejects Class Certification Over Withheld Tax Abroad JANET YELLEN: Court Denies Bid for Joinder in NAGE Class Suit JB TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hudgens Alleges JLM DECORATING: Plaintiffs Must File Bid for Class Cert. by July 26 JOSHUA JASKULA: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Cravero JPMORGAN CHASE: $290MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 9 KAREN HERMAN: Court Enters Standing Order in Walker Class Suit KBM HOME: Faces Rios Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Concrete Laborers KDM ANCHOR: Parties Stipulate Class Certification in Smith Suit KEEFE COMMISSARY: Court Junks Watkins Rule 24 Bid to Intervene KEYSTONE RV: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Guisinger Suit KIRKLAND LAKE: Class Cert. Bid Denied as Moot in Stockholder Suit LEDUC, AB: Survivors in Harassment Suit Eligible for Settlement LEGACY CHRISTIAN: Class Certification in Sexual Abuse Suit Heard LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY: More Time to Complete Discovery Sought LVNV FUNDING: Plaintiffs Seek Approval of Class Notice Plan M.A.C. COSMETICS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Nov. 17 MADISON COUNTY, TN: Court Dismisses Hunt Class Suit MARIA PATRICIO: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert. Bid MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: $36.5MM Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 7 MEC HOLDING: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 5, 2024 MERRILL LYNCH: Valelly Bid for Reconsideration Tossed METROHEALTH SYSTEM: Savel Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action MMM CONSUMER: Eppes Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration NEW SABINA: Court Modifies March 16, 2022 Prelim Pretrial Order NEW YORK LIFE: Plaintiffs File Bid for Class Certification NEW YORK, NY: Court Stays Portions of Plaintiffs' Class Discovery NEW YORK, NY: Resident Class Certified in Forest Lawsuit NIANTIC INC: Faces Class Suit Over Systemic Sexual Bias NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Seeks to Strike Improper Affidavit in Romano Suit NRA GROUP: Chamberlain Files Bid for Class Certification OLIN CORPORATION: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Nov. 8 ONIX GROUP: Jones Alleges Unauthorized Disclosure of Personal Info OPENAI INC: Silverman Sues Over Illegal Use of Copyrighted Books PAUL NEWMAN: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliatory Discharge PENSION BENEFIT: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Harris Alleges QUALITY TEMPORARY: Court Narrows Claims in Lochridge Class Suit RICE DRILLING: XTO, PE for Summary Judgment Denied as Moot RICHARD & SON: Class Action Settlement in Douglass Gets Final Nod RIPPLE LABS: Zakinov Wins Class Certification Bid SIMPLURIS INC: $17.85MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 27 SIXTY VINES: Faces Pryor Wage-and-Hour Suit in M.D. Tennessee SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: Provider Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification SMILEDIRECTCLUB: Plaintiffs Seek Leave To File Docs Under Seal SOLID WASTE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jones Suit Alleges STAGHORN PETROLEUM: Dinsmore Sues Over Failure to Pay Oil Proceeds TAHOE RESOURCES: $13.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 26 TEACHERS INSURANCE: District Court Denies TIAA Class Certification TIDI PRODUCTS: Redlin Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Warehouse Staff TMX FINANCE: Pickens Seeks to Suspend Class Cert Filing Deadline TRAVEL GUARD: Appeals Arbitration Award in Miller Suit to 9th Cir. TRUCK WORLD: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Truck Drivers UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO: Martinez Bid for Reconsideration Tossed WELLS FARGO: Faces Former Employees Class Suit Over Racial Bias WINTER PARK: Fails to Properly Pay Carpenters, Vazquez Suit Says XTO ENERGY: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Salvatora Suit to 3rd Cir ********* 123 WASH: Underpays Truck Pressure Washer Staff, Martinez Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- FERNANDO MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 123 WASH INC., d/b/a SUPERIOR WASH, SOUTH FLORIDA WASH SERVICE LLC, VINCENT GARCIA and JOSEPH KENNETH SCOTT a/k/a JODY SCOTT, Defendants, Case No. 0:23-cv-61253 (S.D. Fla., June 30, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and for retaliatory discharge. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a full-time truck pressure washer employee from approximately November 15, 2012, to June 08, 2023. 123 Wash Inc., doing business as Superior Wash, is a provider of mobile fleet truck washing services, with its place of business in Broward County, Florida. South Florida Wash Service LLC is a provider of mobile fleet truck washing services, with its place of business in Broward 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 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Amirsoltani Class Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- DARIUS AMIRSOLTANI v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03272-RMG (D.S.C., July 10, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants seeking 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). 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, 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 or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting, says the suit. 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 Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Mr. Amirsoltani is a resident and citizen of Crystal Lake, Illinois. He regularly used and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with hypothyroidism as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, the suit contends. The Defendant includes 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; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[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 Telephone: (850) 202-1010 E-mail: dkreis@awkolaw.com baylstock@awkolaw.com jwitkin@awkolaw.com 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Brooks Class Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- BRADEN C. BROOKS v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03271-RMG (D.S.C., July 10, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants seeking 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). 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, 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 or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting, says the suit. 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 Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Mr. Brooks is a resident and citizen of Lockport, New York. He regularly used and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with bladder cancer as a result of alleged exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendant includes 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; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[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 Telephone: (850) 202-1010 E-mail: dkreis@awkolaw.com baylstock@awkolaw.com jwitkin@awkolaw.com 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Moore Class Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- Alonzo Moore v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03271-RMG (D.S.C., July 10, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants seeking 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). 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, 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 or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting, says the suit. Mr. Moore is a resident and citizen of Raleigh, NC. He 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. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with multiple myeloma cancer as a result of alleged exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. 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 Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of Decedent's training and firefighting activities. The Defendant includes 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; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 - and - Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Telephone: (631) 600-0000 Facsimile: (631) 543-5450 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Nana Class Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- DESIRE NANA v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03284-RMG (D.S.C., July 10, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants seeking 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). 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, 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 or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting, asserts the lawsuit. 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 Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Desire Nana is a resident and citizen of Thorn Hill, Tennessee. He regularly used and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with hypothyroidism as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, the lawsuit says. The Defendant includes 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; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[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 Telephone: (850) 202-1010 E-mail: dkreis@awkolaw.com baylstock@awkolaw.com jwitkin@awkolaw.com 3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Swetland Class Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- DEBBIE LYNN SWETLAND v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03289-RMG (D.S.C., July 10, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants seeking 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). 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, 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 or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting, says the suit. 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 Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff Debbie Lynn Swetland is a resident and citizen of Thorn Hill, Tennessee. He regularly used and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with hypothyroidism as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, the suit asserts. The Defendant includes 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; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[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 Telephone: (850) 202-1010 E-mail: dkreis@awkolaw.com baylstock@awkolaw.com jwitkin@awkolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Agees Sue Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Agee and Leslie Agee, his wife, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/aMinnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ARKEMA, INC; BASF CORPORATION, Individually And as Successor-in-Interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL COPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CLARIANT CORP., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation; CORTEVA, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC., f/k/a DowDuPont, Inc.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, Individually and a Successor-in-Interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.; Case No. 2:23-cv-02948-RMG (D.S.C., June 22, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injuries 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. 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, Plaintiff Jeremy Agee seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages and Plaintiff Leslie Agee seeks to recover compensatory damages for loss of arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a care, comfort, and consortium direct result of Plaintiff Jeremy Agee's exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during his training and firefighting activities. Plaintiffs further seek injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Jeremy Agee 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 ocular melanoma, rheumatoid arthritis, sarcoidosis, and infertility 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.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy J. Shahan, Esq. Scott Fraser, Esq. MCDONALD WORLEY, P.C. 1770 St. James Place, Suite 100 Houston, TX 77056 Phone: 713-523-5500 Facsimile: 713-523-5501 3M COMPANY: Crisp Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julius R. Crisp, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; COMPLAINT AND AMEREX CORPORATION; ARKEMA, INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; Case No. 2:23-cv-03276-RMG (D.S.C., July 10, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. Justin G. Witkin, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 202-1010 Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com baylstock@awkolaw.com jwitkin@awkolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Curtis Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Curtis, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AGC, INC., f/k/a Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to Atofina S.A.; BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to Ciba Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in interest to Kidde-Fenwal, Inc.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation; CORTEVA, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC, f/k/a Dowdupont Inc., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, individually and as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-02924-RMG (D.S.C., June 22, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injuries 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. 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, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff'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 civilian firefighter at multiple sites located throughout North Carolina and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS. 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: James L. Ferraro, Esq. James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Phone (305) 375-0111 Email: jferraro@ferrarolaw.com james@ferrarolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Davis Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ---------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jerel Lamar Davis, et al., v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2023-901655.00 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on June 14, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-03301-RMG. The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other the Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or selling aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to the Plaintiffs.[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 The Defendant is represented by: M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. Wesley B. Gilchrist, Esq. 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: Dillman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Curtis Dillman, 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-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:23-cv-03314-RMG (D.S.C., July 11, 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 state police officer and was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq. Keith Jackson, Esq. Jeremiah Mosley, Esq. RILEY & JACKSON, P.C. 3530 Independence Dr. Birmingham, AL 35209 Phone: 205-879-5000 Facsimile: 205-879-5901 3M COMPANY: Flagler Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------ Vonzona Flagler, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AGC, INC., f/k/a Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to Atofina S.A.; BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to Ciba Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in interest to Kidde-Fenwal, Inc.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation; CORTEVA, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC, f/k/a Dowdupont Inc., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, individually and as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-02926-RMG (D.S.C., June 22, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injuries 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, 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, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff'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 civilian firefighter at multiple sites located throughout North Carolina and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS. 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: James L. Ferraro, Esq. James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Phone (305) 375-0111 Email: jferraro@ferrarolaw.com james@ferrarolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Garza Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ---------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Fred Garza, et al. v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2023-901984.00 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on July 10, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00892-NAD. The Plaintiffs generally allege that certain Defendants, including 3M, have designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and/or sold AFFF products and/or fluorinated surfactants used therein, which contain PFAS, including PFOS, PFOA, and/or their precursors, and allege that other Defendants have designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and/or sold TOG products and/or fluorinated surfactants used therein, which contain PFAS, including PFOS, PFOA, and/or their precursors. Each of the Plaintiffs expressly alleges that he "regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter" and suffered injury "as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products."[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 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: Haist Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- Terry Haist, 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.); 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-03278-RMG (D.S.C., July 10, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with 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: Hauser Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Hauser, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/aMinnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ARKEMA, INC; BASF CORPORATION, Individually And as Successor-in-Interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL COPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CLARIANT CORP., Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation; CORTEVA, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC., f/k/a DowDuPont, Inc.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, Individually and a Successor-in-Interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.; Case No. 2:23-cv-02949-RMG (D.S.C., June 22, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injuries 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. 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. PFAS bind 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 Plaintiff was exposed to and ingested Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to be diagnosed with and treated for Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and prostate cancer. The Plaintiff alleges that PFAS or PFAS-containing materials developed, manufactured, marketed distributed, released, sold, and/or used by Defendants in turnouts and Class B foam, as herein alleged, caused him to be exposed to PFAS and/or PFAS containing materials. Such exposure was a substantial factor and proximate cause of prostate cancer and related injuries suffered by the Plaintiff, as alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of Plaintiff's exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Erie, Pennsylvania. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy J. Shahan, Esq. Scott Fraser, Esq. MCDONALD WORLEY, P.C. 1770 St. James Place, Suite 100 Houston, TX 77056 Phone: 713-523-5500 Facsimile: 713-523-5501 3M COMPANY: Herwig Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Richard Herwig, Jr., and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); 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-03279-RMG (D.S.C., July 10, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer; and prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. Justin G. Witkin, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 202-1010 Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com baylstock@awkolaw.com jwitkin@awkolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Horwath Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Yancey Horwath, 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-03294-RMG (D.S.C., July 11, 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 throat 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: Johnson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- William Johnson, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); 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-03280-RMG (D.S.C., July 10, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with thyroid 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: Kiniski Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Kiniski, 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-03293-RMG (D.S.C., July 11, 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: Oldani Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ronald Chris Oldani, 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.); 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-03285-RMG (D.S.C., July 10, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with kidney cancer, resulting in kidney removal 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: Pariseau Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kristian Pariseau, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AGC, INC., f/k/a Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to Atofina S.A.; BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to Ciba Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in interest to Kidde-Fenwal, Inc.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation; CORTEVA, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC, f/k/a Dowdupont Inc., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, individually and as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-02927-RMG (D.S.C., June 22, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injuries 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. 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, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Erie, Pennsylvania. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Esq. James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Phone (305) 375-0111 Email: jferraro@ferrarolaw.com james@ferrarolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Petitto Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Frank R. Petitto, as Surviving son of John V. Petitto, JR. (d), deceased, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; 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.); 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-03286-RMG (D.S.C., July 10, 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 Frank R. Petitto is the surviving son of John V. Petitto, Jr. (d) who regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with pancreatic 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: Pizarro Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals --------------------------------------------------------- Khrisrian Pizarro, 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.); 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-03287-RMG (D.S.C., July 10, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with 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: Ray Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams -------------------------------------------------------------- William Ray, 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-03270-RMG (D.S.C., July 10, 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: Taylor Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kurtis Daniel Taylor, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; COMPLAINT AND AMEREX CORPORATION; ARKEMA, INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; Case No. 2:23-cv-03290-RMG (D.S.C., July 10, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. Justin G. Witkin, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 202-1010 Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com baylstock@awkolaw.com jwitkin@awkolaw.com ACTIVATE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Sheffler Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ SEAN SHEFFLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACTIVATE HEALTHCARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01206-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind., July 8, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose sensitive personal information (SPI) was compromised as a result of the Defendant's failure to: (i) adequately protect consumers' SPI, (ii) adequately warn its current and former customers and potential customers of its inadequate information security practices, and (iii) effectively monitor its platforms for security vulnerabilities and incidents. On or about June 23, 2023, Activate announced publicly that between April 22 and April 28, 2023, it had been the recipient of a hack and exfiltration of SPI involving approximately 93,761 individuals who are and have been patients, sent to Activate by its client companies. The Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals have suffered injury as a result of the Defendant's conduct, says the suit. Activate Healthcare, LLC is a healthcare company, with its principal place of business at 9302 N. Meridian St., Suite 385, Indianapolis, Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 984-0000 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com ALDERSON BROADDUS: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alderson Broaddus University, Inc. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Alderson Broaddus University, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-05856 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Alderson Broaddus University -- http://www.ab.edu/-- is a private Baptist university in Philippi, West Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal ALLSTATE COMPANIES: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Sept. 18 ---------------------------------------------------------------- A settlement involving the Allstate Companies(1) may provide payments to those injured in a motor vehicle accident in Pennsylvania who received out-of-state treatment and to health care providers who received a reduced payment for claims. A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit that alleges the Allstate Companies (the "Defendants") violated the law by wrongly using an automated rules-based processing system that applied non-applicable out-of-state automobile fee schedules when adjusting Personal Injury Protection ("PIP") claims. As a result, lower payments were made on medical bills the Defendants covered under PIP coverage compared to the usual and customary charges of the health care providers. The Allstate Companies deny all allegations of wrongdoing, and the Court has not decided who is right. If you are an individual "Insured Class Member" or a "Health Care Provider Class Member" (as defined in FAQ 5), you are Settlement Class Member and can submit a Claim Form to receive a cash benefit payment from the Settlement Fund. If the Allstate Companies used an automate rules-based processing system that applied out-of-state automobile fee schedules to PIP claims resulting in lower payments on medical bills, the Claims Administrator will reprocess Settlement Class Members' PIP medical claims at the usual and customary rates. The Claims Administrator will determine whether each Settlement Class Member with a Valid Claim Form is entitled to either a Supplemental Payment or a Base Compensation Payment of $100, not both. 1 Allstate Companies means any or all of the following Allstate Corporation affiliated insurance companies: Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company, Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Encompass Home and Auto Insurance Company, Encompass Insurance Company of America, Esurance Insurance Company, and Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company. READ THIS WEBSITE CAREFULLY. YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS ARE AFFECTED WHETHER YOU ACT OR DO NOT ACT. Summary of Your Legal Rights and Options in This Settlement * Submit a Claim Form. The only way to get a cash benefit payment from the Settlement is to submit a Claim Form. * Exclude Yourself. Get no cash benefit payment. Keep your right to file your own lawsuit against the Defendants about the legal claims in this case. * Object. Tell the Court why you do not like the Settlement. You will still be bound by the Settlement if the Court approves it. * Go to a Hearing. Ask to speak in Court about the fairness of the Settlement. * Do Nothing * Get no cash benefit payment from the Settlement. Be bound by the Settlement. These rights and options and the deadlines to exercise them are explained further on the Frequently Asked Questions page -- https://papipsettlement.com/Home/Faq -- of this website. Current Status The Fairness Hearing will be held on September 18, 2023. Important Dates November 6, 2012, through December 31, 2017 -- Class Period August 21, 2023 -- Deadline to Exclude Yourself from the Settlement August 21, 2023 -- Deadline to Object to the Settlement September 18, 2023, 1:30 p.m. -- Fairness Hearing October 4, 2023 -- Deadline to Submit a Claim Form ALPHABET INC: Seeks to File Ghose Report Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re ALPHABET, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 4:18-cv-06245-JSW (N.D. Cal. ), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their administrative motion to file under seal portions of the expert report of Dr. Anindya Ghose (the Ghose Report) and their Opposition to the Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion. The Defendants seek to seal portions of the Opposition and Ghose Report because they contain information that reflects and discloses confidential and commercially sensitive analyses, decision-making processes, and strategies. The Company seeks to redact only narrowly-tailored references that competitors are very likely to use to unfairly gain insight into the Company's internal processes and harm the Company--and, by extension, its shareholders. By contrast, the public has little or no interest in the redacted information. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 30, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43uVyNv at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Boris Feldman, Esq. Doru Gavril, Esq. Rebecca Lockert, Esq. Olivia Rosen, Esq. FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP 855 Main Street Redwood City, CA 94063 Telephone: (650) 618-9250 E-mail: boris.feldman@freshfields.com doru.gavril@freshfields.com rebecca.lockert@freshfields.com olivia.rosen@freshfields.com - and - Ignacio E. Salceda, Esq. Benjamin M. Crosson, Esq. Stephen B. Strain, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C. 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Telephone: (650) 493-9300 Facsimile: (650) 565-5100 E-mail: isalceda@wsgr.com bcrosson@wsgr.com sstrain@wsgr.com - and - Mary Mcnamara, Esq. Edward Swanson, Esq. Britt Evangelist, Esq. Carly Bittman, Esq. SWANSON & McNAMARA LLP 300 Montgomery Street, Suite 1100 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 477-3800 E-mail: mary@smllp.law ed@smllp.law britt@smllp.law carly@smllp.law AMAZON.COM INC: McCarthy Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Tracy McCarthy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amazon.com Inc., Audible Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-02384-KAM-SIL was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on July 7, 2023. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01019-BJR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Amazon.com, Inc. -- http://www.amazon.com/-- is an American multinational technology company focusing on e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles D. Moore, Esq. Michael Robert Reese, Esq. Sue Jung Nam, Esq. REESE LLP 100 South 5th Street, Ste. 1900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (212) 643-0500 Fax: (212) 253-4272 Email: cmoore@reesellp.com mreese@reesellp.com snam@reesellp.com The Defendants are represented by: Brian D. Buckley, Esq. FENWICK & WEST (WA) 401 Union St., 5th Fl. Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 389-4529 Fax: (206) 389-4511 Email: bbuckley@fenwick.com - and - Charles Moulins, Esq. David Feder, Esq. FENWICK & WEST (NY) 902 Broadway 14th Fl. New York, NY 10010 Phone: (212) 430-2640 Email: cmoulins@fenwick.com Email: dfeder@fenwick.com - and - Esther D. Galan, Esq. FENWICK & WEST LLP (SANTA MONICA) 228 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 300 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (415) 875-2242 Email: egalan@fenwick.com - and - Jedediah Wakefield, Esq. Molly Melcher, Esq. FENWICK & WEST (SF) 555 California St, 12th Fl San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 875-2331 Email: jwakefield@fenwick.com mmelcher@fenwick.com APEX HUMAN SERVICES: Okokuro Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Oyakimigbia Okokuro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. APEX HUMAN SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-02615 (E.D. Pa., July 7, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed by the Defendant in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA). The Plaintiff regularly worked for the Defendant in excess of 40 hours in a week. But the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and other hourly workers like her at the proper overtime rate for these hours. Instead, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff and workers like her at their same hourly rate for all hours worked and improperly classified them as independent contractors. The Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and workers like her overtime wages violates the FLSA. The Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages also violates the PMWA. This class and collective action seeks to recover the unpaid wages and other damages owed to the Plaintiff and other hourly workers at the Defendant, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from March 2017 to December 2021. Apex is a home health care agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 2 Greenway, Ste. 250 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713 999 5228 Email: matt@parmet.law APRIA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Rabinovich Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ILYA RABINOVICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APRIA HEALTHCARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01205-JRS-MKK (S.D. Ind., July 7, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the protected health information (PHI) and personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated patients stored within its system following a data breach between April 5, 2019 and May 7, 2019 and again between August 27, 2021 and October 10, 2021. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the PII and PHI of the Plaintiff and Class members were compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Apria Healthcare, LLC is a home healthcare equipment provider, with its principal place of business at 7353 Company Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sandra L. Blevins, Esq. Jamie A. Maddox, Esq. BETZ + BLEVINS One Indiana Square, Suite 1660 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 687-2222 Facsimile: (317) 687-2221 E-mail: sblevins@betzadvocates.com jmaddox@betzadvocates.com - and - James M. Evangelista, Esq. EVANGELISTA WORLEY LLC 500 Sugar Mill Road, Suite 245A Atlanta, GA 30350 Telephone: (404) 205-8400 Facsimile: (404) 205-8395 E-mail: jim@ewlawllc.com - and - Jennifer Czeisler, Esq. JKC LAW, LLC 269 Altessa Blvd. Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (516) 457-9571 E-mail: jennifer@jkclawllc.com ARBOR GREEN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Holden Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ CHRIS HOLDEN; DREW LULOW; and SAMUEL SCHMUCKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ARBOR GREEN, INC.; and CHRISTY WADE, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00461 (W.D. Wis., July 11, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as laborers. ARBOR GREEN, INC. is a construction company operating in Portage, Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yingtao Ho, Esq. THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C. 310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW Milwaukee, WI 53203 Telephone: (414) 271-4500 Facsimile: (414) 271-6308 Email: yh@previant.com ARC AUTOMOTIVE: Class Suit Over Airbag Defects Filed in Canada -------------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood of CarComplaints.com reports that an ARC airbag class action lawsuit has been filed in Canada alleging defective and dangerous airbag inflators are installed in more than 70 models of vehicles manufactured by multiple automakers. The ARC airbag lawsuit includes: "[All] persons or entities resident in Quebec, who owned, purchased and/or leased a Subject Vehicle equipped with a frontal and/or passenger airbag containing a toroidal stored gas hybrid inflator designed and manufactured by ARC." The airbag inflator class action lawsuit was filed against these companies. ARC Automotive Joyson Safety Systems Toyoda Gosei General Motors Canada Ford Motor Company of Canada Volkswagen Group Canada Audi Canada BMW Canada Porsche Cars Canada Hyundai Motor America Kia Canada FCA Canada The Canadian class action alleges the toroidal stored gas hybrid airbag inflators manufactured by ARC Automotive are defective. The inflators contain ammonium nitrate as the propellant. "Ammonium nitrate or phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") is a volatile and unstable chemical and unsuitable to be used as the propellant in an airbag, especially in the airbags at issue since, in addition to the use of this dangerous chemical, the inflators did not contain pressure relief valves and used friction welding to secure the inflator halves without ensuring that all metal flash would be removed." -- ARC Canada airbag class action lawsuit The class action alleges at least seven ARC airbag inflators have exploded, killing two drivers. The plaintiffs say one fatality occurred in Newfoundland and Labrador in July 2016 and another death occurred in Michigan in August 2021. The lawsuit alleges customers overpaid when they purchased the vehicles, and now those vehicles have diminished values due to the ARC airbags. The ARC airbag class action lawsuit was filed in Canada at the Superior Court for the Province of Quebec District of Montreal: Pallante, et al., v. ARC Automotive, et al. The plaintiffs are represented by Consumer Law Group. Canadian ARC Airbag Inflator Lawsuit -- Affected Vehicles 2015-2017 Audi A3 2016 Audi A3 E-Tron 2016-2017 Audi R8 Coupe 2016 Audi S3 Sedan 2016-2017 Audi TT Roadster 2016-2017 Audi TT Coupe 2012-2014 BMW 1 Series 2008-2013 BMW 3 Series 2014-2017 BMW i3 2012-2014, 2016-2017 BMW X1 2007-2017 BMW X5 2008-2017 BMW X6 2008-2017 Buick Enclave 2005 Buick LaCrosse 2002-2005 Buick LeSabre 2003-2005 Buick Rendezvous 2003-2005 Cadillac CTS 2003-2005 Cadillac DeVille 2010-2014 Cadillac Escalade 2010-2014 Cadillac Escalade ESV 2010-2013 Cadillac Escalade EXT 2005 Cadillac STS 2004-2005 Cadillac XLR 2010-2013 Chevrolet Avalanche 2000-2005 Chevrolet Cavalier 2005 Chevrolet Corvette 2005 Chevrolet Equinox 2003-2005 Chevrolet Express 1500 2002-2005 Chevrolet Express 2500 2002-2005 Chevrolet Express 3500 2004-2005, 2010-2011 Chevrolet Malibu 2010-2013 Chevrolet Silverado 2010-2014 Chevrolet Silverado HD 2003-2005 Chevrolet SSR 2010-2014 Chevrolet Suburban 2010-2014 Chevrolet Tahoe 2013-2017 Chevrolet Traverse 2004-2005 Chevrolet Venture 2001-2007 Chrysler Town & Country 2001-2002 Chrysler PT Cruiser 2001-2007 Dodge Caravan 2001-2007 Dodge Grand Caravan 2017 Ford F-150 2007-2010 Ford Edge 2006-2012 Ford Fusion 2005-2006 Ford GT 2005-2014, 2017 Ford Mustang 2007-2011 Ford Ranger 2014-2017 GMC Acadia 2003-2005 GMC Savana 1500 2002-2005 GMC Savana 2500 2002-2005 GMC Savana 3500 2010-2013 GMC Sierra 2010-2014 GMC Sierrra HD 2010-2014 GMC Yukon 2010-2014 GMC Yukon XL 2009 Hyundai Elantra 2003-2005 Hyundai Tiburon 2005 Hyundai Tucson 2002-2005 Hyundai XG350 2001-2005 Kia Optima 2005 Kia Sportage 2006-2010 Lincoln MKX 2007-2012 Lincoln MKZ 2006 Lincoln Zephyr 2006-2011 Mercury Milan 2014-2017 Mini Cooper 2003-2005 Pontiac Bonneville 2005 Pontiac G6 2003-2005 Pontiac Montana 2001-2005 Pontiac Sunfire 2015-2017 Porsche Macan 2017 Porsche Panamera 2002-2005 Saturn Vue 2015-2017 Volkswagen CC 2016 Volkswagen E Golf 2015 Volkswagen EOS 2015-2017 Volkswagen Golf A7 2015-2017 Volkswagen Golf Sportwagen 2015-2017 Volkswagen Golf R 2016 Volkswagen GTI 2015 Volkswagen Passat [GN] ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Seeks Nov. 14 Extension to Oppose Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kenneth Crawford, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Arizona Beverages USA LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00220-DWD (S.D. Ill.), Arizona Beverages, with the consent of the Plaintiff, moves the Court for an extension of time for Defendant to file opposition to the motion for class certification to November 14, 2023. On June 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. The deadline for Defendant to oppose the motion for class certification is August 14, 2023. The Defendant has requested that Plaintiffs expert, Dr. Andrea Lynn Matthews, whose report is relied upon in the class certification motion, appear for deposition in July. In response, the Plaintiff advised the Defendant that Dr. Matthews is expecting a child and will not be available to appear for deposition until at least September 29, 2023. Due to the need to depose Dr. Matthews and her unavailability to appear for deposition until well after the current opposition deadline, Defendant respectfully requests an extension of the deadline to oppose class certification to November 14, 2023. The Defendant, with consent of Plaintiff, requests entry of an order granting an extension to November 14, 2023, for the due date for Defendant's opposition to the class certification motion. Arizona Beverages is a producer of many flavors of iced tea, juice cocktails, and energy drinks. A copy of the Court's order dated June 29, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46T6CHk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Road, Suite 409 Great Neck, New York 11021 Telephone No.: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: Spencer@spencersheehan.com The Defendant is represented by: Robert P. Donovan, Esq. STEVENS & LEE 669 River Drive, Suite 201 Elmwood Park, New Jersey 07407 Telephone No.: (201) 857-6778 E-mail: Robert.donovan@Jstevenslee.com ASCENSION MICHIGAN: Halczenko Appeals Denied Bid to Intervene ------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL HALCZENKO, an interested party, is taking an appeal from a court order denying his motions to intervene in the lawsuit entitled Karen Albright, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ascension Michigan, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00638, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The Plaintiffs filed a four-count complaint against the Defendants for alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The Plaintiffs later filed a First and Second Amended Complaint. In each complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged that Ascension and its various related entities unlawfully denied their religious accommodation requests and retaliated against employees who sought religious exemptions from Ascension's COVID-19 Vaccination Policy. The Plaintiffs claimed that they were suspended or forced to resign. On June 2, 2023, Dr. Paul Halczenko, an interested party, filed motions to intervene, which the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge Jane M. Beckering on June 13, 2023. The appellate case is captioned Karen Albright, et al. v. Ascension Michigan, et al., Case No. 23-1595, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on June 28, 2023. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees KAREN ALBRIGHT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Brendan John Childress, Esq. Noah Sklar Hurwitz, Esq. HURWITZ LAW 340 Beakes Street, Suite 125 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 645-5263 - and - Kara Florence Krause, Esq. HURWITZ LAW 340 Beakes Street, Suite 125 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 972-8020 - and - James Andrew Thomas, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES A. THOMAS 1925 Breton Road, S.E., Suite 250 Grand Rapids, MI 49506 Telephone: (616) 747-1188 Defendants-Appellees ASCENSION MICHIGAN, et al. are represented by: Elyse K. Culberson, Esq. Maurice G. Jenkins, Esq. Allan S. Rubin, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS 2000 Town Center, Suite 1650 Southfield, MI 48075 Telephone: (248) 936-1900 Intervenor-Appellant PAUL HALCZENKO is represented by: William Bock, III, Esq. Kevin D. Koons, Esq. KROGER, GARDIS & REGAS 111 Monument Circle, Suite 900 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 692-9000 ASSUMPTION UNIVERSITY: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Assumption University. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Assumption University, Case No. 1:23-cv-05857 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Assumption University -- https://www.assumption.edu/ -- is a private, Roman Catholic university in Worcester, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal BASIN SPORTS: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Basin Sports, Inc. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Basin Sports, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-05836 (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2023). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Basin Sports -- https://basinsports.com/ -- was founded then to provide the area with the industry's best supplies and equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB 380 North Broadway, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Phone: (718) 740-5060 Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com BAYER US: Huertas Appeals Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------- JUAN HUERTAS, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss his lawsuit entitled Juan Huertas, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bayer US LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2-21-cv-20021, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action suit in the Court asserting the following claims: Breach of Express Warranty (Count I); Breach of Implied Warranty (Count II); Violation of New York General Business Law Section 349 (Count III); Violation of New York General Business Law Section 350 (Count IV); Fraud (Count V); and Unjust Enrichment (Count VI). On Sept. 16, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Class Action Complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss on Oct. 28, 2022. On May 23, 2023, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss through an Order entered by Judge Susan D. Wigenton. The civil case was terminated. The appellate case is captioned Juan Huertas, et al. v. Bayer US LLC, Case No. 23-2178, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on June 29, 2023. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JUAN HUERTAS, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 - and - Innessa M. Huot, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 - and - Max S. Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7408 Defendant-Appellee BAYER US LLC is represented by: Edward J. Fanning, Jr., Esq. MCCARTER & ENGLISH 100 Mulberry Street Four Gateway Center Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 622-4444 BIOMARIN PHARMA: $39MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 8 ------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION IN RE BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION CLASS ACTION Case No. 3:20-cv-06719-WHO SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. ("BioMarin") common stock from March 3, 2020 through August 18, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby ("Settlement Class"): PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY; YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ("Court"), that the above-captioned action ("Action") has been provisionally certified as a class action for purposes of settlement, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated April 24, 2023 ("Stipulation") and the detailed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses ("Notice"). The Stipulation and Notice can be viewed at www.BioMarinSecuritiesLitigation.com. In the Action, Lead Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements to investors during the Class Period concerning BioMarin's application to the Food and Drug Administration for approval of a gene therapy for hemophilia called valrox. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff Arbejdsmarkedets Tillægspension and Defendants BioMarin, Jean-Jacques Bienaimé, and Dr. Henry Fuchs have reached a proposed settlement of the Action on behalf of the Settlement Class for $39,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). If approved by the Court, the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing ("Settlement Hearing") will be held on November 8, 2023 at 2:00 p.m. Pacific Time, before the Honorable William H. Orrick, United States District Court Judge for the Northern District of California, either in person at the Phillip Burton Federal Building & United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, in Courtroom 2 - 17th Floor, or by telephone or videoconference (in the discretion of the Court), to determine, among other things: (i) whether, for purposes of settlement, the Action should be certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, Lead Plaintiff should be appointed as the class representative for the Settlement Class, and Lead Counsel should be appointed as class counsel for the Settlement Class; (ii) whether the Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class, and should be finally approved by the Court; (iii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants and the releases specified and described in the Stipulation (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iv) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (v) whether Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed 19% of the Settlement Fund and payment of expenses in an amount not to exceed $650,000 (which amount may include a request for reimbursement of the reasonable costs and expenses incurred by Lead Plaintiff directly related to its representation of the Settlement Class) should be approved. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the website for the Settlement, www.BioMarinSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement proceeds. This notice provides only a summary of the information contained in the detailed Notice. You may obtain a copy of the Notice, along with the Claim Form, by: (i) contacting the Claims Administrator at BioMarin Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 170400, Milwaukee, WI, 53217, 1-877-390-3369, info@BioMarinSecuritiesSettlement.com; or (ii) downloading them from the website for the Settlement, www.BioMarinSecuritiesLitigation.com, or from Lead Counsel's website, www.blbglaw.com. To be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must be a member of the Settlement Class and submit a Claim Form postmarked (if mailed), or online, no later than October 30, 2023, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Claim Form. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the Settlement proceeds, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than October 18, 2023, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not receive any benefits from the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses, must be submitted to the Court. Objections must be filed or postmarked (if mailed) no later than October 18, 2023, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. All questions about this notice, the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator. Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to the Claims Administrator: BioMarin Securities Litigation c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 170400 Milwaukee, WI 53217 1-877-390-3369 info@BioMarinSecuritiesLitigation.com www.BioMarinSecuritiesLitigation.com All other inquiries should be made to Lead Counsel: Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP Katherine M. Sinderson, Esq. 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 1-800-380-8496 settlements@blbglaw.com BY ORDER OF THE COURT United States District Court Northern District of California BOSELLI INVESTMENTS: Seeks Decertification of Class in Rodriguez ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, v. BOSELLI INVESTMENTS LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00314-RMR-KLM (D. Colo.), the Defendant requests that the Court should revisit the Adams County, Colorado District Court's ruling granting class certification under C.R.C.P. 23 and find that the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and the applicable federal standard of review. In the end, even if the Plaintiff had presented evidence of alleged missed breaks by purported class members (which she plainly did not), "each class member would have to present individualized evidence regarding how often and for what shifts" they were not permitted breaks, if at all, and what liability attaches, if any. As a result, the Plaintiff has not carried, and cannot carry, her burden on commonality or predominance. Here, the same individualized issues that plague determination of any possible class-wide liability, as discussed above, prohibit the Plaintiff from offering any methodology or solution for measuring class-wide damages. Here, individual damages issues compound an existing problem and provide further reason to decertify the class as a class wide resolution of damages is not possible here. Rest break cases and damages, by their very nature, turn on individual employee experiences unless there is an explicit unlawful policy. The Adams County, Colorado District Court granted class certification of the Plaintiff Ana Rodriguez's claims for alleged missed meal and rest breaks by applying a Colorado state court standard that is error in the Court. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to provide her thirty-minute unpaid meal breaks and/or ten-minute paid rest breaks in compliance with Colorado law to her and other employees and therefore owes them wages as a result. The Plaintiff has asserted these missed break claims under the Colorado Wage Claim Act and Colorado Minimum Wage Act. On June 8, 2022, the Plaintiff filed her Motion for Class Certification seeking to certify a class of: "all current and former hourly employees who worked for the Defendant from October 25, 2014, to present." In moving for class certification, the Plaintiff offered zero evidence from other putative class members and relied exclusively on her own deposition, the Defendant's corporate representative's deposition, and the Defendant's lawful break policies. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from May 2017 to January 2019. Boselli is a McDonald's franchisee that operates thirteen stores in the Denver, Colorado metropolitan area. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43n2ZGB at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Micah D. Dawson, Esq. Jeffrey H. McClelland, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1125 17th Street, Suite 2400 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 218-3650 Facsimile: (303) 218-3651 E-mail: mdawson@fisherphillips.com jmcclelland@fisherphillips.com BOYNE USA: Anderson Wins Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE ANDERSON, as trustee for the LAWRENCE T. ANDERSON AND SUZANNE M. ANDERSON JOINT REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST; ROBERT AND NORA ERHART; and TJARDA CLAGETT, v. BOYNE USA, INC.; BOYNE PROPERTIES, INC.; and SUMMIT HOTEL, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00095-BMM (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class and denying Boyne's motion to deny class certification: 1. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is granted. 2. The Defendants' Motion to Deny Class Certification is denied. 3. The Court certifies the following class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), for potential injunctive and declaratory relief, and 23(b)(3), for potential damages: "All persons and entities, other than Boyne, that: (i) own or have owned a unit in the Summit, the Shoshone, or the Village Center; and (ii) [have] participated in the Boyne rental management program. 4. The Plaintiffs' counsel, Benjamin Alke, Jeffrey Tierney, Devlan Geddes, John Crist, Haley Ford, and Henry Tesar, are appointed as class counsel. The Plaintiffs and Boyne have filed cross-motions urging the Court to grant and deny, respectively, class certification for the Plaintiffs. Boyne owns and operates Big Sky Resort, as well as three condominium-hotels at the base of Big Sky known as the Summit, Shoshone, and Village Center. A copy of the Court's order dated June 28, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46Lmnjd at no extra charge.[CC] BUFFALO, NY: Court Certifies Safety Program Tickets Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Harold McNeil of The Buffalo News reports that scores of motorists ticketed under Buffalo's now-defunct school zone speed camera program could get refunds as part of a class-action lawsuit now being heard in state Supreme Court. Justice Henry Nowak recently ruled that people with a due date on their citation on or after Nov. 19, 2020, can be included in the lawsuit. Attorney Kevin Stocker, who filed the legal petition in March 2021 on behalf of himself and 53 other ticketed drivers, asked that all tickets from the initial start of the program in March 2020 be included. But Nowak agreed with the city's contention that Article 78 proceedings - lawsuits mainly used to challenge an action by government agencies or local governments - must be commenced within four months after the challenged action becomes final and binding. The Nov. 19, 2020, date is four months before Stocker filed his petition. "We're getting into discovery right now, and we're trying to identify all the people that had to pay or had a plea date," Stocker said. "So the court has said everybody from that date moving forward is in the class-action suit. So they're entitled to be part of this litigation group, which I represent, and the goal is to get everybody's money back." The city had asked Nowak to deny class certification, contending "the unique factual circumstances of each ticket issued" would predominate over the only common question in the case: whether tickets issued under the program were valid. "The peculiar facts and circumstances of each ticket will need to be considered and individual issues will predominate throughout the class," Assistant Corporation Counsel David M. Lee said in a written court submission ahead of Nowak's ruling. The city launched the school safety zone program on March 11, 2020, using cameras installed by Sensys Gatso USA to catch motorists traveling in excess of 25 mph in the newly designated 15-mph school zones. The program was put on pause as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, but was resumed in the fall of 2020, when most students in the city were attending school virtually. Speeding violations were issued into the spring of 2021, according to Nowak's ruling. Stocker alleged the program violated New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law. "We litigated that the statute wasn't being followed correctly and we said it was unconstitutional," said Stocker. "And when we filed the litigation, one, we said it created a dangerous condition because the safety regulations only allow you to drop the speed limit 10 miles. It doesn't allow you to drop it 15, which is what they did." Nowak denied Stocker's motion that the court declare the program unconstitutional. In March, the state appellate court in Rochester upheld Nowak's ruling. Stocker's lone remaining cause of action alleges Buffalo's implementation of the program was arbitrary and capricious. Among the issues: The lack of notice for drivers entering the speed zones. Speed zones operated at improper times or locations. Cameras and other equipment malfunctioned. Errors on the tickets issued and the inability of vehicle owners to appear to contest the alleged infractions. In April 2021, University District Council Member Rasheed N.C. Wyatt sponsored a resolution to end the program, and it was approved by the Council in May 2021. The last speeding camera was turned off in July 2021. In September 2021, a lawyer who was part of a campaign to jettison Buffalo's school zone speed cameras program submitted an affidavit in Stocker's class-action lawsuit after a judge dismissed two tickets that the city had issued to her client. The lawyer said the tickets were dismissed by the judge because the city admitted in court that it could not provide proof that the camera system that was used to generate the tickets was properly tested on the days that the monitors allegedly recorded her client's car speeding, as required by state Vehicle and Traffic Law. The lawyer also argued that a speed camera technician’s signature was required to appear on the tickets to certify that they were valid. Meanwhile, Stocker continues to press to get all of the tickets invalidated and refunds for the ticketed owners. "It would be my intent to try to publicly shame the city by saying every person who's eligible to vote should vote against the mayor and the Common Council until they refund everybody's money back because this was an illegal program. It was not designed for safety. It was designed to raise revenue on poor and hardworking people during Covid," he said. "What we're doing is identifying how many people are covered in it and whether the city met the requisite requirements in running the program, which we all know they didn't, and we think the revenue is somewhere between the $2.1 million to $3 million range that they would look at having to refund. And at this early stage, it's just a guess," Stocker added. The fines were $50 for a first offense, $75 for a second offense and $100 for a third offense. [GN] CALIFORNIA: Parties Seek to File Portions of Class Chart Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as In re California Gasoline Spot Market Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:20-cv-03131-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an administrative order to file under seal portions of the chart submitted in connection with the Parties' motion to seal that identifies the third parties whose confidential materials were included in the class certification record. The parties jointly move the Court pursuant to the Order Modifying Sealing Procedures for Class Certification Briefing. The Order Modifying Sealing Procedures for Class Certification Briefing requires the Parties to submit a motion that identifies "(1) the portions of the Confidential Class Certification Material designated as confidential by any party or third party and (2) the party or third party that designated each portion of the Confidential Class Certification Material as confidential." The Parties' motion to seal includes an appendix that identifies the specific documents and, where applicable, pages and lines, in the class certification record that were designated as confidential by a third party and, for each such document, page, and line, the third party that designated the material as confidential (the "Sealing Chart"). Each third party is to be provided with a copy of any class certification material containing its confidential information, with the confidential information of other parties redacted. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 27, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pGMR4N at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq. Kyle G. Bates, Esq. Tae Kim, Esq. Samantha Derksen, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Facsimile: (415) 358-4980 E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com clebsock@hausfeld.com kbates@hausfeld.com tkim@hausfeld.com sderksen@hausfeld.com - and - Dena C. Sharp, Esq. Scott M. Grzenczyk, Esq. Kyle P. Quackenbush, Esq. Mikaela M. Bock, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com scottg@girardsharp.com kquackenbush@girardsharp.com mbock@girardsharp.com The Defendants are represented by: Neal Manne, Esq. Alex Kaplan, Esq. Michael Craig Kelso, Esq. Amanda K. Bonn, Esq. Eliza Finley, Esq. Genevieve Vose Wallace, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 1000 Louisiana, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77002-5096 Telephone: (713) 651-9366 Facsimile: (713) 654-6666 E-mail: nmanne@susmangodfrey.com akaplan@susmangodfrey.com mkelso@susmangodfrey.com abonn@susmangodfrey.com efinley@susmangodfrey.co gwallace@susmangodfrey.com - and - John B. Quinn, Esq. Steven G. Madison, Esq. Shon Morgan, Esq. Justin Griffin, Esq. Ben Odell, Esq. John M. Potter, Esq. Christine W. Chen, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 E-mail: johnquinn@quinnemanuel.com stevemadison@quinnemanuel.com shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com justingriffin@quinnemanuel.com benodell@quinnemanuel.com johnpotter@quinnemanuel.com christinechen@quinnemanuel.com - and - Michael E. Martinez, Esq. Lauren Norris Donahue, Esq. Clifford C. Histed, Esq. Nicole C. Mueller, Esq. Brian J. Smith, Esq. John E. Susoreny, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 70 W. Madison St., Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 372-1121 Facsimile: (312) 827-800 E-mail: michael.martinez@klgates.com lauren.donahue@klgates.com clifford.histed@klgates.com Nicole.mueller@klgates.com brian.j.smith@klgates.com john.susoreny@klgates.com - and - Jeffrey M. Davidson, Esq. Phillip Warren, Esq. Amy S. Heath, Esq. John S. Playforth, Esq. Carol Szurkowski Weiland, Esq. Jeffrey Cao, Esq. Lori Parcel Taubman, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP Salesforce Tower 415 Mission Street, Suite 5400 San Francisco, CA 94105-2533 Telephone: (415) 591-6000 Facsimile: (415) 591-6091 E-mail: jdavidson@cov.com pwarren@cov.com jli@cov.com jplayforth@cov.com cweiland@cov.com jcao@cov.com CALIFORNIA: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Sealing Procedures ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as In re California Gasoline Spot Market Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:20-cv-03131-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties' ask the Court to enter an order modifying sealing procedures for Class Certification Briefing and Civil Local Rule 79-5, for an administrative order to file under seal the below materials: -- Paragraph 12.3 of the Stipulated Protective Order requires materials designated as "CONFIDENTIAL" or "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" (Protected Material) to be filed under seal. The Plaintiffs seek to seal only limited portions of Exhibit 12 to the Declaration of Jeffery M. Davidson in Support of the Defendants' Joint Opposition to the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (Davidson Declaration). The Plaintiffs have designated portions of Exhibit 12 to the Davidson Declaration as "CONFIDENTIAL" under the Stipulated Protective Order. Portions of Exhibit 12 contain private financial information. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 27, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JKZzqc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq. Kyle G. Bates, Esq. Tae Kim, Esq. Samantha Derksen, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Facsimile: (415) 358-4980 E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com clebsock@hausfeld.com kbates@hausfeld.com tkim@hausfeld.com sderksen@hausfeld.com - and - Dena C. Sharp, Esq. Scott M. Grzenczyk, Esq. Kyle P. Quackenbush, Esq. Mikaela M. Bock, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com scottg@girardsharp.com kquackenbush@girardsharp.com mbock@girardsharp.com The Defendants are represented by: Neal Manne, Esq. Alex Kaplan, Esq. Michael Craig Kelso, Esq. Amanda K. Bonn, Esq. Eliza Finley, Esq. Genevieve Vose Wallace, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 1000 Louisiana, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77002-5096 Telephone: (713) 651-9366 Facsimile: (713) 654-6666 E-mail: nmanne@susmangodfrey.com akaplan@susmangodfrey.com mkelso@susmangodfrey.com abonn@susmangodfrey.com efinley@susmangodfrey.co gwallace@susmangodfrey.com - and - John B. Quinn, Esq. Steven G. Madison, Esq. Shon Morgan, Esq. Justin Griffin, Esq. Ben Odell, Esq. John M. Potter, Esq. Christine W. Chen, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 E-mail: johnquinn@quinnemanuel.com stevemadison@quinnemanuel.com shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com justingriffin@quinnemanuel.com benodell@quinnemanuel.com johnpotter@quinnemanuel.com christinechen@quinnemanuel.com - and - Michael E. Martinez, Esq. Lauren Norris Donahue, Esq. Clifford C. Histed, Esq. Nicole C. Mueller, Esq. Brian J. Smith, Esq. John E. Susoreny, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 70 W. Madison St., Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 372-1121 Facsimile: (312) 827-800 E-mail: michael.martinez@klgates.com lauren.donahue@klgates.com clifford.histed@klgates.com Nicole.mueller@klgates.com brian.j.smith@klgates.com john.susoreny@klgates.com - and - Jeffrey M. Davidson, Esq. Phillip Warren, Esq. Amy S. Heath, Esq. John S. Playforth, Esq. Carol Szurkowski Weiland, Esq. Jeffrey Cao, Esq. Lori Parcel Taubman, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP Salesforce Tower 415 Mission Street, Suite 5400 San Francisco, CA 94105-2533 Telephone: (415) 591-6000 Facsimile: (415) 591-6091 E-mail: jdavidson@cov.com pwarren@cov.com jli@cov.com jplayforth@cov.com cweiland@cov.com jcao@cov.com CAMPBELL SOUP: Popcorn Products Contain PFAS, Santiago Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- SERINA SANTIAGO and ASHLEY WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY and SNYDER'S-LANCE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-03295 (N.D. Cal., June 30, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California's Unfair Competition Law, and breach of implied warranties. According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of a line of "Pop Secret" microwave popcorn. The Defendants label the products with several partial representations indicating the products are safe such as "Premium Popcorn," "100% Whole Grain," "Made with Non-GMO Corn," and "No Artificial Preservatives, Flavors [and] Dyes." In reality, the Defendants' Premium Popcorn contains extremely high levels of harmful chemicals called Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS") which are a safety hazard to humans and the environment. Accordingly, the Defendants' representations and omissions are deceptive and likely to deceive reasonable consumers, says the suit. Campbell Soup Company is a food manufacturer headquartered in Camden, New Jersey. Snyder's-Lance, Inc. is a food company, headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig W. Straub, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: craig@crosnerlegal.com CAVA GROUP: Faces Toledo Suit Over Restaurant Cooks' Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- ITAMAR G. TOLEDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAVA GROUP, INC. a/k/a CAVA, Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-01467 (M.D. Fla., June 30, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and for retaliatory discharge. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a full-time cook from approximately November 7, 2022, to June 27, 2023. Cava Group, Inc. is an owner and operator of Mediterranean restaurant under the name Cava, located at 1320 4th St. N., St. Petersburg, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com CEREBRAL INC: Cullors Appeals Arbitration Ruling to 9th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs STACIA CULLORS, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's June 20, 2023 Order entered in the lawsuit entitled STACIA CULLORS, et al., Plaintiffs v. CEREBRAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-09143-DSF-PD, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Dale S. Fischer of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied the Plaintiffs' motion to remand on Feb. 23, 2023. Defendant Cerebral, Inc., removed this case based on the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The Plaintiffs had moved to remand, arguing that the Defendant cannot establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant had a practice of promising services and results that it did not and would not provide to its subscribers. The complaint does not say or imply that there was some class of subscribers, who did receive what was promised. The Plaintiffs argued that because the class is defined, essentially, as the Defendant's customers, who have meritorious claims in this action, there are some of the Defendant's customers, who might have received the care promised and are not at issue. On April 3, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration which the Court granted on June 20, 2023 through an Order signed by Judge Fischer, dismissing the case. The appellate case is captioned as STACIA CULLORS, an individual; ERIC EBERLE, an individual; NICOLE SCURLOCK DEWEY, an individual; MERCEDES SCHROEDER, an individual; PATRICIA ANNE CRAWFORD, an individual; MAGGIE HARRISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. CEREBRAL, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 23-55594, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 6, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due July 13, 2023; -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of record shall be filed on September 6, 2023; -- Appellee's answering brief and excerpts of record shall be filed on October 6, 2023; and -- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and served within 21 days of service of the appellee's brief. Failure of the appellant to comply with the Time Schedule Order will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal.[BN] CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Expert Discovery Continued to August 4 in Loomis ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Loomis Sayles Trust Company LLC v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06706-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna Schofield entered an order granting the Parties request to complete expert discovery, from July 21, 2023, to August 4, 2023. The proposed extension would not affect any other dates set forth in the Court's March 13, 2023, Amended Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order, including, the pre-motion conference scheduled for August 9, 2023. The Plaintiff served five expert reports on May 22, 2023, and CGMI served three expert reports on June 21, 2023. The parties have been working cooperatively to schedule expert depositions; however, it has proven difficult to schedule them all to take place by the July 21, 2023, deadline in the Amended Scheduling Order. Citigroup Global provides banking and financial services. The Bank offers personal banking, securities trading, wealth, and treasury management. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44ur0Na at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Michael A. Paskin, Esq. CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP Worldwide Plaza 825 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10019-7475 Telephone: (212) 474-1000 Facsimile: (212) 474-3700 E-mail: MPaskin@cravath.com CLOVER HEALTH: $22MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 2 ----------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE TIMOTHY BOND, Lead Plaintiff and JEAN-NICOLAS TREMBLAY Named Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, CLOVER HEALTH INVESTMENTS, CORP. f/k/a SOCIAL CAPITAL HEDOSOPHIA HOLDINGS CORP. III, VIVEK GARIPALLI, ANDREW TOY, JOE WAGNER and CHAMATH PALIHAPITIYA, Defendants Case No. 3:21-cv-00096 Judge Aleta A. Trauger NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION: Please be advised that your rights may be affected by the above-captioned securities class action (the "Action") pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee (the "Court"), if, during the period from October 6, 2020 to February 3, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), you purchased or otherwise acquired Clover Health Investments, Corp. f/k/a Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. III ("Clover") common stock or warrants. NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT: Please also be advised that the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff, Firas Jabri ("Jabri"), and Named Plaintiff Jean-Nicolas Tremblay ("Tremblay," and collectively, with Jabri, "Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class, have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $22,000,000.00 in cash that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action (the "Settlement"). PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. This Notice explains important rights you may have, including the possible receipt of cash from the Settlement. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your legal rights will be affected whether or not you act. The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of the existence of this case, that it is a class action, how you might be affected, and how to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class if you wish to do so. It is also being sent to inform you of the terms of the proposed Settlement, and of a hearing to be held by the Court to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation and any motion by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, and a compensatory award to Plaintiffs (the "Settlement Hearing"). On February 5, 2021, Timothy Bond commenced this Action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, styled Timothy Bond v. Clover Health Investments, Corp., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00096 By Order dated April 23, 2021, Jabri was appointed Lead Plaintiff in the Action and Pomerantz LLP ("Pomerantz") was appointed Lead Counsel for the putative class. On June 28, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Complaint"), on behalf of the Settlement Class, asserting claims against Defendants under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and against the Individual Defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that during the Settlement Class Period (as defined below), Defendants made false and misleading statements related to (i) legal or regulatory violations; (ii) regulatory investigations into those violations; (iii) the sources of Clover's growth; (iv) use of Clover's proprietary software by healthcare providers during patient visits; (v) compliance with GAAP; and (vi) compliance with SEC Regulation S-K. The Complaint further alleges that the prices of Clover securities were artificially inflated as a result of Defendants' false and misleading statements, and that the price of Clover securities declined when the truth regarding Defendants' alleged misrepresentations was revealed. Defendants denied all of the allegations, and moved to dismiss the Complaint. By Order dated February 28, 2022, the Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss in full. For the next four months, the Parties engaged in extensive negotiation and litigation regarding document discovery; the service of and response to requests for production; and extensive document review. Defendants produced documents to Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs produced documents to Defendants. On July 1, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion in support of class certification. On September 30, 2022, Defendants filed a brief opposing class certification. On October 31, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a reply brief in further support of class certification Plaintiffs and Defendants participated in mediation sessions in July and August 2022, before nationally recognized mediator Jed D. Melnick, Esq. and continued negotiations with Mr. Melnick's assistance thereafter. As a result of the mediation, the Parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the Action for a cash payment of $22,000,000.00 for the benefit of the Settlement Class, subject to certain terms and conditions and the execution of a customary "long form" stipulation and agreement of settlement and related papers. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you are subject to the Settlement, unless you file a timely and valid request to be excluded. The Settlement Class consists of: all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Clover securities (including Clover warrants) between October 6, 2020 and February 3, 2021, both dates inclusive. To be potentially eligible for a payment from the proceeds of the Settlement, you must be a member of the Settlement Class and you must timely complete and return the Claim Form with adequate supporting documentation postmarked no later than October 9, 2023. A Claim Form is included with this Notice, or you may obtain one from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator for the Settlement, ww.CloverHealthSecuritiesLitigation.com, or you may request that a Claim Form be mailed to you by calling the Claims Administrator toll free at 1-800-877-381-0387. Please retain all records of your ownership of and transactions in Clover securities, as they may be needed to document your Claim. If you request exclusion from the Settlement Class or do not submit a timely and valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the Net Settlement Fund. At this time, it is not possible to make any determination as to how much any individual Settlement Class Member may receive from the Settlement. Pursuant to the Settlement, Defendants have agreed pay twenty-two million dollars ($22,000,000.00) in cash. The Settlement Amount will be deposited into an escrow account. The Settlement Amount plus any interest earned thereon is referred to as the "Settlement Fund." If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date occurs, the "Net Settlement Fund" (that is, the Settlement Fund less (a) all federal, state and/or local taxes (including any interest or penalties thereon) on any income earned by the Settlement Fund, the reasonable costs incurred in connection with determining the amount of and paying taxes owed by the Settlement Fund (including reasonable expenses of tax attorneys and accountants), and all taxes imposed on payments by the Settlement Fund, including withholding taxes; (b) the costs and expenses incurred in connection with providing notice to Settlement Class Members and administering the Settlement on behalf of Settlement Class Members; and (c) any attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses awarded by the Court) will be distributed to Settlement Class Members who submit valid Claim Forms, in accordance with the proposed Plan of Allocation or such other plan of allocation as the Court may approve. Plaintiffs' Counsel, which have been prosecuting the Action on a wholly contingent basis since its inception, have not received any payment of attorneys' fees for their representation of the Settlement Class and have advanced the funds to pay expenses necessarily incurred to prosecute this Action. Court-appointed Lead Counsel Pomerantz LLP will apply to the Court for an award of attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed 25% (i.e., one-quarter) of the Settlement Fund. In addition, Lead Counsel will apply for reimbursement of Litigation Expenses paid or incurred in connection with the institution, prosecution and resolution of the claims against the Defendants, in an amount not to exceed $500,000, which may include an application for reimbursement of the reasonable costs and expenses incurred by Plaintiffs directly related to their representation of the Settlement Class. Any fees and expenses awarded by the Court will be paid from the Settlement Fund. Settlement Class Members are not personally liable for any such fees or expenses. The estimate of the average cost per allegedly damaged Clover security, if the Court approves Lead Counsel's fee and expense application, is $0.06. In addition, Lead Counsel may apply for awards to Plaintiffs in connection with their representation of the Settlement Class in an amount not to exceed $100,000, combined. The Settlement Hearing will be held on October 2, 2023 at 3:30 p.m., before the Honorable Aleta Trauger at the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Courtroom 6C, Fred D. Thompson U.S. Courthouse and Federal Building, 719 Church Street, Suite 1300, Nashville, TN 37203, or by telephonic, video conferencing or other electronic means, as posted on the website of the Claims Administrator. The Court reserves the right to approve the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, an award to Plaintiffs and/or any other matter related to the Settlement at or after the Settlement Hearing without further notice to the members of the Settlement Class. Any Settlement Class Member who or which does not request exclusion may object to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation or Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses. Objections must be in writing. You must also serve the papers on the Lead Counsel representative and on the Defendants' Counsel representative at the addresses set forth below so that the papers are received on or before September 11, 2023. Clerk's Office U.S. District Court, Middle District of Tennessee Aleta A. Trauger Fred D. Thompson U.S. Courthouse and Federal Building 719 Church Street Suite 1300 Nashville, TN 37203 Lead Counsel Representatives Pomerantz LLP Attn: Brian Calandra 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10016 Defendants' Counsel Representative Milbank LLP Attn: Scott A. Edelman and Jed Schwartz 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 530-5000 Email: sedelman@milbank.com and jschwartz@milbank.com This Notice contains only a summary of the terms of the proposed Settlement. For more detailed information about the matters involved in this Action, you are referred to the papers on file in the Action, including the Stipulation, which are available online via the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at https://pacer.uscourts.gov/ or will be provided by Lead Counsel upon request. Additionally, copies of the Stipulation and any related orders entered by the Court will be posted on the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.CloverHealthSecuritiesLitigation.com. All inquiries concerning this Notice and the Claim Form should be directed to: Clover Health Securities Litigation c/o JND Legal Administration PO Box 91462, Seattle, WA 98111 info@CloverHealthSecuritiesLitigation.com and/or Brian Calandra POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor, New York, NY, 10606 (212) 661-1100 bcalandra@pomlaw.com DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT, THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE COURT, DEFENDANTS OR THEIR COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE Dated: June 28, 2023 By Order of the Court United States District Court Middle District of Tennessee COLOURPOP COSMETICS: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Wurm Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHARMING WURM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COLOURPOP COSMETICS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-015476 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Ct., Broward Cty., July 7, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending unwanted text message solicitations to the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers to promote its products or services. Specifically, the Defendant made text message sales calls that promoted ColourPop and violated the FTSA's 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 suit. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, seeks liquidated damages. ColourPop Cosmetics, LLC is an operator of a cosmetics online store, doing business in Florida. [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 COMMUNITY HEALTH: $9.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 13 ---------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION CALEB PADILLA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., WAYNE T. SMITH, LARRY CASH, and THOMAS J. AARON, Defendants. Case No.: 3:19-cv-00461 DISTRICT JUDGE ELI J. RICHARDSON MAGISTRATE JUDGE BARBARA D. HOLMES SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons and entities who or which, during the period between February 21, 2017, and February 27, 2018, inclusive, purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Community Health Systems, Inc., and were allegedly damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"):1 PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, that the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action, Certification of Settlement Class, and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $9,500,000 in cash (the "Settlement"), which, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be held on October 13, 2023, at 1:00 p.m., before the Honorable Eli J. Richardson at the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Fred D. Thompson U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom 5C, 719 Church Street, Nashville, TN 37203, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses should be approved. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. The Notice and Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form") can be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.CommunityHealthSecuritiesSettlement.com. You may also obtain copies of the Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator at Padilla v. Community Health Systems, Inc., c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173112, Milwaukee, WI 53217, (877) 390-3492. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than October 26, 2023. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than September 22, 2023, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than September 22, 2023, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Community Health Systems, Inc., or its counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP Casey E. Sadler, Esq. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 (888) 773-9224 settlements@glancylaw.com - or - POMERANTZ LLP Joshua B. Silverman, Esq. 10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 377-1181 jbsilverman@pomlaw.com Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: Padilla v. Community Health Systems, Inc. c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173112 Milwaukee, WI 53217 (877) 390-3492 www.CommunityHealthSecuritiesSettlement.com info@CommunityHealthSecuritiesSettlement.com Dated: July 10, 2023 By Order of the Court United States District Court Middle District of Tennessee 1 All capitalized terms used in this Summary Notice that are not otherwise defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated May 19, 2023 (the "Stipulation"), which is available at www.CommunityHealthSecuritiesSettlement.com. COUNTRY MUTUAL: Sudholt Appeals Remand Ruling in Insurance Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Angela Sudholt, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's June 26, 2023 Order entered in the lawsuit entitled ANGELA M. SUDHOLT, KYHL A. SUDHOLT, KARA JONES, and BENJAMIN JONES, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COUNTRY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-03064-DWD, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. On November 14, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated Illinois citizens who paid premiums on an insurance policy underwritten by Country Mutual or its other entities, allege Defendants failed to meet their obligation of providing and operating in a manner reasonably calculated to provide insurance at its cost. The case was removed from the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court, St. Clair County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on December 22, 2022. Thereafter, on January 23, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court. On June 26, 2023, the Court entered an Order signed by Judge David W. Dugan denying Plaintiffs' motion to remand or, in the alternative, to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice. The appellate case is captioned as Angela Sudholt, et al. v. Country Mutual Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 23-8016, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on July 6, 2023.[BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners ANGELA SUDHOLT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by: Arend J. Abel, Esq. Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD One Indiana Square Indianapolis, IN 46204-0000 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Defedants-Respondents COUNTRY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., are represented by: Christopher W. Byron, Esq. BYRON CARLSON PETRI & KALB, LLC 411 St. Louis Street Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 655-0600 - and - David G. Lubben, Esq. DAVIS & CAMPBELL L.L.C. 401 Main Street Peoria, IL 61602-8866 Telephone: (309) 673-1681 CREDIT UNION: Parties Seek To Extend Class Cert Briefing Schedule ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDA L. LUCERO, HEATHER BARTON, ILONA KOMPANIIETS and CYNTHIA HURTADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CREDIT UNION RETIREMENT PLAN ASSOCIATION, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CREDIT UNION RETIREMENT PLAN ASSOCIATION, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CREDIT UNION RETIREMENT PLAN ASSOCIATION and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 3:22-cv-00208-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Parties jointly move the Court for a two-week extension to the previous class certification briefing schedule set by the Court. On October 13, 2022, the Court entered the current scheduling order in this case. The current deadline for the Plaintiffs to seek class certification is July 14, 2023, with the Defendants to file their response by August 14 and the Plaintiffs their reply by August 28, 2023. Due to scheduling conflicts and because the change will not delay the overall case schedule, the Defendants approached the Plaintiffs regarding extending the Parties' response schedule by two weeks, as follows: a. The Defendants' response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification would be due on August 28, 2023; and b. The Plaintiffs' reply would be due on September 11, 2023. The Parties certify that they do not seek to delay the litigation and agree that they will not suffer any prejudice as a result of the requested extension. A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 30, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PZp6zJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. Gabrielle Kelerchian, Esq. Donald R. Reavey, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com donr@capozziadler.com The Defendants are represented by: Chelsea Ashbrook McCarthy, Esq. Lynn Estes Calkins, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 150 North Riverside Plaza, 27th Fl. Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 715-5768 E-mail: chelsea.mccarthy@hklaw.com lynn.calkins@hklaw.com DEUTSCHE BANK: $75MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 20 ------------------------------------------------------------ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, et. al., Defendants. Case No. 1:22-CV-10018 (JSR) NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL VICTIMS OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S SEX TRAFFICKING VENTURE DURING THE TIME PERIOD AUGUST 19, 2013 TO AUGUST 10, 2019 (THE "CLASS PERIOD"). THIS NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION ("NOTICE") WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. WHY SHOULD I READ THIS NOTICE? This Notice is given pursuant to an order issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court"). This Notice serves to inform you of the proposed settlement of the above-captioned class action lawsuit for $75 million in cash (the "Settlement") and the hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") to be held by the Court to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement as set forth in the Amended Stipulation of Settlement dated June 16, 2023 (the "Stipulation") by and between Class Representative Jane Doe 1 ("Class Representative"), on behalf of itself and the Class Members (as defined below), on the one hand, and Defendants Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, Deutsche Bank AG New York Branch, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (collectively, "Defendants"), on the other hand. You may be a Class Member eligible to receive compensation related to the Settlement. HOW DO I KNOW IF I AM A CLASS MEMBER? You are a "Class Member" if you were abused or trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and/or his associates during the period between August 19, 2013 and August 10, 2019, including, but not limited to, as set forth below: (1) You were a girl under the age of 18 and engaged in sexual contact with Jeffrey E. Epstein and/or a person associated with Epstein, and you received money or something else of value in exchange for engaging in that sexual contact (even if you perceived the sexual contact as consensual); (2) You were a woman aged 18 or older, and Epstein and/or a person associated with Epstein forced, coerced, or defrauded you into engaging in sexual contact by, for example, using physical force, threatening serious harm or legal action against you or someone else, making you a false promise, or causing you to believe that not engaging in sexual contact would result in serious harm to you or someone else, and you received money or something else of value in exchange for engaging in that sexual contact; or (3) You were a girl or woman of any age and Epstein and/or a person associated with Epstein engaged in sexual contact with you without your consent (even if you perceived the sexual contact as consensual provided you were under the age of 18 at the time of engaging in that contact). The "Class" includes any "Class Member" as defined immediately above. SUMMARY OF THIS NOTICE Description of the Litigation and the Class This Notice relates to a proposed settlement of claims in a pending class action brought by victims of Jeffrey E. Epstein's ("Epstein") sex trafficking venture, which alleged, among other things, that Defendants violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Act ("TVPA") by providing and his associates with the ability to withdraw large sums of cash and access to wire services and failing in their compliance and regulatory obligations to report suspicious conduct by Epstein and his associates. The proposed Settlement, if approved by the Court, will settle claims of all Class Members. Statement of Class Recovery Pursuant to the Settlement described herein, a $75 million settlement fund has been established (the "Global Settlement Amount"). The Global Settlement Amount, together with any interest earned thereon, will be deposited in a "Qualified Settlement Fund." The Qualified Settlement Fund, less (a) any taxes, (b) any Notice and Administration Expenses, and (c) any attorneys' fees and litigation costs, charges, and expenses (including any award to the Class Representative of her costs and expenses in representing the Class) awarded by the Court, and interest thereon, is the "Net Settlement Fund." Distribution under the Plan of Allocation will vary from $75,000 to $5,000,000 based on each Eligible Class Member's submissions to the Claims Administrator. Class Members should note, however, that this is an estimated range and any particular distribution is not guaranteed. A Class Member's actual recovery will be determined by the information provided to the Class Administrator. Statement of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses Sought Boies Schiller Flexner LLP ("BSF") and Edwards Henderson Lehrman ("EHL") as Class Counsel will apply to the Court for an award of attorneys' fees not to exceed thirty percent (30%) of the Global Settlement Amount plus costs, charges, and expenses not to exceed $1,500,000.00 plus interest earned on both amounts at the same rate as earned by the Global Settlement Fund. Since being named Class Counsel, BSF and EHL have expended considerable time and effort in the prosecution of this Litigation on a wholly contingent basis and have advanced the expenses of the Litigation in the expectation that if they were successful in obtaining a recovery for the Class they would be paid from such recovery. Calendar of Critical Dates Deadline to Submit Opt-Out Form If you choose to exclude yourself from the Settlement, then you will get no payment. This is the only option that potentially allows you to ever be part of any other lawsuit against any of the Defendants or any other Released Defendant Parties about the legal claims being resolved by this Settlement. Should you elect to exclude yourself from the Class, you should understand that Defendants and the other Released Defendant Parties will have the right to assert any and all defenses they may have to any claims that you may seek to assert, including, without limitation, the defense that any such claims are untimely under applicable statutes of limitations and statutes of repose. Opt-Out Forms must be postmarked (if mailed) or received (if submitted online) on or before July 28, 2023 at 11:59 PM EDT. Deadline to Submit Tier 1 Form In order to be eligible to receive any payment from the Settlement, you (or counsel on your behalf) must submit a Tier One Form to the Claims Administrator. The Tier One Form must be postmarked (if mailed) or received (if submitted online) on or before August 12, 2023 at 11:59 PM EDT. Your failure to submit a Tier One Form by 11:59 PM EDT on August 12, 2023 will result in a rejection of your claim and preclude you from receiving ANY payment in connection with the Settlement of this Litigation. Deadline to Submit Tier 2 Questionnaire and Release In order to be eligible to receive an additional payment from the Settlement as a Participating Claimant, in addition to the Tier One Form you (or counsel on your behalf) must submit a Tier Two Questionnaire and Release to the Claims Administrator. The Tier Two Questionnaire and Release must be postmarked (if mailed) or received (if submitted online) on or before August 27, 2023 at 11:59 PM EDT. Deadline to Object to the Settlement You may write to the Court about why you object to the Settlement. Objections must be received by the Court on or before September 29, 2023 at 11:59 PM EDT. If you submit a written Objection, you may (but you do not have to) attend the hearing. Deadline to Request to Speak at the Settlement Hearing You may file a Notice of Intention to Appear at the Settlement Hearing on October 20, 2023 at 4:00 PM EDT. Requests to speak must be received on or before September 29, 2023 at 11:59 PM EDT. If you submit a written objection, you may (but you do not have to) attend the hearing. Settlement Hearing The Settlement Hearing shall be held on October 20, 2023 at 4:00 PM EDT at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007. Further Information Information about the Settlement, including claim forms and important filing deadlines, can be found on this website -- https://epsteinssfdb.com/. If you have any legal questions regarding the Settlement, you may contact Class Counsel, Brittany N. Henderson, by email at brittany@epllc.com and by telephone at 954-524-2820. If you have any questions regarding the claim process, you may contact the Claims Administrator, Simone Lelchuk, by email at Simone.K.Lelchuk@gmail.com and by telephone at 212-641-0800. DIAMOND BRACES: Conditional Collective Status Bid Tossed --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAHOLY FERNANDEZ and MICHELLE ISAYEVA, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective, and the Class, v. DIAMOND BRACES, ORTHOCLUB, P.C. d/b/a DIAMOND BRACES, JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-100, and OLEG DRUT, Case No. 1:22-cv-04575-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective certification. Should the Court deny the Defendants' motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs may promptly refile the motion. Likewise, if the Court denies the motion to dismiss, it will order the parties to submit a proposed case management plan. On June 29, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional collective certification and supporting papers. However, there is no case management plan in place in this case, and no discovery has occurred, as the Defendants filed a fully dispositive motion to dismiss. The motion is not yet fully briefed), and if granted would obviate the need for the motion for conditional collective certification and any briefing attendant to it. As such, the Court believes that the most prudent course in this case is for the parties to wait to brief the conditional certification motion until after the Court resolves the pending motion to dismiss. Diamond Braces is an orthodontic provider in the tri-state area. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rszohI at no extra charge.[CC] DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE: Court OK's Bid to File Deal in Redacted Form ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMBER JACKSON, v. DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-01280-JPS (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge J.P. Stadtmueller entered an order denying without prejudice the parties' joint motion for approval of their settlement but grants the parties' joint motion to file their settlement agreement in redacted form. The Court further entered an order that: -- The action be and the same is administratively closed. -- The remaining dates in the Court's trial scheduling order, be and the same are vacated. The Court finds at this juncture that these proffered bases support good cause for filing the Settlement Agreement with the minimal redactions applied by the parties. On October 28, 2022, the Plaintiff filed this putative collective and class action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"), and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. On June 29, 2023, the parties informed the Court that they have reached a settlement that will terminate the case with prejudice. The settlement resolves only the Plaintiff's claims on an individual basis. No class or collective was certified. Dovenmuehle Mortgage is a mortgage subservicing company in the United States specializing in servicing loans. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43tjEIk at no extra charge.[CC] EMPOWER FEDERAL: Class Settlement in Wellington Gets Final Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Danielle Wellington, Dianna Conley, v. Empower Federal Credit Union, Does 1 through 5, Case No. 5:21-cv-00566-DNH-ML (N.D.N.Y.), Hon. Judge David N. Hurd entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement; approval of attorney's fees and costs; administrator fees; and class representation service awards motion to certify class. -- The Court grants final approval of the settlement reached between the parties as set forth in their Settlement Agreement. -- The Litigation is dismissed with prejudice. -- The Court will retain jurisdiction over this action to enforce the settlement. -- The Plaintiffs requests for attorney's fees is granted and Class Counsel is awarded $948,812. -- The Dianna Conleys request for a class representative service award of $10,000 each is granted. Empower Federal operates as a financial cooperative. A copy of the Court's order dated June 27, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rl00kC at no extra charge.[CC] EMPOWER FEDERAL: Settlement in Wellington Gets Final Nod -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Danielle Wellington, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Empower Federal Credit Union, DOES 1 Through 5, Case No. 5:20-cv-01367-DNH-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge David N. Hurd entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement: 1. The Court grants final approval of the settlement reached between the parties as set forth in their Settlement Agreement. 2. The Litigation is dismissed with prejudice. 3. The Court will retain jurisdiction over this action to enforce the settlement. 4. The Plaintiffs' requests for attorneys' fees is granted and Class Counsel is awarded $948,812. 5. The Plaintiffs' requests for litigation costs is granted. 6. The Plaintiffs' request for reimbursement of claims administration costs to KCC LLC is granted. 7. The Plaintiffs Danielle Wellington and Dianna Conley's request for a class representative service award of $10,000 each is granted. 8. The parties are to submit a candidate for cy pres distribution within 30 days of this Order. Empower Federal operates as a financial cooperative. A copy of the Court's order dated June 27, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44kDU0i at no extra charge.[CC] EXELON CORP: $173MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 7 ----------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued the following statement regarding the Exelon Securities Litigation: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JOSHUA FLYNN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. EXELON CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. Case No.: 1:19-cv-08209 CLASS ACTION Judge Virginia M. Kendall Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox SUMMARY NOTICE TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED EXELON CORPORATION ("EXELON") COMMON STOCK BETWEEN FEBRUARY 8, 2019 AND OCTOBER 31, 2019, INCLUSIVE THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (the "Court") and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that (i) the above-captioned litigation (the "Litigation") has been preliminarily certified as a class action on behalf of a class of all Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Exelon common stock between February 8, 2019 and October 31, 2019, inclusive, and were damaged thereby, except for certain Persons excluded from the Settlement Class as defined in the full printed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is available as described below; and (ii) Lead Plaintiff and Defendants in the Litigation have reached an agreement to settle the Litigation for $173,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). If the Settlement is approved it will resolve all claims in the Litigation. Any capitalized terms used in this Summary Notice that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Stipulation of Settlement dated May 26, 2023 (the "Stipulation"), and the Notice. A hearing will be held on September 7, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall, at the Everett McKinley Dirksen U.S. Courthouse, in Courtroom 2503, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement of the claims in the Litigation for the sum of $173,000,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Settlement Class should be certified for purposes of the Settlement; (3) whether, thereafter, this Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation; (4) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and therefore should be approved; and (5) the reasonableness of the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in connection with this Litigation together with the interest earned thereon (and any payment to the Lead Plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 in connection with its representation of the Settlement Class). If you purchased or acquired Exelon common stock during the period between February 8, 2019 and October 31, 2019, inclusive, your rights may be affected by the settlement of this Litigation. If you have not received a detailed Notice and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies (as well as a copy of the Stipulation) by writing to Exelon Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 301171, Los Angeles, CA 90030-1171, or by downloading this information at www.ExelonSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must either submit a Proof of Claim online at www.ExelonSecuritiesLitigation.com by September 28, 2023, or by mail postmarked no later than September 28, 2023, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion postmarked by August 17, 2023, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice referred to above. All Members of the Settlement Class who do not timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Litigation pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Stipulation. Any objection to the Settlement must be mailed or delivered to the Clerk of the Court and counsel for the Settling Parties at the addresses below such that it is received no later than August 17, 2023: Court: Clerk of the Court UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Everett McKinley Dirksen U.S. Courthouse 219 South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60604 Counsel for Lead Plaintiff: Theodore J. Pintar ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Counsel for Defendants: Edmund Polubinski III DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK’S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may contact counsel for Lead Plaintiff at the address listed above, email settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com, or go to the following website: www.ExelonSecuritiesLitigation.com. DATED: June 9, 2023 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS FEDERAL EXPRESS: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Nelson ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nelson v. Social Security Administration et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-04082-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows: -- Rule 16 scheduling conference The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference approximately 30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is filed. The conference will generally be conducted by telephone. -- Discovery plan The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least three calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference. -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference If the parties agree on all matters contained in the discovery plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16 scheduling conference be cancelled. -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most hearings by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to appear for an in-person hearing. -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the discovery deadline has already passed The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all discovery disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even if the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to conduct discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the Court, they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived. -- Settlement conferences and mediation The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to Judge Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or mediation. A copy of the Court's order dated June 27, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NIXtbw at no extra charge.[CC] FEDEX GROUND: Taggart Suit Seeks Warehouse Staff's Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------------ WILLIAM TAGGART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-03655 (D.N.J., July 7, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to overtime wages in violation of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law. The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant as a warehouse worker located in Keasbey, New Jersey from approximately November 2019 to present. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. is a package delivery company, headquartered at 1000 FedEx Drive, Moon Township, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patricia M. Kipnis, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 923 Haddonfield Road Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: (215) 274-9420 E-mail: PKipnis@baileyglasser.com - and - Lawrence J. Lederer, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 274-9420 E-mail: LLederer@baileyglasser.com - and - Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Krysten L. Connon, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: ssb@llrlaw.com kconnon@llrlaw.com - and - Peter Winebrake, Esq. Deirdre Aaron, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com daaron@winebrakelaw.com FIRST ADVANTAGE: Wilson Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRYSTON WILSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others, v. FIRST ADVANTAGE BACKGROUND SERVICES CORP., Case No. 5:21-cv-06071-SRB (CW.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time to file his reply in support of his motion for class certification until July 14, 2023. The Plaintiff states as follows: 1. The deadline for the Plaintiff to file his Reply in Support of the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is June 29, 2023. 2. The parties have conferred and counsel for the Defendant has no objection to extending the deadline to file the Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. 3. The Plaintiff respectfully requests an extension until and including July 14, 2023, to file the Plaintiff's Reply in Support of the Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification. First Advantage is a third-party background Screening company and acts as a data processor on behalf of its customers. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 27, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PSe4fx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles Jason Brown, Esq. Jayson A. Watkins, Esq. BROWN & WATKINS LLC 301 S. US 169 Hwy Gower MO 64454 Telephone: (816) 424-1390 Facsimile: (816) 424-1337 E-mail: brown@brownandwatkins.com watkins@brownandwatkins.com FIRST TRANSIT: Class Cert Hearing Date Vacated in Azimihashemi -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MASSOUD AZIMIHASHEMI, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. FIRST TRANSIT SERVICES, INC., an unknown business entity; FIRST TRANSIT, INC., an unknown business entity; FIRST GROUP AMERICA, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 8:21-cv-00780-JWH-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John W. Holcomb entered an order granting stipulation to vacate class certification hearing date and briefing schedule: 1. The hearing date and briefing schedule for class certification in the action are vacated. 2. The Parties are directed to file a Joint Report regarding the status of the Cuellar settlement on January 5, 2024, and every 90 days thereafter. 3. The Clerk is directed to close this case administratively. First Transit operates a comprehensive portfolio of complementary public transportation services on behalf of cities, municipalities, and businesses. A copy of the Court's order dated June 27, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44iTmdh at no extra charge.[CC] FOR LIFE: Class Cert. Bid Filing Continued to Oct. 17 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS IGLESIAS, DAVID SALAZAR, OLIVIA THURMAN, and BETHANY TORBERT individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FOR LIFE PRODUCTS, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-01147-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thomas S. Hixson entered an amended case management scheduling order as follows: Event Prior Continued Date Date Deadline to File the Plaintiffs' July 6, 2023 Oct. 17, 2023 Motion for Class Certification: Deadline to Complete Depositions Aug. 7, 2023 Nov. 17, 2023 & Document Production for the Plaintiffs' Experts who Submit Declarations in Support of Class Certification: Deadline to File the Defendant's Sept. 7, 2023 Dec. 21, 2023 Opposition and any related Daubert motions to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification: Deadline to Complete Depositions Oct. 9, 2023 Jan. 26, 2023 & Document Production for the Defendant's Expert(s) who Submit(s) Declaration(s) in Opposition to Class Certification Deadline to File the Plaintiffs' Dec. 7, 2023 Feb. 21, 2024 Reply to the Defendant's Opposition to Class Certification and File Opposition to the Defendant's related Daubert Motions: Deadline to File the Defendant's Jan. 9, 2024 Mar. 22, 2024 Opposition to the Plaintiffs' Daubert motions the Plaintiff's Daubert motions: Deadline to File the Plaintiff and Jan. 23, 2024 Apr. 5, 2024 the Defendant's Reply to Daubert motions: Class Certification Hearing: Feb. 22, 2024 May 2, 2024 For Life manufactures home improvement products. The Company provides furniture, flooring, floor cleaner, and stain remover products. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JZeI77 at no extra charge.[CC] FORD MOTOR: Filing for Any Class Cert Bids Due July 26, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUGO DE ANDA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-04064-WLH-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wesley L. Hsu entered an order approving Stipulation to set additional pretrial dates as follows: Activity Date Non−Expert Discovery Cut Off (includes July 1, 2024 hearing of discovery motions): Deadline for any motion for class July 26, 2024 certification, and for disclosures and reports of any experts the Plaintiff intends to rely on at class certification: Deadline for the depositions of any experts Aug. 26, 2024 the Plaintiff intends to rely on at class certification: Deadline for any opposition to a motion Oct. 28, 2024 for class certification, and for disclosures and reports of any experts the Defendant intends to rely on at class Certification: Deadline for the depositions of any experts Nov. 25, 2024 the Defendant intends to rely on at class certification: Deadline for any reply in support of a Jan. 27, 2025 motion for class certification: Hearing on motion for class certification: Feb. 21, 2025 Ford Motor is an American multinational automobile manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated June 29, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OfihIR at no extra charge.[CC] FRANKLIN COUNTY, IL: Maurer Balks at Children's Inhumane Conditions ------------------------------------------------------------------- L.S., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, by his next friend JASON MAURER, Plaintiff v. FRANKLIN COUNTY, CHIEF JUDGE MELISSA MORGAN of the Second Judicial Circuit Court, DARLA FITZJERRELLS, Director of Court Services of the Second Judicial Circuit Court, and LAVONDA PORTER, Acting Superintendent of the Franklin County Juvenile Detention Center, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-02303 (S.D. Ill., June 30, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and municipal liabil0ity. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to protect the detained children at Franklin County Juvenile Detention Center in Illinois and instead subject them to inhumane conditions of confinement. The Defendants practice and maintain the culture of solitary confinement at FCJDC in the face of the extensive and settled body of research showing that the practice inflicts immeasurable harm on children and is wholly inappropriate in a juvenile detention setting. The Defendants further compound the trauma they inflict on the children in their custody by denying mental health services they desperately need. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated child detainees have endured and continue to suffer serious and irreparable physical, psychological, and emotional injuries, says the suit. Franklin County is a local government unit in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin M. Fee, Esq. Camille E. Bennett, Esq. Allyson M. Bain, Esq. Alexis Picard, Esq. ROGER BALDWIN FOUNDATION OF ACLU, INC. 150 N. Michigan, Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 201-9740 Facsimile: (312) 201-9760 E-mail: kfee@aclu-il.org cbennett@aclu-il.org abain@aclu-il.org apicard@aclu-il.org GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Must File Redacted Versions of Transcript ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN EWALT, et al., v. GATEHOUSE MEDIA OHIO HOLDING II, INC., d/b/a THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-04262-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Kimberly A. Jolson entered an order directing GateHouse to file redacted versions of the Plaintiffs' motion and exhibits consistent with the Order within seven days of the date of this Order. The Plaintiff's request for fees is denied. Accordingly, the Court grants GateHouse proposed redactions of the Groves Deposition Transcript (at page 227), the Hunshikatti Deposition Transcript (at pages 159 and 160), and The Plaintiffs' Motion. Gatehouse Media offers products and services including newspapers, and magazines. A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JPXqJQ at no extra charge.[CC] GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Plaintiffs' Bid for More Time to File Reply OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN EWALT, et al., v. GATEHOUSE MEDIA OHIO HOLDING II, INC., d/b/a THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-04262-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Kimberly A. Jolson entered an order granting the Plaintiffs motion for additional time to file a reply, because a key deposition of the GateHouse Ohio's expert has yet to be scheduled. The Plaintiffs assert that they cannot depose the expert until the week of July 17, 2023, because their counsel has scheduling conflicts until then. The Defendant GateHouse Ohio says that the Plaintiffs' need for an extension is of their own making: -- The Plaintiffs chose to file their Motion for Class Certification before a case management order (including expert discovery deadlines) had been set. -- The Plaintiffs chose not to support that motion with any expert testimony of their own. -- The Plaintiffs chose to reject GateHouse Ohio's requests for additional time to oppose that motion. But, while the Court understands the Defendant GateHouse Ohio's frustration, the Court is not inclined to prevent the deposition. So, given the deadline to reply has already passed, the Court is left with no choice but to grant the request for an extension. The parties are ordered to file a notice on the docket on or before July 7, 2023, informing the Court as to date the deposition of the Defendant GateHouse Ohio -- Dr. Chiagouris -- will take place. The deposition must take place no later than July 21, 2023. The Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification will be due seven days after the deposition. Gatehouse Media is in the Investment Holding Companies, except Banks business. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XVtDoX at no extra charge.[CC] GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Seeks to Maintain Redactions in Class Cert Exhibit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN EWALT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, et al., v. GATEHOUSE MEDIA OHIO HOLDINGS II, INC., d/b/a THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH, Case No. 2:19-cv-04262-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), Gatehouse files motion to maintain redactions in one exhibit to its opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On June 15, 2023, GateHouse filed its opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. One exhibit to this opposition contains redacted material that has been temporarily sealed. The redactions in Exhibits 2 and 3 to the Pardo Declaration protect the private personal information of third parties and are limited to the names and homes addresses of these third parties. The Court has already held that this type of personal information could remain sealed. The Plaintiffs did not oppose GateHouse Ohio's request to redact the private personal information of third parties contained in the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court should grant GateHouse Ohio's motion to maintain under seal the private personal information of third parties, consistent with its prior Orders. On June 23, 2023, after GateHouse Ohio filed its opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the Court held that the profit data for The Columbus Dispatch for 2017 and 2018, as contained on lines 21 and 23 of page 330 of the transcript of the Bryan Groves Deposition, which is Exhibit M to GateHouse Ohio's opposition, could remain sealed. Gatehouse Media is an investment holding company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 26, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43mA3y9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Michael J. Zbiegien, Jr., Esq. Lynn Rowe Larsen, Esq. Daniel H. Bryan, Esq. James D. Abrams, Esq. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 200 Public Square, Suite 3500 Cleveland, OH 44114-2302 Telephone: (216) 241-2838 Facsimile: (216) 241-3707 E-mail: mzbiegien@taftlaw.com llarsen@taftlaw.com dbryan@taftlaw.com jabrams@taftlaw.com GENERAL MOTORS: Bid to Reconsider Court's May 5, 2023 Order Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROY WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00410-CNS-MEH (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney entered an order denying the Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's May 5, 2023, Order Granting the Plaintiff Roy White's Motion for Class Certification. The Court declined to consider these arguments that the Defendant advanced in its Opposition brief -- which were also made in passing fashion—and likewise declines to consider these two arguments now as legitimate bases for reconsideration On May 5, 2023, the Court granted the Plaintiff Roy White's class certification motion, certifying the Plaintiff White’s class for the implied warranty claim, naming the Plaintiff White as a class representative, and appointing DiCello Levitt LLC and Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. as class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). General Motors is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44P1NNl at no extra charge.[CC] GEO GROUP: Briefing of Gomez Class Certification Bid Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hernandez Gomez, et al., v. The GEO Group, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00868 (E.D. Cal., Filed July 13, 2022), the Hon. Judge Christopher D. Baker entered an order that briefing of the Plaintiffs' motions for class certification and for summary judgment and any related discovery is stayed pending resolution of the Defendant's motions to stay and to dismiss. The nature of suit states Other Labor Litigation. GEO Group is a publicly traded C corporation that invests in private prisons and mental health facilities in North America, Australia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom.[CC] GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMIR GUR-RAVANTAB and EMILY LAMA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:22-cv-01038-TNM (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an Order: -- Certifying class action; -- Designating Leeds Brown Law, P.C. as Class Counsel,; -- Designating them as Class Representatives; and -- Setting a post-class certification expert discovery schedule; Georgetown University is a private research university in the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington, D.C. A copy of the the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 26, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43in54L at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony Alesandro, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com GILEAD SCIENCES: Searcy TDF-Based Drug Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN SEARCY, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated and ERVIN KIRK, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, v. GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., a foreign corporation, Case No. 4:20-cv-1523-MTS, (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class consisting of: "All persons (as defined by R.S.MO. 407.010.5) who purchased any TDF-based drug, including but not limited to Atripla, Complera, Stribild, Truvada, and/or Viread, in Missouri, primarily for personal, family or household purposes before any TDF-based medication became available for purchase." The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class Representatives and their counsel Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP and Calabro Law Office as Class Counsel. Gilead Sciences is an American biopharmaceutical company that focuses on researching and developing antiviral drugs used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, influenza, and COVID-19, including ledipasvir/sofosbuvir and sofosbuvir. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 29, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44PZIkd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick J. Stueve, Esq. Todd E. Hilton, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com hilton@stuevesiegel.com - and - J. Toji Calabro, Esq. CALABRO | LAW OFFICE Two Pershing Square 2300 Main Street 9th Floor Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (555) 585-12470 E-mail: tojicalabro@calabro-law.com GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Seeks to File Class Cert. Documents Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA M. MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS (US) LLC; PFIZER INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-09077-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their administrative motion to file under seal documents accompanying their opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class Certification. Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5, the Defendants GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US) LLC and Pfizer, Inc. submit this motion to seal various portions of documents and several entire documents accompanying the Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. A copy of the Court's order dated June 27, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JPtNbm at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew F. Williams, Esq. Christina Guerola Sarchio, Esq. Jacqueline Harrington, Esq. DECHERT LLP One Bush Street San Francisco, CA 94104-4446 Telephone: (415) 262-4500 Facsimile: (415) 262-4555 E-mail: matthew.williams@dechert.com christina.sarchio@dechert.com jacqueline.harrington@dechert.com GLENN O. HAWBAKER: Plaintiffs Seek to Amend Class Cert Record ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESTER PACKER SR., LESTER PACKER II, and SHAWN DYROFF, individually and on behalf of the GLENN O. HAWBAKER, INC. BENEFIT PLAN, v. GLENN O. HAWBAKER, INC., the BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF GLENN O. HAWBAKER, INC., the PLAN ADMINISTRATOR OF THE GLENN O. HAWBAKER, INC. BENEFIT PLAN, and JOHN DOES 1-20,Case No. 4:21-cv-01747-MWB (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs' asks the Court to enter an order granting them leave to supplement and amend the class certification record and decision with the filing (under seal) of two deposition transcripts of the Defendants' corporate officers and designees: Brian Graupensperger, Chief Financial Officer (deposed June 1, 2023); and Traci Capperella, Corporate Controller (deposed May 24, 2023). The Defendants did not make the deponents available for deposition until May 2023, long after briefing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification was complete. As a result, the two depositions and the attached exhibits were unavailable for filing at the time the Plaintiffs' Motion was due for filing or before this Court issued its decision on June 6, 2023. Glenn O. Hawbaker is a construction company specializing in road construction and paving services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 29, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PYsr1X at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael D. Donovan, Esq. DONOVAN LITIGATION GROUP, LLC 1885 Swedesford Road Malvern, PA 19355 Telephone: (610) 647-6067 E-mail: mdonovan@donovanlitigationgroup.com - and - Eric Lechtzin, Esq. Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-305 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com medelson@edelson-law.com - and - Andrew J. Shubin, Esq. SHUBIN LAW OFFICE 310 S. Burrows Street, 2nd Floor State College, PA 16801 Telephone: (814) 867-3115 E-mail:shubin@shubinlaw.com GLOBAL CUSTOM: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by Sept. 15 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTIE RUDHAM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. GLOBAL CUSTOM COMMERCE, INC. AND HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00152-DMS-BLM (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Barbara L. Major entered an order 1. The Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion to compel regarding current discovery is July 21, 2023. Any opposition to the motion must be filed by July 28, 2023. 2. Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings shall be filed by August 25, 2023. 3. The Plaintiffs must file their motion for class certification on or before September 15, 2023. the Defendants' opposition must be filed by October 13, 2023. 4. All fact discovery shall be completed by all parties by January 26, 2024. 5. The parties shall designate their respective experts in writing by December 15, 2023. 6. By February 23, 2024, each party shall comply with the disclosure provisions in Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 7. Any party shall supplement its disclosure regarding contradictory or rebuttal evidence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D) by March 22, 2024. 8. All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by April 19, 2024. 9. All other pretrial motions must be filed by May 24, 2024. Global Custom doing business as Blinds.com, operates an online window covering store. A copy of the Court's order dated June 29, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OeVXz7 at no extra charge.[CC] GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Party Depositions Extended to August 30 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Roberts v. Graphic Packaging International, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00750 (S.D. Ill., Filed June 29, 2021), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting joint motion for extension time: -- The parties' deadline to complete party depositions is extended to August 30, 2023, as set forth in the parties' joint stipulation. On March 28, 2023, the Court entered a Scheduling and Discovery Order which adopted the parties' Joint Report. On June 23, 2023, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation indicating that they agreed to extend the party deposition deadlines to August 30, 2023. The parties acknowledge that this extension will not impact any other deadlines or the date for filing for class certification, however, the parties specifically ask for a Court order approving the parties' stipulation. Graphic Packaging is a Fortune 500 corporation based in Sandy Springs, Georgia, United States.[CC] GRUBHUB INC: Court Stays All Proceedings in Davitashvili Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mariam Davitashvili, et al. v. Grubhub Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03000-LAK-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan entered an order granting the parties request that the Court stay all proceedings until the Defendants' pending interlocutory appeals under 9 U.S.C. section 16(a) are resolved considering Coinbase. Accordingly, Coinbase requires that this Court stay all proceedings with respect to the five named plaintiffs subject to both the Defendants’ 9 U.S.C. section 16(a) appeals. And since all plaintiffs in this case assert the same allegations in support of the same claims, and since there is no plaintiff not subject to either appeal who can seek to represent one of the three proposed classes, going forward without all plaintiffs for all the putative classes poses many risks. Grubhub is an American online and mobile prepared food ordering and delivery platform. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rwsg3T at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Normand, Esq. FREEDMAN NORMAND FRIEDLAND LLP 99 Park Avenue, 19th Floor New York, NY 10016 E-mail: tnormand@fnf.law - and - Gregory A. Frank, Esq. FRANK LLP 305 Broadway, Suite 700 New York, NY 10007 E-mail: info@frankllp.com The Defendant is represented by: Eric S. Hochstadt, Esq. WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 E-mail: eric.hochstadt@weil.com - and – Andrew A. Ruffino, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP The New York Times Building 620 8th Avenue New York, NY 10018 E-mail: aruffino@cov.com HAIN CELESTIAL: Bid for Class Certification Continued to Sept. 5 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRACY HOWARD, ADINA RINGLER, and TRE’CEE ARTIS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00527-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order granting stipulation to continue class certification briefing schedule as follows: Event Current Proposed Deadline Deadline Motion for Class Certification July 7, 2023 Sept. 5, 2023 & the Plaintiffs' Disclosure of Class Certification Experts: Opposition to Motion for Class Aug. 18, 2023 Oct. 27, 2023 Certification; the Defendant's Disclosure of Class Certification Experts and Rebuttal Experts: Reply in Support of Motion for Sept. 29, 2023 Dec. 15, 2023 Class Certification; the Plaintiffs' Disclosure of Rebuttal Experts: Hearing on Motion for Class Oct. 19, 2023 Jan. 11, 2024 Certification: Hain Celestial is an American food company whose main focus is natural foods and botanically-based personal care products. A copy of the Court's order dated June 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43sRCN2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Dean N. Panos, Esq. Alexander M. Smith, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 353 North Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 222-9350 Facsimile: (312) 527-0484 E-mail: dpanos@jenner.com asmith@jenner.com HARD ROCK: White Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TROY WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HARD ROCK CAFE INTERNATIONAL (STP), INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-04224-AT (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting bid for conditional certification and issuance of notice under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), on behalf of: "all current and former servers and bartenders who worked for the Defendant and were paid an hourly rate less than the minimum wage during the three year period prior to the date the Court grants conditional certification to the present. the Defendant Hard Rock Cafe International (STP), Inc. operates a nationwide chain of restaurants." The Plaintiff worked for Hard Rock as a server in Washington, D.C. Like the Class Members, he was not paid wages at the minimum wage rate for all hours that he worked. After this lawsuit was filed, other tipped employees of Hard Rock joined the case as Opt-In the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiff and Opt-In the Plaintiffs worked across country including in: (1) Florida, (2) New York, (3) Connecticut, and (4) Washington, D.C. Hard Rock has failed to pay the Plaintiff and Opt-In the Plaintiffs at the minimum wage rate for all hours that they worked. Hard Rock is a chain of theme bar-restaurants, memorabilia shops, casinos and museums. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 30, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DfYDWY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, LLP 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com - and - LAW OFFICES OF ARNOLD J. LIZANA III 1175 Peachtree Street NE, 10th Floor Atlanta, GA 30361 Telephone: (877) 443-0999 Facsimile: (877) 443-0999 - and - Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq. Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Building, Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com lori@lazzarolawfirm.com matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com HENRY INDUSTRIES: Scheduling Order Deadlines in Sarte Suspended --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERNEST SARTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HENRY INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-01678-DJC-DB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel J. Calabretta entered an order regarding scheduling in light of parties' agreement to attend mediation. 1. All current deadlines in the Scheduling Order are suspended. 2. On or before September 15, 2023, the Parties shall file a Joint Status Report either 1) informing the Court that this matter is resolved and proposing a timeline for any necessary settlement approval, or 2) informing the Court that the matter was not resolved and proposing new deadlines to govern the remainder of discovery, class certification briefing, and potential dispositive motion practice. Henry is a full-service nationwide provider of distribution center, warehouse and logistic needs. A copy of the Court's order dated June 29, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PYI617 at no extra charge.[CC] HIGHGATE HOTELS: Seeks to Decertify Classes in Henkel Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHELSEA HENKEL, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. HIGHGATE HOTELS, L.P. and COVE HAVEN, INC., Case No. 3:15-cv-01435-JPW (M.D. Pa.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to decertify classes. -- Rule 23 certification is not a foregone conclusion, whether certified before trial, or based on the evidence presented at trial. -- There are multiple reasons why the classes should no longer be certified, including the Plaintiff's failure to demonstrate predominance, adequacy, and numerosity. For these reasons, the previously certified classes should be decertified, and a verdict should be rendered on the Plaintiff's individual claims. More than two years after the Plaintiff's two classes were certified, the concerns raised by Highgate in opposition to class certification have come to fruition. The Plaintiff has failed to introduce evidence, or elicit testimony, about an entire certified class, the Defendants claim. Specifically, they: (1) failed to provide representative evidence or elicit representative testimony about the classes' claims; (2) seemingly and entirely failed to prosecute the claims of the certified housekeeper class; (3) did not adequately attempt to rehabilitate the Plaintiff’s and Ms. Hastings' credibility regarding key components of their claims; and (4) failed to have a class representative, or any other class member, present throughout the trial. These actions fall short of the skilled and zealous representation demanded of class counsel under Rule 23(g) and warrant decertification. Highgate is a real estate investment and hospitality management company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 26, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3POcPht at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Patrick F. Hulla, Esq. Evan B. Citron, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 700 West 47th Street, Suite 500 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 410-2226 Facsimile: (816) 471-1303 E-mail: patrick.hulla@ogletreedeakins.com evan.citron@ogletreedeakins.com HOMEWORKS ENERGY: Giguere Files Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH GIGUERE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. HOMEWORKS ENERGY, INC., MARTIJN FLEUREN, individually and MAX VEGGEBERG, individually, Case No. 3:21-cv-30015-MGM (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting certification of the following class with respect to all counts in the Complaint in the action against the Defendants: "All current and former Crew Leads, Tech I, Tech IIs, and employees of any other position who were subject to the Defendants' "disincentive" deduction policies and who were employed by HomeWorks in Massachusetts from February 05, 2021, through the date of final judgment." The Plaintiffs further move the Court to appoint named the Plaintiff Joseph Giguere as class representative and the undersigned counsel as counsel for the class. HomeWorks Energy is an environmental services company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Df9VuB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond Dinsmore, Esq. Richard E. Hayber, Esq. HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC 1 Monarch Place, Suite 1340 Springfield, MA 01144 Telephone: (413) 785-1400 Facsimile: (860) 218-9555 E-mail: rdinsmore@hayberlawfirm.com rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com HONEYWELL INT'L: Extension of Class Cert Deadline Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL PATRICK NORRIS, ROBERT REID, et al., v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. and HONEYWELL FEDERAL MANUFACTURING & TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No. 8:22-cv-01675-CEH-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell entered an order granting in part and denying in part the parties' joint motion to extend the Plaintiffs' Class Certification Deadline and to Stay Discovery: The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by discriminating and retaliating against them because of their perceived disability and religious beliefs. The Defendants have moved to dismiss on a variety of grounds. They argue that: a) the Amended Complaint is a shotgun pleading because its claims fail to differentiate between the two the Defendants; b) venue is improper for the named the Plaintiffs who did not live or work in Florida; c) the ADA and Title VII claims fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and d) the Plaintiffs' claims do not warrant class treatment. Honeywell International is an American publicly traded, multinational conglomerate corporation headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. It primarily operates in four areas of business: aerospace, building technologies, performance materials and technologies, and safety and productivity solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated June 28, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XJbbj4 at no extra charge.[CC] HOWARD MEMORIAL: Bid to Modify Scheduling Order OK'd in Jones ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA JONES, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. HOWARD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Case No. 4:23-cv-04010-SOH (W.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Susan O. Hickey entered an order granting the Plaintiff Barbara Jones's Unopposed Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order to Extend the Motion for Class Certification Filing Deadline. -- Any motion for class certification must be filed on or before Friday, September 1, 2023. All other remaining pretrial filing deadlines set forth in the Court’s Final Scheduling Order remain. -- No response is necessary, and the matter is ripe for the Court's consideration. -- On February 9, 2023, Jones filed the instant action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. In her complaint, Jones alleges that between November 14, 2022, to December 4, 2022, third-party hackers breached the Defendant Howard Memorial Hospital's (the Hospital) data servers, stealing patients' highly sensitive personal and medical information (specifically, their Personal Identifying Information and Protected Health Information). Howard Memorial offers a range of primary care services, including routine check-ups, health screenings, and more. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46RWv5y at no extra charge.[CC] HOWARD MEMORIAL: Jones Seeks Sept. 1 Extension to File Class Cert ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. HOWARD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Case No. 4:23-cv-04010-SOH (W.D. Ark.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order modifying the Scheduling Order to Extend the Motion for Class Certification Filing Deadline: -- The Plaintiff moves the Court to modify the Final Scheduling Order to extend the deadline to file the motion for class certification by 60 days, up to and including September 1, 2023. On March 7, 2023, the Court issued its Initial Scheduling Order, which stated that the Court's standard deadline for motion for class certification was 90 days after the parties' Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference. In March 2023, the Plaintiff and the Defendant Howard Memorial Hospital fully briefed the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, which the Court denied on March 28, 2023. On April 4, 2023, counsel for the Plaintiff and the Defendant (jointly, the "Parties") conducted the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) Conference. Howard Memorial is a not-for-profit critical access hospital in Nashville, Arkansas. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 29, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43wFAlU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile : (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com HP INC: Mobile Emergency Seeks to Certify Three Classes ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOBILE EMERGENCY HOUSING CORP., and TRACK RAT ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a PERFORMANCE AUTOMOTIVE & TIRE CENTER, and DAVID JUSTIN LYNCH, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HP INC. d/b/a/ HP COMPUTING AND PRINTING INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-09157-SVK (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Rule 23(a), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (c)(4), for an order certifying three classes: -- Device Owner Class "All persons and entities in the United States who own a Class Printer;" -- Damages Subclass "All persons and entities in the United States who own a Class Printer that displayed a diagnostic error: "Cartridge Problem," " Supply Problem," "Non-HP Chip," or "Non-HP Chip Detected" error code, as a result of HP’s transmission of a firmware update;" and -- State Consumer Subclass All person and entities residing in California, and States with a similar consumer protection statute to Cal. Civ. Code 1770(a)(15), who own a Class Printer that displayed a diagnostic error "Cartridge Problem," "Supply Problem," "Non-HP Chip, or "Non-HP Chip Detected" error code as a result of HP's transmission of a firmware update." The Plaintiffs will also and hereby do move the Court to appoint them as class representatives and to appoint the law firms of Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C. and Javitch Law Office as class counsel. According to the complaint, HP unlawfully profits by sending malware disguised as "firmware updates" that block the printer from using less expensive compatible cartridges manufactured by third party vendors. For the first time in the nearly 40-year history of the HP LaserJet, in November 2020, HP surreptitiously inserted the malware in its routine firmware update while intentionally omitting the fact that the purpose of the "update" was to cause non-HP cartridges to malfunction. HP charges substantial premiums for replacement cartridges, which can cost much more than the printer itself. The Plaintiff Lynch's experience is typical. He purchased his HP Color LaserJet Pro M254dw for $239.25, with tax. After HP forced him (by bricking his printer with a firmware update) to buy HP cartridges, he spent $189.97 for two HP black toner cartridges and $303.59 for a color cartridge set. The Plaintiffs seek a Rule 23(c)(4) certification on central issues surrounding HP's liability because their resolution would greatly enhance the manageability and efficiency of the litigation. The issues concerning whether HP's uniform conduct is unlawful and concerning the elements of the Plaintiffs' claims and HP's defenses are central to the claims of all Class members and depend upon classwide evidence. HP is a seller of home, office, and enterprise printers in the United States and sells associated supply cartridges for its printers. A copy of Plaintiffs' motion dated June 29, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44JKEEt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com jeff@attorneyzim.com www.attorneyzim.com - and - Mark L. Javitch, Esq. JAVITCH LAW OFFICE 3 East 3rd Avenue Ste. 200 San Mateo, CA 94401 Telephone: (650) 781-8000 Facsimile: (650) 648-0705 E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com HP INC: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Class Cert Portion Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOBILE EMERGENCY HOUSING CORP., and TRACK RAT ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a PERFORMANCE AUTOMOTIVE & TIRE CENTER, and DAVID JUSTIN LYNCH, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HP INC. d/b/a/ HP COMPUTING AND PRINTING INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-09157-SVK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order the Plaintiffs request that the Court grant leave to file portions of their motion for class certification under seal which have been designated by the designating party HP, Inc. as confidential pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order entered in this Action. The Plaintiffs' request is narrowly tailored to only those portions of the Plaintiffs' motion that relate to material designated by HP as confidential and, thus, merit sealing for provisional purposes, under the Stipulated Protective Order. HP is a seller of home, office, and enterprise printers in the United States and sells associated supply cartridges for its printers. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 29, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OfjfoD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com jeff@attorneyzim.com www.attorneyzim.com - and - Mark L. Javitch, Esq. JAVITCH LAW OFFICE 3 East 3rd Avenue Ste. 200 San Mateo, CA 94401 Telephone: (650) 781-8000 Facsimile: (650) 648-0705 E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com HUNT MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hardy Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- CALVIN HARDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HUNT MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED; and RIVERS EDGE HOMES ASSOCIATION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00924-BHL (E.D. Wis., July 11, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Hardy was employed by the Defendants as a maintenance supervisor. HUNT MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED is a service community association management company that owns, operates, and manages physical locations and properties in the State of Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, State Bar No. 1067009 WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com IDAHO DEPARTMENT: Court Junks Nevarez Complaint w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONRAD CESAR NEVAREZ, v. IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Case No. 1:23-cv-00276-BLW (D. Idaho), the Hon. Judge B. Lynn Winmill entered an order 1. Dismissing the Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief; 2. Denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, Motion for Constitutional Challenge, and Motion to Appoint Counsel; and 3. Denying as moot the Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. The Court concludes that amendment in this case would be futile. the Plaintiff's claims are barred not because the Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts -- a deficiency that could be cured by amendment—but because it is clear from the face of the Complaint that the only named the Defendant is immune from suit. The Plaintiff is a prisoner in the custody of the Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC), currently incarcerated at the Idaho State Correctional Institution. IDOC operates nine prisons, four community release centers and 20 probation and parole office. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rqwXMt at no extra charge.[CC] ILLINOIS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Nov. 13 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kainz et al v. Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC), et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01250 (C.D. Ill., Filed Sept 8, 2021), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered an order on motion for extension of time to complete discovery: -- Class discovery period is extended to September 12, 2023. -- The deadline to file the Motion for Class Certification is extended to November 13, 2023. -- All other deadlines remain the same. The nature of suit states Employment Discrimination. IDOC is the code department of the Illinois state government that operates the adult state prison system.[CC] IMMUNITYBIO INC: Salzman Sues Over 55.14% Drop of Stock Price ------------------------------------------------------------- ZACHARY SALZMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IMMUNITYBIO, INC., RICHARD ADCOCK, DAVID C. SACHS, and PATRICK SOON-SHIONG, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01216-BEN-WVG (S.D. Cal., June 30, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding ImmunityBio's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade ImmunityBio securities at artificially inflated prices between May 23, 2022 and May 10, 2023. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that: (i) ImmunityBio conducted insufficient due diligence to discover, or else did discover and ignored, Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) deficiencies at its third-party contract manufacturing organizations (CMOs) for Anktiva; (ii) one or more of the Company's third-party CMOs for Anktiva did in fact suffer from GMP deficiencies; (iii) the foregoing deficiencies was likely to cause the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to reject the Anktiva Biologics License Application (BLA) in its present form; (iv) accordingly, the Company overstated the regulatory approval prospects for the Anktiva BLA; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the truth emerged, ImmunityBio's stock price fell $3.43 per share, or 55.14 percent, to close at $2.79 per share on May 11, 2023, says the suit. ImmunityBio, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company, with principal executive offices located at 3530 John Hopkins Court, San Diego, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Corey D. Holzer, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC 211 Perimeter Center Parkway, Suite 1010 Atlanta, GA 30346 Telephone: (770) 392-0090 Facsimile: (770) 392-0029 E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com IQVIA INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 3 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD E. FISCHBEIN, MD, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. IQVIA, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-05365-NIQA (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro entered a revised scheduling order as follows: 1. The Defendant's expert reports are due by July 10, 2023. 2. The Defendant's rebuttal expert reports are due by August 8, 2023. 3. The Plaintiff's rebuttal expert reports are due by August 30, 2023. 4. All expert depositions shall be completed by September 8, 2023. 5. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed by October 3, 2023, and any response thereto shall be filed by November 7, 2023. 6. Any dispositive motions shall be filed within 60 days of the issuance of this Court's ruling on any motion for class certification. IQVIA is an American multinational company serving the combined industries of health information technology and clinical research. A copy of the Court's order dated June 29, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rxjBOE at no extra charge.[CC] ISRAEL: Court Rejects Class Certification Over Withheld Tax Abroad ------------------------------------------------------------------ Leon Harris of The Jerusalem Post reports that the district court has rejected a class action against the Israel Tax Authority (ITA) that allegedly made Israeli banks withhold excess tax at source from dividends from abroad (Yaacov Hostatzky vs. ITA, 20739-06-21, handed down May 14, 2023 by Judge Y. Saroussi). Main Facts: The case concerned an Israeli private individual who received dividends on shares he held in Canadian and Australian companies. Canada received 25% Canadian withholding tax and Australia received Australian withholding tax at rates of 25%-30% tax. Under Israeli tax regulations, anyone (e.g. a bank) receiving a dividend from a foreign resident for or to the credit if an Israeli resident must withhold Israeli tax at a rate of 25% in the case of an Israeli resident individual. The court said these regulations do not require the bank to give a foreign tax credit when it withholds tax, meaning that an awful lot of tax gets withheld abroad and in Israel. Also, the Canadian government should have only received 15% Canadian withholding tax, not 25% under the Canada-Israel tax treaty. And at the time of these dividends, the new Australia-Israel tax treaty had not yet been implemented. All in all, the taxpayer suffered 50%-60% in withholding tax. The tax claim The claim: Against this backdrop, the taxpayer launched a class action against the ITA for not granting double tax relief when the dividends reached an Israeli bank. Instead, the taxpayer had to remain out of pocket (probably many months), until he filed an annual Israeli tax return, claimed a foreign tax credit and received a corresponding tax refund from the ITA. Israel's tax treaties with around 60 countries typically allow a foreign tax credit. The domestic Israeli tax law also grants foreign tax credits subject to detailed rules, regardless of whether a tax treaty is applicable or not. What the court ruled: As mentioned, the court ruled against the taxpayer and in favor of the ITA. The court actually criticized the taxpayer for a number of reasons. First, the taxpayer didn't apparently make any effort to request a reduction of the Canadian withholding tax rate from 25% under domestic Canadian law to 15% under the Canada-Israel tax treaty. It is a principle of Israeli tax and case law that no foreign tax credit is available in Israeli for excess tax "voluntarily" paid to a foreign government above what the relevant tax treaty specifies. Second, the Supreme Court has ruled that the only way to obtain double tax relief in Israel is by filing an annual tax return as mentioned above. Third, in this case, the taxpayer's class action quoted the Australian tax was 25% in one place and 30% in another place. The court found it unsatisfactory that the taxpayer seemed unsure of his own facts. Fourth, the court was mindful of the need to protect the public purse. Even if an annual tax return is filed, the ITA must first check that the taxpayer is really entitled to a foreign tax credit and hence a tax refund for excess tax withheld by the Israeli bank. This check was not the Israeli bank's job. Fifth, the court quoted the intention of the Knesset when Israel's foreign tax credit rules were legislated under Amendment 132 to the Income Tax Ordinance. This said "a foreign tax credit would be a taxpayer's right if the taxpayer elected it". In other words, the taxpayer must elect a foreign tax credit on his/her tax return, net merely expect a bank to automatically give a credit at the withholding tax stage. Suppose the taxpayer was unaware of his elective rights? The court said the taxpayer did know because he expected the bank to allow the foreign tax credit. (Comment: this seems to mix up principle with procedure which maybe the taxpayer didn't comprehend). What if the taxpayer cannot wait for a tax refund? The court mentioned in passing that Section 11 of the withholding tax regulations enables a taxpayer to apply to the ITA for written approval to the bank concerned to withhold less. (Comment: the timing of dividends is not always known, making it hard to apply to the ITA about something unknown to you. This ITA approval procedure is normally applied ahead of outbound payments from Israel). To sum up: The court ruled the taxpayer had to file a tax return and elect a foreign tax credit, not file a class action. Comment: This case concerned dividends. Many countries don't withhold tax from capital gains derived by foreign investors (unless the gains relate to real estate). As always, consult experienced investment and tax advisers in each country at an early stage in specific cases. [GN] JANET YELLEN: Court Denies Bid for Joinder in NAGE Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as National Association of Government Employees, Inc., v. Janet Yellen, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-11001 (D. Mass., Filed May 8, 2023), the Hon. Judge Richard G. Stearns entered an order denying motion for joinder and motion for joinder without prejudice to refiling at the class certification stage. The nature of suit states Constitutionality of State Statutes.[CC] JB TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hudgens Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- GRANT HUDGENS; JACOB COOPER; and WALTER OWEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; MICHAEL S. BRUTON; and THOMAS BRUTON, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-03077-MLB (N.D. Ga., July 11, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as tower technicians. JB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC is a company operating in the information technology and services industry. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeremy Stephens, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4200 Post Office Box 57007 Atlanta, GA 30343-1007 Telephone: (404) 965-1682 Email: jstephens@forthepeople.com JLM DECORATING: Plaintiffs Must File Bid for Class Cert. by July 26 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martinez v. JLM Decorating, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02969 (S.D.N.Y., Filed April 10, 2020), the Hon. Judge Sarah Netburn entered an order granting motion for reconsideration. The Court has reviewed the transcripts from the March 16, 2023, and May 16, 2023, conferences and agrees that the Court had adjourned the deadline to file a motion for class certification. -- The Plaintiffs may file their motion for class certification by July 26, 2023. -- The Defendants may file any opposition brief by August 25, 2023, and the Plaintiffs may file a reply brief, if any, by September 8, 2023. -- The parties are further ordered to engage in good faith settlement negotiations in advance of the July 26 filing deadline. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. JLM Decorating is a full-service painting, wallcovering & decorative firm performing in the Tri-State and Florida commercial markets.[CC] JOSHUA JASKULA: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Cravero ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cravero v. Jaskula, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02069-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows: -- Rule 16 scheduling conference The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference approximately 30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is filed. The conference will generally be conducted by telephone. -- Discovery plan The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least three calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference. -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference If the parties agree on all matters contained in the discovery plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16 scheduling conference be cancelled. -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most hearings by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to appear for an in-person hearing. -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the discovery deadline has already passed The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all discovery disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even if the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to conduct discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the Court, they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived. -- Settlement conferences and mediation The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to Judge Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or mediation. A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44B1Ko5 at no extra charge.[CC] JPMORGAN CHASE: $290MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 9 ------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Defendant. Case No. 1:22-CV-10019 (JSR) NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL VICTIMS OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S SEX TRAFFICKING VENTURE DURING THE TIME PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1998, TO AUGUST 10, 2019 (THE "CLASS PERIOD"). THIS NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION ("NOTICE") WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. WHY SHOULD I READ THIS NOTICE? This Notice is given pursuant to an order issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court"). This Notice serves to inform you of the proposed settlement of the above-captioned class action lawsuit for $290 million in cash (the "Settlement") and the hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") to be held by the Court to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated June 22, 2023 (the "Stipulation") by and between Class Representative Jane Doe 1 ("Class Representative"), on behalf of itself and the Class Members (as defined below), on the one hand, and Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. ("Defendant"), on the other hand. You may be a Class Member eligible to receive compensation related to the Settlement. HOW DO I KNOW IF I AM A CLASS MEMBER? You are a "Class Member" if you were abused or trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and/or his associates during the period between January 1, 1998, and August 10, 2019, as defined below: All persons who were harmed, injured, exploited, or abused by Jeffrey Epstein, or by any person who is connected to or otherwise associated with Jeffrey Epstein or any Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking venture, between January 1, 1998, and through August 10, 2019. This includes, but is not limited to, (1) individuals under the age of 18 who engaged in sexual contact with Epstein and/or a person connected to or otherwise associated with Epstein, and received money or something else of value in exchange for engaging in that sexual contact (even if the sexual contact was perceived to be consensual); (2) individuals aged 18 or older who were forced, coerced, or defrauded into engaging in sexual contact by Epstein and/or anyone connected to Epstein or otherwise associated with Epstein by, for example, using physical force, threatening serious harm or legal action, making a false promise, or causing them to believe that not engaging in sexual contact would result in serious harm, and who received money or something else of value in exchange for engaging in that sexual contact; (3) individuals of any age with whom Epstein, and/or a person connected to or otherwise associated with Epstein, engaged in sexual contact without consent (even if the sexual contact was perceived to be consensual provided that the individual was under the age of 18 at the time of engaging in that contact); and (4) individuals falling into examples (1)-(3) where the sexual contact occurred prior to January 1, 1998, who were harmed during the Class Period by the alleged obstruction of any government investigation or were otherwise harmed by Epstein's conduct or were prevented within the Class Period from contacting law enforcement or otherwise seeking help by Epstein and/or anyone connected to Epstein or otherwise associated with Epstein by, for example, physical force, the threat of serious harm or legal action, or making a false promise. The "Class" includes any "Class Member" as defined immediately above. SUMMARY OF THIS NOTICE Description of the Litigation and the Class This Notice relates to a proposed settlement of claims in a pending class action brought by victims of Jeffrey E. Epstein's ("Epstein") sex trafficking venture, which alleged, among other things, that Defendant violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Act ("TVPA") by providing and his associates with the ability to withdraw large sums of cash and access to wire services and failing in their compliance and regulatory obligations to report suspicious conduct by Epstein and his associates. The proposed Settlement, if approved by the Court, will settle claims of all Class Members. Statement of Class Recovery Pursuant to the Settlement described herein, a $290 million settlement fund has been established (the "Global Settlement Amount"). The Global Settlement Amount, together with any interest earned thereon, will be deposited in a "Qualified Settlement Fund." The Qualified Settlement Fund, less (a) any taxes, (b) any Notice and Administration Expenses, and (c) any attorneys' fees and litigation costs, charges, and expenses (including any award to the Class Representative of her costs and expenses in representing the Class) awarded by the Court, and interest thereon, is the "Net Settlement Fund." Statement of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses Sought Boies Schiller Flexner LLP ("BSF") and Edwards Henderson Lehrman ("EHL") as Class Counsel will apply to the Court for an award of attorneys' fees not to exceed thirty percent (30%) of the Global Settlement Amount plus costs, charges, and expenses not to exceed $2,500,000.00 plus interest earned on both amounts at the same rate as earned by the Global Settlement Fund. Since being named Class Counsel, BSF and EHL have expended considerable time and effort in the prosecution of this Litigation on a wholly contingent basis and have advanced the expenses of the Litigation in the expectation that if they were successful in obtaining a recovery for the Class they would be paid from such recovery. Calendar of Critical Dates Deadline to Submit Opt-Out Form If you choose to exclude yourself from the Settlement, then you will get no payment. This is the only option that potentially allows you to ever be part of any other lawsuit against the Defendant or any other Released Defendant Parties about the legal claims being resolved by this Settlement. Should you elect to exclude yourself from the Class, you should understand that Defendant and the other Released Defendant Parties will have the right to assert any and all defenses they may have to any claims that you may seek to assert, including, without limitation, the defense that any such claims are untimely under applicable statutes of limitations and statutes of repose. Opt-Out Forms must be postmarked (if mailed) or received (if submitted online) on or before August 07, 2023 at 11:59 PM EDT. Deadline to Submit Questionnaire and Release In order to receive funds from the Settlement, Class Members (or counsel, on their behalf) must submit a Questionnaire and Release. Unless the Court orders otherwise, all Questionnaires and Releases must be postmarked or submitted electronically no later than sixty (60) calendar days from the Notice Date, or September 5, 2023. at 11:59 PM EDT. Deadline to Object to the Settlement You may write to the Court about why you object to the Settlement. Objections must be received by the Court on or before October 19, 2023 at 11:59 PM EDT. If you submit a written Objection, you may (but you do not have to) attend the hearing. Deadline to Request to Speak at the Settlement Hearing You may file a Notice of Intention to Appear at the Settlement Hearing on November 9, 2023 4:00 PM EST. Requests to speak must be received on or before October 19, 2023 at 11:59 PM EDT. If you submit a written objection, you may (but you do not have to) attend the hearing. Settlement Hearing The Settlement Hearing shall be held on November 9, 2023 at 4:00 PM EST at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007. Further Information Information about the Settlement, including claim forms and important filing deadlines, can be found on this website -- http://www.epsteinSSFJPM.com.If you have any legal questions regarding the Settlement, you may contact Class Counsel, Brittany N. Henderson, by email at brittany@epllc.com and by telephone at 954-524-2820. If you have any questions regarding the claim process, you may contact the Claims Administrator, Simone Lelchuk, by email at Simone.K.Lelchuk@gmail.com and by telephone at 212-641-0800. KAREN HERMAN: Court Enters Standing Order in Walker Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Clifton Walker, v. Karen Kinne Herman, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-05128-JFW-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John F. Walter entered a standing order as follows: -- Service of the Complaint The plaintiff is notified that failure to serve the Complaint as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) will result in the dismissal of the Complaint against the unserved defendant(s). -- Presence of Lead Counsel Lead trial counsel shall attend all proceedings before the Court and all Local Rule 7-3, scheduling, status, and settlement conferences. Only ONE attorney for a party may be designated as lead trial counsel unless otherwise permitted by the Court. -- Presence of Lead Counsel Discovery All discovery matters have been referred to a United States Magistrate Judge. All discovery documents must include the words "DISCOVERY MATTER" in the caption to ensure proper routing. -- Time for Filing and Hearing Motions: Motions shall be filed in accordance with the Local Rules. The Court hears motions on Mondays commencing at 1:30 p.m. -- Proposed Statement of Decision Not more than two days after the deadline for filing the Reply, each party shall lodge a Proposed Statement of Decision, which shall contain a statement of the relevant facts and applicable law with citations to case law and the record. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43tjzo0 at no extra charge.[CC] KBM HOME: Faces Rios Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Concrete Laborers ----------------------------------------------------------------- SERGIO RIOS, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by KBM HOME IMPROVEMENT, INC. and/or any other entities affiliated with, controlling, or controlled by KBM HOME IMPROVEMENT, INC., PATWOOD CONTRACTING, CO. and/or any other entities affiliated with, controlling, or controlled by, and MIKY ROJAS, individually, Plaintiff v. KBM HOME IMPROVEMENT, INC. and/or any other entities affiliated with, controlling, or controlled by KBM HOME IMPROVEMENT, INC., PATWOOD CONTRACTING, CO. and/or any other entities affiliated with, controlling, or controlled by, and MIKY ROJAS, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-03564 (D.N.J., July 2, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract and failure to pay minimum, overtime, and prevailing wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law, the New Jersey State Wage Payment Law, and the New Jersey State Prevailing Wage Act. The Plaintiff was employed as a concrete laborer performing roofer work for the Defendants from in or about 2019, through 2021. KBM Home Improvement, Inc. is a construction business, headquartered at 170-172 Butler Street, Paterson, New Jersey. Patwood Contracting, Co. is a construction business, headquartered at 170-172 Butler Street, Paterson, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: Aglenn@JaffeGlenn.com Jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com KDM ANCHOR: Parties Stipulate Class Certification in Smith Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SOPHIA SMITH, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. KDM ANCHOR, INC., d/b/a ANCHOR, Case No. 3:22-cv-00565-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Parties file a joint stipulation for class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. -- Wisconsin Minimum Wage Class "All persons who have been or are employed as servers by KDM Anchor Inc., d/b/a Anchor, in its Edgerton location at any time during the past two years and who were subject to a tip pool during the past two years;" and -- Wisconsin Overtime Wage Class "All persons who have been or are employed as servers by KDM Anchor Inc., d/b/a Anchor, in its Edgerton location at any time during the past two years and who worked more than 40 hours in at least one workweek during the past two years." KDM Anchor is in the Food Services, Direct Sales business. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44DIxSY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David C. Zoeller, Esq. Natalie L. Gerloff, Esq. Connor J. Clegg, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. Madison, WI 53701-2155 Telephone: (608) 257-0040 E-mail: dzoeller@hq-law.com ngerloff@hq-law.com cclegg@hq-law.com The Defendant is represented by: Lori M. Lubinsky, Esq. AXLEY BRYNELSON LLP Madison, WI 53701-1767 Telephone: (608) 257-5661 E-mail: llubinsky@axley.com KEEFE COMMISSARY: Court Junks Watkins Rule 24 Bid to Intervene -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY REICHERT, v. KEEFE COMMISSARY NETWORK LLC, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-05848-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Benjamin H. Settle entered an order denying Christopher Watkins's Rule 24 motion to intervene as of right or permissively for lack of standing. However, the notice to the class describing the settlement shall inform the class members of the Nevada case and of their right to opt out of this class and proposed settlement if they deem it beneficial to pursue their claims in the Nevada case. The case involves a class of formerly incarcerated plaintiffs who, upon their release, received a debit card purporting to account for any cash they possessed when they were jailed. These "release" cards had undisclosed fees. the Defendants Keefe Commissary Network, Rapid Investments, and Cache Valley Bank are entities that issued the cards. The Plaintiff Jeffery Reichert is a class representative for a certified national class asserting a claim under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15, U.S.C section 1693, and a certified Washington class asserting state law Consumer Protection Act and other claims. The Plaintiff Reichert previously settled the class claims against Keefe Commissary, and the Court finally approved that settlement at a fairness hearing in November 2022. On February 23, 2023, the parties informed the Court that they have settled the remaining class claims against Rapid Investments and Cache Valley Bank. The Court is awaiting a motion for settlement approval. Watkins is the class representative for a similar class of Nevada plaintiffs asserting Nevada state law claims, and seeking treble damages, in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Keefe Commissary is a provider of automated commissary management services and technologies to city, county and state. A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pIktzh at no extra charge.[CC] KEYSTONE RV: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Guisinger Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- KEYSTONE RV COMPANY is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Marc Guisinger, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Keystone RV Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-01393-JLS-RAO, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendant for contract violation. On Apr. 27, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, which the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge Josephine L. Staton on May 30, 2023. The Defendant's claim that it reserves its right to file a Rule 12(b)(6) motion at some later date is not well taken, ruled the Court. The time to file such a motion has passed. Keystone was ordered file an answer to the Plaintiff's complaint within 14 days of the issuance of the Order. The appellate case is captioned Marc Guisinger v. Keystone RV Company, Case No. 23-55572, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 29, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Keystone RV Company Mediation Questionnaire was due on July 6, 2023; -- Appellant Keystone RV Company opening brief is due on August 29, 2023; -- Appellee Marc Guisinger answering brief is due on September 29, 2023; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee MARC GUISINGER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 S. 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 - and - Patrick Howard, Esq. Simon Bahne Paris, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY PC 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 575-3895 - and - Kevin Moon, Esq. MOON LAW APC 600 West Broadway, Suite 700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (415) 365-9800 Defendant-Appellant KEYSTONE RV COMPANY is represented by: Jahmy S. Graham, Esq. Priscilla Szeto, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP 19191 S. Vermont Avenue, Suite 900 Torrance, CA 90502 Telephone: (424) 221-7400 KIRKLAND LAKE: Class Cert. Bid Denied as Moot in Stockholder Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: KIRKLAND LAKE GOLD LTD. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-04953 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an order denying as moot motion to certify class: -- Denied as moot in light of the filing at ECF No. 76. The nature of the stockholder suit states Other Statutes – Securities / Commodities / Exchange Kirkland is a mining and exploration company.[CC] LEDUC, AB: Survivors in Harassment Suit Eligible for Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Global Village Space reports that in a landmark victory for survivors of workplace harassment, women who have experienced sexual assault or harassment while working for the City of Leduc, Alberta, over the past two decades are now eligible for a groundbreaking class-action settlement. Ranging from $10,000 to $265,000 per person, this settlement represents the largest known per-person settlement ever awarded in Canada. The courageous efforts of two former firefighters who initiated the lawsuit have resulted in a resounding win for women, setting a powerful precedent for holding institutions accountable for fostering safe and respectful work environments. I. The Significance of the Class-Action Settlement (200 words) A. A Milestone for Survivors The class-action settlement in Leduc, Alberta, marks a significant milestone in the fight against workplace harassment and assault. By providing a substantial financial compensation ranging from $10,000 to $265,000 per person, it acknowledges the pain and suffering endured by survivors while sending a clear message that their experiences matter. This historic settlement empowers survivors to seek justice and serves as a deterrent to future instances of workplace misconduct. B. The Largest Known Per-Person Settlement in Canada The magnitude of this settlement cannot be overstated. With amounts ranging from $10,000 to $265,000 per person, it surpasses any previous per-person settlement in Canada. This unprecedented compensation demonstrates the severity of the harm inflicted upon these women and reflects society's growing recognition of the need to address workplace harassment with utmost seriousness. II. The Journey Towards Justice (300 words) A. The Courageous Plaintiffs The class-action lawsuit was initiated by two former firefighters who bravely stepped forward to challenge the culture of harassment within the City of Leduc. Their determination to seek justice not only for themselves but also for countless other victims has paved the way for this groundbreaking settlement. Their resilience and unwavering commitment to holding their employer accountable deserve commendation. B. A Long Overdue Recognition The settlement represents a long-overdue recognition of the pervasive issue of workplace harassment and assault. For years, survivors have silently endured the trauma inflicted upon them, often fearing retaliation or disbelief. This landmark settlement acknowledges their experiences and provides a sense of validation, encouraging other survivors to come forward and seek justice. III. Setting a Precedent for Accountability (300 words) A. Institutional Responsibility The City of Leduc's agreement to this class-action settlement signifies a crucial step towards institutional accountability. Employers must prioritize creating safe and respectful work environments, ensuring that employees are protected from all forms of harassment and assault. This settlement serves as a stern reminder that institutions must take proactive measures to prevent such incidents and respond promptly and effectively when they occur. B. Encouraging Cultural Change By awarding the largest known per-person settlement in Canada, this case sends a powerful message to employers across the country. It emphasizes the urgent need for cultural change within workplaces, where harassment and assault are no longer tolerated. Employers must foster an inclusive environment that promotes respect, equality, and zero tolerance for misconduct. IV. Conclusion (100 words) The class-action settlement in Leduc, Alberta, represents a watershed moment for survivors of workplace harassment and assault. By offering substantial financial compensation and holding the City of Leduc accountable, this historic settlement empowers survivors while setting a precedent for institutions nationwide. It is our hope that this landmark victory will inspire other survivors to come forward, fostering a culture where no one has to endure the pain and suffering caused by workplace misconduct. Together, we can create a future where every individual feels safe, respected, and supported in their place of work. [GN] LEGACY CHRISTIAN: Class Certification in Sexual Abuse Suit Heard ---------------------------------------------------------------- Keenan Sorokan of CTV News Saskatoon reports that roughly two dozen former students of Legacy Christian Academy, and nearly as many lawyers, filled a Court of King's Bench courtroom in Saskatoon on July 7, 2023 to begin a civil case against a church-operated school. Nearly a year after organizing a class action lawsuit seeking $25 million dollars in damages against Saskatoon Christian Centre Academy -- now called Legacy Christian Academy -- 22 students gathered at the steps of the courthouse happy to begin the legal process. "It's great to finally be in court now," Caitlin Erickson, a former student at the school from 1992 to 2005, said. "It's almost been a year since this application was filed and it's just good to get the ball rolling." Twenty-five defendants are listed in the lawsuit, including Mile Two Church, which operates the school. The provincial government is also included in the lawsuit. On July 7, 2023's court proceedings before Justice Naheed Bardai heard arguments about whether or not defendants should file their statements of defence before or after the lawsuit is certified by a judge. No one has filed their defence as of yet, but common practice is to wait and file defence statements after the class action is certified. "Why should the plaintiffs have to tell the defendants everything about what happened and they don't have to respond and say 'here's our position,'" Grant Scharfstein, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs, said. "We think they should have to and it would be helpful." At its core, Scharfstein says this case is about correcting the alleged actions of the defendants. "We are here to right an absolute terrible wrong that has occurred here in this province over decades where everyone has turned a blind eye to it, including the government," he said. Former students allege staff routinely paddled students and engaged in "controlling and abusive" behaviour -- including a "gay exorcism." Sexual abuse allegations include a church worker inviting girls into a bathroom where "he would put candy on his penis and have the girl take the candy with her hands or mouth." "A lot of egregious things went on, and there's really no denying that at this point," Erickson said. "The thing we've said from day one is we don't want anyone to ever have the same experience that we had, and we feel that there's still not those safety nets in place." None of the allegations have been proven in court. Scharfstein said two defendants have not responded to any attempts to be served legal notice, including former Mile Two leader Keith Johnson. However, the courts gave permission to Scharfstein to serve Johnson his legal notice via mail to a church in Oklahoma and another in Texas where Johnson has previously worked as official forms of notice. A decision on June 7, 2023's arguments was reserved for a yet-to-be-determined date. [GN] LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY: More Time to Complete Discovery Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ATTICA SCOTT, CORBIN SMITH, KAYLA MEISNER, TYLER WEAKLEY, STEVIE SCHAUER, WILLA TINSLEY, PATRICK MOORE, and the KENTUCKY ALLIANCE AGAINST RACIAL AND POLITICAL REPRESSION, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT, GREG FISCHER, ROBERT SCHROEDER, LaVITA CHAVOUS, and LOUISVILLE METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICER "J." JOHNSON, LOUISVILLE METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICERS JOHN DOES #1-#15 and JANE DOE #1, Case No. 3:20-cv-00535-BJB-CHL (W.D. Ky.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadlines for completing discovery and an extension the briefing schedule for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Additionally, the parties are engaged in motion practice surrounding the deposition of nonparty Mayor Craig Greenberg. The Defendants filed a motion to quash the Plaintiffs' subpoena on May 19, 2023. The Plaintiffs opposed that motion on June 9, 2023. The Defendants' reply was initially due on June 23, 2023, but has been extended through June 30, 2023. Simultaneously, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on June 16, 2023. Under the current schedule, the Defendants' opposition to the motion, if any, is due on July 7, 2023. A copy of the Court's order dated June 29, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JZ4yDG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Corey Shapiro, Esq. Heather Gatnarek, Esq. Kevin Muench, Esq. ACLU OF KENTUCKY FOUNDATION, INC. 325 W. Main St. Suite 2210 Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 581-9746 E-mail: corey@aclu-ky.org heather@aclu-ky.org kevin@aclu-ky.org - and - Ashok Chandran, Esq. Christopher Kemmitt, Esq. Anne Oredeko, Esq. Catherine Logue, Esq. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 40 Rector St., 5th Floor New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 965-2200 Facsimile: (212) 226-7592 E-mail: achandran@naacpldf.org ckemmitt@naacpldf.org aoredeko@naacpldf.org clogue@naacpldf.org Samuel Shapiro, Esq. Andrew K. Jondahl, Esq. EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF ABADY WARD & MAAZEL LLP 600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 763-5000 E-mail: sshapiro@ecbawm.com ajondahl@ecbawm.com The Defendants are represented by: Chris J. Gadansky, Esq. Bruce Paul, Esq. Brittany L. Deskins, Esq. MCBRAYER PLLC 500 West Jefferson Street, Suite 2400 Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 327-5400 E-mail: cgadansky@mcbrayerfirm.com bpaul@mcbrayerfirm.com bdeskins@mcbrayerfirm.com LVNV FUNDING: Plaintiffs Seek Approval of Class Notice Plan ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRAVIS HOWARD, and VANESSA HOWARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC, and RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, LP, Case No. 3:19-cv-00093-KRG (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an granting motion for approval of class notice plan. The Plaintiffs propose the Court approve notice be sent to the class by first class mail. This form of notice satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and due process, the Plaintiffs contend. The certified class consists of: "All individuals who filed for bankruptcy in Pennsylvania, had the Defendants file a proof of claim between June 6, 2018, to December 31, 2018, and had the Defendants represent in the claim that the debt underlying the claim was composed entirely of principal, even though the Defendants held an account statement, data string, or other document that showed the debt included interest and/or fees, in addition to principal." LVNV Funding is a company that buys charged-off accounts from companies like credit card issuers and personal loan lenders. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 29, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OgwFke at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin Abramowicz Kevin Tucker Chandler Steiger Stephanie Moore EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Telephone: (412) 223-5740 Facsimile: (412) 626-7101 E-mail: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com M.A.C. COSMETICS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Nov. 17 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SONYA VALENZUELA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. M.A.C. COSMETICS INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 5:22-cv-01360-SSS-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine S. Sykes entered an order regarding stipulation to continue deadline for hearing the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: -- The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Nov. 17, 2023 Certification: -- The Defendants' Opposition Brief: Dec. 1, 2023 -- The Plaintiff's Reply Brief: Dec. 8, 2023 -- Hearing: Jan. 12, 2024 M.A.C. Cosmetics provides personal care products. The Company offers lipstick, eye lashes, foundation, powder, concealer, moisturizers, and sponges. A copy of the Court's order dated June 27, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44ynfG8 at no extra charge.[CC] MADISON COUNTY, TN: Court Dismisses Hunt Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MITCHELL HUNT, v. SHERIFF JULIAN WISER, LIEUTENANT ADMINISTRATOR CHESTER LONG, and MADISON COUNTY, TENNESSEE, Case No. 1:22-cv-01224-SHM-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr. entered an order: -- Dismissing case; -- Certifying an appeal would not be taken in good faith; -- Notifying hunt of appellate filing fee; and -- Recommending this dismissal be treated as a strike under section 28 u.s.c. 1915(g). On October 17, 2022, the Plaintiff Mitchell Hunt filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 (ECF No. 1) and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. When Hunt filed the complaint, he was confined at the Madison County Jail in Jackson, Tennessee. On January 11, 2023, the Court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and assessed the three hundred and fifty dollar ($350.00) filing fee in accordance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act. On April 25, 2023, the Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim to relief, denied class certification, denied Hunt's motions for appointment of counsel, and granted leave to amend within 21 days. Hunt's deadline to amend was Tuesday, May 16, 2023. Hunt has not filed amended claims and has not sought an extension of time to do so. The Court dismisses this case with prejudice in its entirety for the reasons discussed in the Screening Order. Judgment will be entered in accordance with that prior Order. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NUUNYh at no extra charge.[CC] MARIA PATRICIO: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert. Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRISTHIAN ZUNIGA HERNANDEZ, LUIS ALFONSO PALMILLAS LOPEZ, and RAMON RODRIGUEZ MENDEZ on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, v. MARIA LETICIA PATRICIO, ENRIQUE DUQUE TOVAR, JOSE CARMEN DUQUE TOVAR, and MBR FARMS, INC., a Georgia corporation, Case No. 5:23-cv-00023-LGW-BWC (S.D. Ga.), the Representative Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline imposed automatically under Local Rule 23.2 for the filing of a motion for class certification to allow Representative Plaintiffs to complete service of process on all the Defendants and conduct the discovery necessary to support their class allegations. Representative Plaintiffs filed their Class Action Complaint on April 5, 2023, alleging labor trafficking, racketeering, and other wrongful, immoral, and pernicious violations of numerous federal and state laws. Only the Defendant MBR farms filed its answer on June 30, 2023. The Court has not yet entered an initial scheduling order and a scheduling conference has not been set. The Defendants Maria Leticia Patricio, Enrique Duque Tovar, and Jose Carmen Duque Tovar are the subject of a federal criminal indictment covering the same or similar allegation as the Plaintiffs' complaint. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OfmNHv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charlie Y. Wang, Esq. VEDDER PRICE (CA), LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 204-7700 E-mail: cwang@vedderprice.com - and - Daniel Werner, Esq. RADFORD & KEEBAUGH, LLC 315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 1080 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (678) 271-0304 E-mail: dan@decaturlegal.com - and - Anand Ramana, Esq. Dana Mehlman, Esq. Allison Czerniak, Esq. VEDDER PRICE P.C. 1401 New York Ave N.W., Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 312-3325 E-mail: aramana@vedderprice.com dmehlman@vedderprice.com E-mail: aczerniak@vedderprice.com The Attorneys for MBR Farms, Inc., are: Mark A. Gilbert, Esq. Kayla H. Barnes, Esq. COLEMAN TALLEY LLP P.O. Box 5437 Valdosta, GA 31603-5437 Telephone: (229)242-7562 E-mail: Mark.gilbert@colemantalley.com Kayla.barnes@colemantalley.com MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: $36.5MM Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 7 ------------------------------------------------------------ SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA IN RE MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES INC. SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS Case No. 19CV357070 CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION Judge: Hon. Sunil R. Kulkarni Dept: 1 Date Action Filed: October 21, 2019 TO: ALL PERSONS WHO ACQUIRED MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES INC. ("MAXAR" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK IN EXCHANGE FOR DIGITALGLOBE, INC. ("DIGITALGLOBE") COMMON STOCK PURSUANT TO THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND PROSPECTUS ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH MAXAR'S OCTOBER 2017 MERGER WITH DIGITALGLOBE. THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on December 7, 2023, at 1:30 p.m., before the Honorable Sunil R. Kulkarni at the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Department 1, 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113, to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement ("Settlement") of the above-captioned action as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation")1 for $36,500,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered; (3) to award Class Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed below) and, if so, in what amount; (4) to pay Class Representative out of the Settlement Fund for representing the Class and, if so, in what amount; and (5) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate. This Action is a securities class action brought on behalf of those persons who acquired Maxar common stock pursuant to the registration statement and prospectus ("Offering Materials") issued in connection with Maxar's October 2017 merger with and acquisition of DigitalGlobe, against Maxar and certain of its officers and directors (collectively, "Defendants") for, among other things, allegedly misstating and omitting material facts from the registration statement and prospectus filed in connection with the Merger. Plaintiff alleges that these purportedly false and misleading statements resulted in damage to Class Members. Defendants deny all of Plaintiff's allegations and deny that there was any violation of the securities laws. 1 The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at www.MaxarSecuritiesSettlement.com. IF YOU ACQUIRED MAXAR COMMON STOCK IN THE MERGER WITH DIGITALGLOBE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION. To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than September 27, 2023) or electronically (no later than September 27, 2023). Your failure to timely submit your Proof of Claim will subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Action. If you are a member of the Class and do not request exclusion therefrom, you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Action, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim. If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of Claim, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other settlement documents, online at www.MaxarSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by writing to: Maxar Securities Settlement c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173131 Milwaukee, WI 53217 Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the Clerk of the Court. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of Claim, may be made to Class Counsel: ADAM E. POLK GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 DAVID W. HALL HEDIN HALL LLP Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 766-3534 Facsimile: (415) 402-0058 If you wish to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is postmarked by August 28, 2023, in the manner and form explained in the Notice. All members of the Class who have not requested exclusion from the Class will be bound by the Settlement, even if they do not submit a timely Proof of Claim. If you are a Class Member, you have the right to object to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, the Request by Class Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of up to 35% of the Settlement Fund (or $12,775,000) and expenses not to exceed $600,000, and/or for payment to the Class Representative not to exceed $10,000 for representing the Class. Any written objections must be filed with the Court and sent to Class Counsel and Defendants' counsel by August 28, 2023, in the manner and form explained in the Notice. You may also make an oral objection at the Settlement Fairness Hearing without submitting a written objection. DATED: JUNE 8, 2023 BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA MEC HOLDING: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 5, 2024 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brenda Perez v. MEC Holding Company, Case No. 5:23-cv-00279-SSS-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine S. Sykes entered an order setting the deadlines for the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and case management conference regarding the remaining deadlines after the Court decides the Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion: Event Deadline Last Date to Hear Motion to Amend Aug. 4, 2023 Pleadings or Add Parties: Deadline for the Plaintiff to File Motion Jan. 5, 2024 for Class Certification and Any Class Certification Expert Report: Deadline for the Defendant to File Opposition Jan. 19, 2024 to Class Certification and Any Class Certification Expert Report: Deadline for the Plaintiff to File Reply: Jan. 26, 2024 Support of Motion for Class Certification and Any Class Certification Rebuttal Expert Report: Class Certification Hearing Feb. 23, 2024 A copy of the Court's order dated June 28, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43e9RG8 at no extra charge.[CC] MERRILL LYNCH: Valelly Bid for Reconsideration Tossed ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH VALELLY, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-07998-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Valerie Caproni entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the open motion at docket entry 159. The putative class action involves the "sweep" feature of Merrill Edge Self-Directed Investing Accounts. The sweep feature allowed the Defendant to move automatically (or "sweep") the Plaintiff's uninvested cash into a Bank of America money market account. On March 21, 2023, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to exclude Officer's opinion and testimony. On April 4, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. The Plaintiff insists that the Court should "at a minimum clarify that it accepts Officer's report that a government MMF is as secure, if not more secure, than a bank deposit account," and whether "MFs and FDIC-insured accounts are comparable instruments is a jury question that should await trial." Merrill Lynch operates as an investment advisory firm. A copy of the Court's order dated June 28, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OanAJW at no extra charge.[CC] METROHEALTH SYSTEM: Savel Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK SAVEL, et al. v. THE METROHEALTH SYSTEM, Case No. 1:22-cv-02154-JG (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying action to proceed as a class action defined as: "all employees, students, and contractors of MetroHealth, who have requested or will request religious exemptions and accommodations from mandatory vaccination requirements and who have had those requests unlawfully denied (expressly or constructively)." Since August of 2021, MetroHealth denied hundreds of religious exemption and accommodation requests for MetroHealth's COVID-19 and influenza vaccine mandates, while at the same time granting and accommodating requests for medical exemptions. As a result of these denials, the class members were subjected to delay, discrimination, segregation, harassment, intimidation, repeated threats of termination, and attempts to induce compliance through deliberate and materially false and misleading communications from MetroHealth. The Plaintiffs in this action all have a sincerely held religious belief that would be violated by submitting to MetroHealth's COVID-19 and/or influenza vaccine mandates. MetroHealth is a nationally ranked non-profit, public health care system located in Cleveland, Ohio. A copy of the Court's order dated June 26, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rnEkUM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jon A. Troyer, Esq. Richard W. Arnold, Esq. ARNOLD, GRUBER & HAREN, LTD. 4580 Stephen Cir. NW, Suite 100 Canton, OH 44718 Telephone: (330) 563-4149 Facsimile: (330) 526-6511 E-mail: jtroyer@aghattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Stephen S. Zashin, Esq. Ami J. Patel, Esq. Natalie M. Stevens, Esq. Katherine J. Mills, Esq. ZASHIN & RICH 950 Main Avenue, 4th Floor Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 696-4441 Facsimile: (216) 696-1618 E-mail: ssz@zrlaw.com ajp@zrlaw.com nms@zrlaw.com kjm@zrlaw.com MMM CONSUMER: Eppes Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIELLE EPPES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MMM CONSUMER BRANDS, INC., doing business as MARLEY SPOON, Case No. 1:22-cv-06341-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered an order that the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration is granted and its motion to deny class certification is denied as moot. Additionally, the matter is stayed pending arbitration. The Plaintiff is directed to file a letter apprising the Court of that status of that arbitration on or before August 28, 2023. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 28. A copy of the Court's order dated June 29, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3K1mqhk at no extra charge.[CC] NEW SABINA: Court Modifies March 16, 2022 Prelim Pretrial Order --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HEATHER COWMAN, v. NEW SABINA INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00141-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Chelsey M. Vascura entered an order modifying the March 16, 2022 Preliminary Pretrial Order as follows. -- The Plaintiff's motion for court-approved notice to the employees she seeks to include in her collective action must be filed by November 17, 2023. The Plaintiff filed a Motion for Conditional Certification on April 15, 2022. Considering the recent ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Clark v. A&L Homecare & Training Ctr., LLC, 68 F.4th 1003 (6th Cir. 2023), and by agreement of the parties, this motion is terminated as moot. All remaining fact discovery shall be completed by 180 days after the Court’s ruling on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Court-Approved Notice if the Motion is denied, or 180 days after the close of the opt-in period if the Motion is granted. Case dispositive motions must be filed by 45 days after production of rebuttal expert reports. New Sabina operates in the automotive parts industry. A copy of the Court's order dated June 28, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PQlFLQ at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK LIFE: Plaintiffs File Bid for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stuart Krohnengold, Wayne Antoine, Lee Webber, Anthony Medici, Joseph Bendrihem, Larry Gilbert, Rafael Musni, Thomas Lantz, Sandra Scanni, and Claudia Gonzalez, as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the New York Life Insurance Employee Progress Sharing Investment Plan, and the New York Life Insurance Company Agents Progress Sharing Plan, v. New York Life Insurance Company; the Fiduciary Investment Committee; the Board of Trustees; Katherine O'Brien; Anthony R. Malloy; Yie-Hsin Hung; Arthur A. Seter; Scott L. Lenz; Robert J. Hynes; and John and Jane Does 1-20, Case No. 1:21-cv-01778-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for entry of an Order: -- Certifying the action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1), or alternatively 23(b)(3); -- Appointing them as class representatives; and -- Appointing Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC as class counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). The Plaintiffs propose two classes and one subclass as follows: a. Mainstay Funds Class "All participants and beneficiaries of the New York Life Insurance Company Employee Progress-Sharing Investment Plan or New York Life Insurance Company Agents Progress-Sharing Investment Plan who held assets in the Plans' MainStay Epoch U.S. All Cap Fund, MainStay Epoch U.S. Small Cap Fund, MainStay Income Builder Fund, or any MainStay Retirement Fund at any time on or after March 2, 2015, excluding the Defendants, any of their directors, and any officers or employees of the Defendants with responsibility for the Plans' investment or administrative functions." b. FDA Class "All participants and beneficiaries of the New York Life Insurance Company Employee Progress-Sharing Investment Plan or New York Life Insurance Company Agents Progress-Sharing Investment Plan who held assets in the Fixed Dollar Account at any time on or after March 2, 2015, excluding the Defendants, any of their directors, and any officers or employees of the Defendants with responsibility for the Plans’ investment or administrative functions." c. FDA Default Subclass "All members of the FDA Class whose plan accounts were invested in the FDA by default at any time on or after March 2, 2015. New York Life provides life insurance, wealth management, estate and retirement planning. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 26, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44mpbC4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michelle C. Yau, Esq. Kai Richter, Esq. Daniel R. Sutter, Esq. Jacob T. Schutz, Esq. Eleanor Frisch, Esq. Caroline E. Bressman, Esq. Michael Eisenkraft, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW ● Fifth Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: myau@cohenmilstein.com krichter@cohenmilstein.com dsutter@cohenmilstein.com jschutz@cohenmilstein.com efrisch@cohenmilstein.com cbressman@cohenmilstein.com meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com NEW YORK, NY: Court Stays Portions of Plaintiffs' Class Discovery ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Justin Baerga, et al., v. City of New York et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-05762-PAC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Paul A. Crotty entered an order staying portions of the Plaintiffs' discovery. -- The Court stays discovery of Plaintiffs' Monell claims, the merits of the class claims, and the merits of the organizational plaintiffs' claims pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss. The Court will revisit the issue of the stayed discovery when the motion is resolved. New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated June 29, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DhEcJa at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK, NY: Resident Class Certified in Forest Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA FOREST, LARYSA NAZARENKO, SVITLANA ANTOSHCHENKO, and GLENNICE SIMON, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, MOLLY PARK, in her official capacity as Commissioner, New York City Department of Social Services, and LISA FITZPATRICK, in her official capacity as Administrator, New York City Human Resources Administration, Case No. 1:23-cv-00743-JHR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer H. Rearden entered an order approving Parties' stipulation on class certification as follows: 1. A class should be certified as consisting of: "All New York City residents who, since March 19, 2020, applied or recertified, attempted to apply or recertify, are applying or recertifying, or will apply or recertify for SNAP and/or cash assistance benefits; and (a) for whom HRA has not or will not timely process such applications or recertifications once submitted; or (b) who have been or will be unable to complete their applications or recertifications due to HRA's systems, policies, practices, and/or procedures relating to application or recertification submission, processing, or interviews, as well as documentation or verification to establish eligibility, including benefit amount." 2. For purposes of this Stipulation and Order only: a. "SNAP and/or cash assistance benefits" means benefits pursuant to the SNAP Act, 7 U.S.C. section 2011 et seq., and New York Social Services Law, N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law sections 131 et seq. b. "HRA" means the New York City Human Resources Administration. c. "Application” means the process of establishing eligibility for SNAP and/or cash assistance benefits when a person does not currently have an active case. d. "Recertification" means the process of renewing eligibility for SNAP and/or cash assistance benefits. 3. The Proposed Class meets the requirements for class certification under Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as set forth in the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and accompanying affidavits. 4. The Proposed Class meets the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), as the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have "acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole." Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants are failing to (1) process applications and recertifications for these subsistence-level benefits within the timeframes required by federal and state law; and (2) maintain functional systems that enable SNAP and Cash Assistance households to submit applications and recertifications for these benefits. The Complaint seeks a declaration that the Defendants' conduct violates the SNAP Act and implementing regulations, and the New York State Social Services Law and implementing regulations. copy of the Court's order dated June 27, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pwV7Va at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin E. Rosenberg, Esq. DECHERT LLP Three Bryant Park 1095 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 698-3500 E-mail: benjamin.rosenberg@dechert.com - and - Julia Russell, Esq. NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP 100 Pearl St., 19th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 613-5000 E-mail: jrussell@nylag.org - and - Kathleen Kelleher, Esq. THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY 199 Water Street, 3rd Floor New York, NY York 10038 Telephone: (212) 577-3307 E-mail: kkelleher@legal-aid.org The Defendants are represented by: Jonathan Pines, Esq. NYC LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street, Rm. 2-178 NY, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2082 E-mail: jpines@law.nyc.gov NIANTIC INC: Faces Class Suit Over Systemic Sexual Bias ------------------------------------------------------- Jay Peters of The Verge reports that a former Niantic employee filed a lawsuit against the AR gaming company on July 7, 2023, alleging that it devalued the work of female employees and women of color, denied equal pay to women employees and women of color. The lawsuit, which is seeking class-action status, accuses Niantic of creating a "boys club." The employee was laid off as part of last week's job cuts at the company, which affected about 230 staffers. The employee, who is an anonymous Jane Doe but is described in the complaint as an Asian female, started work at Niantic in February 2020 with a salary of $70,000, the complaint says. Later that year, she was promoted and received a raise to about $84,000, but in "approximately" 2021, she learned that Niantic was paying a male colleague more money even though she had a higher job title and more responsibilities than he did. In 2022, he was allegedly paid $127,000 per year, but she was paid $105,000 per year despite being one job level higher. In or around spring 2023, she received a raise to $115,000 per year, still below her male colleague. Around that same time, the employee also saw that Niantic posted the pay range for her job title and level -- as of 2023, California employers with more than 15 staffers have to share pay ranges in job listings because of a pay transparency law -- and saw that she was being paid more than $10,000 less than the bottom end of that range. The employee discussed her concerns with other female staffers, and sexism and equal pay were brought up in the company’s employee resources group for women, Wolfpack. But when the employee brought her concerns to Niantic's Diversity Equity and Inclusion Director and Principal People Partner, they "made clear" that "they and male upper management at Niantic were hostile to her complaints or voiced concerns about sexism or sexual bias in the workplace," the complaint says. The executives in the meeting also allegedly said her job evaluations were affected by her discussing workplace issues with her colleagues and said that she was paid below the range because she had raised concerns with her colleagues. According to the complaint, the employee then "immediately unsubscribed" from the Wolfpack group "in fear that her association with Wolfpack would disadvantage Wolfpack employees or her." This year, Wolfpack found in a survey of staffers that "many female employees viewed Niantic as a sexist work culture that disadvantages female employees" and a majority of respondents "expressed concerns about equal pay at Niantic," the complaint says. When those survey findings where shared with upper management, "Niantic's Chief Marketing Officer, Mike Quigley, required Wolfpack to remove references to Boys Club and similar comments about sexism in the workplace from their presentation to Wolfpack members about the results of the survey." The group was also told that they could not survey staffers without approval from upper management. Niantic didn't immediately reply to a request for comment. The lawsuit against Niantic is just the latest legal action toward a major gaming company based on allegations from female employees. The state of California sued Activision Blizzard in 2021 alleging that it fostered a culture of "constant sexual harassment," while Riot Games announced that year that it would pay $100 million to settle a gender discrimination lawsuit. As part of its recent layoffs, CEO John Hanke reiterated the company's focus on Pokemon Go, its cash cow. The company has struggled to find its next big hit, shutting down games based on Harry Potter, Catan, and, as of last week, its NBA game. [GN] NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Seeks to Strike Improper Affidavit in Romano Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Romano, et al., v. Northrop Grumman Corporation et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-05760-GRB-ST (E.D.N.Y.), Northrop files motion to strike improper affidavit and related arguments. Northrop seeks strike the Plaintiffs' untimely and improper effort to raise new Phase I (i.e., class certification) arguments. The Court ordered the Plaintiffs to disclose the scope of their Phase I expert opinions almost two years ago, and to serve opening and rebuttal reports more than a year ago. Those disclosures did not include the composition of dust found in the attics of select the Plaintiffs' homes as a potential basis for class certification. The Plaintiffs now seek to introduce that brand new theory in reply briefs filed three weeks ago. Their improper tactics should not be allowed. First, the Plaintiffs offered no explanation for waiting more than 21 months after the close of Phase I discovery to perform tests on their own properties, and more than 19 months after the Phase I report deadline to serve the Improper Affidavit. Northrop Corporation is an American multinational aerospace and defense technology company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 27, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JOUxsy at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Grant J. Esposito, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 250 West 55th Street New York, NY 10019-9601 Telephone: 212.468.8000 Facsimile: 212.468.7900 E-mail: www.mofo.com NRA GROUP: Chamberlain Files Bid for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Autumn Chamberlain, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. NRA Group, LLC d/b/a National Recovery Agency, Case No. 1:21-cv-00281-JPW (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification of: "All persons within the United States to whom NRA or its agent's and/or employee's sent a debt collection text message between November 19, 2020 and February 16, 2021, after said person had previously messaged 'STOP,' 'Stop' or 'stop' to NRA." The Plaintiff also requests that the Court appoint her as the class representative and appoint Lemberg Law, LLC as class counsel. NRA Group operates as an accounts receivable management company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 28, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O5qUWC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen Taylor, Esq. Joshua Markovits, Esq. LEMBERG LAW LLC 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 OLIN CORPORATION: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Nov. 8 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT DAVIS, ET AL., v. OLIN CORPORATION, ET AL., Case No. 3:22-cv-00374-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. entered an order amending the Scheduling Order as follows: -- Filing a motion for class certification: Nov. 8, 2023 -- The Defendant's Memorandum in Dec. 20, 2023 Opposition to class certification: -- The Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum: Jan. 16, 2024 -- Filing all discovery motions and July 31, 2023 completing all discovery except experts: -- Disclosure of identities and resumes of experts: The Plaintiff(s): Expired The Defendant(s): August 8, 2023 -- Expert reports must be submitted to opposing parties as follows: The Plaintiff(s): August 15, 2023 The Defendant(s): Sept. 16, 2023. -- Discovery from experts must be October 31, 2023 completed by: Olin is an American manufacturer of ammunition, chlorine, and sodium hydroxide. A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rl3GTv at no extra charge.[CC] ONIX GROUP: Jones Alleges Unauthorized Disclosure of Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ THOMAS JONES and LEAH SIMIONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ONIX GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-02621 (E.D. Pa., July 7, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the protected health information (PHI) and personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated patients stored within its system following a data breach between the period of March 20 and March 27, 2023. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the PII and PHI of the Plaintiffs and Class members were compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Onix Group LLC is a real estate development firm, with its principal place of business located at 150 Onix Drive in Kennett Square, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul Costa, Esq. FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK R.P.C. One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 567-6565 Facsimile: (215) 568-5872 E-mail: pcosta@finekaplan.com - and - David S. Almeida, Esq. Elena A. Belov, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (312) 576-3024 E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com elena@almeidalawgroup.com OPENAI INC: Silverman Sues Over Illegal Use of Copyrighted Books ---------------------------------------------------------------- SARAH SILVERMAN, CHRISTOPHER GOLDEN, and RICHARD KADREY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OPENAI, INC.; OPENAI, L.P.; OPENAI OPCO, L.L.C; OPENAI GP, L.L.C.; OPENAI STARTUP FUND GP I, L.L.C.; OPENAI STARTUP FUND I, L.P.; and OPENAI STARTUP FUND MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-03416 (N.D. Cal., July 7, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for direct copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, violations of section 1202(b) of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, unjust enrichment, violations of the California and common law unfair competition laws, and negligence. According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in the unlawful use of copyrighted books as training material for ChatGPT, is a software product created, maintained, and sold by OpenAI. The Plaintiffs never authorized OpenAI to make copies of their books, make derivative works, publicly display copies (or derivative works), or distribute copies (or derivative works). The Defendants, by and through the use of ChatGPT, benefit commercial and profit richly from the use of Plaintiffs' and Class members' copyrighted materials, says the suit. The Plaintiffs seek to recover injunctive relief and damages as a result and consequence of the Defendants' alleged unlawful conduct. OpenAI, Inc. is a software company, with its principal place of business located at 3180 18th St., San Francisco, California. OpenAI, L.P. is a wholly owned subsidiary of OpenAI Inc., with its principal place of business located at 3180 18th St., San Francisco, California. OpenAI OpCo, L.L.C. is a wholly owned subsidiary of OpenAI Inc., with its principal place of business located at 3180 18th St., San Francisco, California. OpenAI GP, L.L.C. is a wholly owned subsidiary of OpenAI Inc., with its principal place of business located at 3180 18th St., San Francisco, California. OpenAI Startup Fund I, L.P. is a limited partnership, with its principal place of business located at 3180 18th St., San Francisco, California. OpenAI Startup Fund GP I, L.L.C. is the general partner of OpenAI Startup Fund I, with its principal place of business located at 3180 18th St., San Francisco, California. OpenAI Startup Fund Management, LLC is a fund management firm, with its principal place of business located at 3180 18th St., San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Cadio Zirpoli, Esq. Christopher K.L. Young, Esq. Kathleen J. McMahon, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com cyoung@saverilawfirm.com kmcmahon@saverilawfirm.com - and - Matthew Butterick, Esq. 1920 Hillhurst Avenue, #406 Los Angeles, CA 90027 Telephone: (323) 968-2632 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: mb@buttericklaw.com PAUL NEWMAN: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliatory Discharge ------------------------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL A. PEREZ, JOSE A. CENTENO, and KEVIN A. CENTENO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PAUL NEWMAN DAZZLING DETAILING, INC. and PAUL NEWMAN, Defendants, Case No. 6:23-cv-01222 (M.D. Fla., June 30, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and for retaliatory discharge. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as recreational vehicle detailers at any time between 2021 and 2023. Paul Newman Dazzling Detailing, Inc. is a provider of washing, waxing, polishing, and detailing services for recreational vehicles, doing business in Seminole County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com PENSION BENEFIT: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Harris Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- KELLY HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PENSION BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC d/b/a PBI RESEARCH SERVICES; and PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 0:23-cv-02075-PAM-TNL (D. Minn., July 11, 2023) is a class action by the Plaintiff on behalf of herself and all other individuals whose sensitive personal information was disclosed to unauthorized third parties during a massive data breach that exploited a vulnerability in software technology called MOVEit on or about May 27, 2023 (the "Data Breach"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that contrary to the Defendants' representations and promises, they utilized inadequate data security measures they knew, or should have known, put the highly sensitive data they oversaw at significant risk of theft by or exposure to nefarious parties. The Plaintiff and the Class Members remain at a continued risk of harm due to the exposure and potential misuse of their sensitive personal information by criminal hackers, says the suit. PENSION BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC d/b/a PBI RESEARCH SERVICES offers death audit, locate services and uncashed check management services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Charles R. Toomajian, Esq. Michael J. Laird, Esq. Rachel K. Tack, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com charles.toomajian@zimmreed.com michael.laird@zimmreed.com rachel.tack@zimmreed.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 Email: gary@lcllp.com nickc@lcllp.com - and - Jennifer Czeisler, Esq. JKC LAW, LLC 269 Altessa Blvd. Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (516) 457-9571 Email: jennifer@jkclawllc.com - and - James M. Evangelista, Esq. EVANGELISTA WORLEY LLC 500 Sugar Mill Road Suite 245A Atlanta, GA 30350 Telephone: (404) 205-8400 Email: jim@ewlawllc.com QUALITY TEMPORARY: Court Narrows Claims in Lochridge Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL LOCHRIDGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. QUALITY TEMPORARY SERVICES, INC. d/b/a QUALIFIED STAFFING, Case No. 4:22-cv-12086-FKB-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge F. Kay Behm entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss: -- Counts II and IV are dismissed for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Court said, "The Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged damages resulting from the disclosure of his data in the cyberattack. Likewise, the court’s analysis will focus on the "meeting of the minds" element. When looking at an implied contract, there must be mutuality of agreement between the two parties, "even though it is not manifested by direct or explicit words." The Plaintiff similarly argues that the Defendant required the Plaintiff to provide his information to utilize their services, thereby creating an implied contract that they would "protect the Plaintiff's and Class members' Private Information and timely notify them in the event of a data breach." The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff cannot seek injunctive relief designed to prevent a future breach, only relief that would address the breach that already occurred. The Plaintiff Lochridge filed his Second Amended Class Action Complaint on March 31, 2023, alleging that his personal identifiable information (PII) was exposed as a result of the Defendant's failure to properly safeguard their computer network. The Plaintiff brings claims on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals for Negligence (Count I), Unjust Enrichment (Count II), and Breach of Implied Contract (Count III), and seeks a Declaratory Judgment (Count IV). On April 14, 2023, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The case was initially before District Judge Paul D. Borman but was reassigned to the undersigned on February 6, 2023. The court held a hearing on June 21, 2023, wherein both parties participated in oral argument. The Plaintiff alleges that he was directly injured when his personal information was used to fraudulently apply for a loan and to open a financial account in his name. The Defendant is a Michigan corporation providing job recruiting and staffing services across the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DdjZEs at no extra charge.[CC] RICE DRILLING: XTO, PE for Summary Judgment Denied as Moot ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERA II, LLC et al v. Rice Drilling D, LLC et al, Case No. 2:19-cv-02221-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon L. Marbley entered an order denying as moot XTO Energy and Phillips Exploration's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court also rules as follows on the parties' cross Motions for Summary Judgment: -- Threshold Matters: The Plaintiffs' first motion for partial summary judgment is not moot; the Defendants' motion is denied. The Plaintiffs' Motion to use offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel is denied. The Defendant Ascent Resources – Utica, LLC's Motion on application of Joint Venture Theory of Liability: -- Granted for Ascent, denied for the Plaintiffs: Gold Digger, Son-Uva, Big Foot 7, Dorsey East, Skyhawk 3 Units. -- Denied for Ascent, granted for the Plaintiffs: Gold Digger South 3 and South 4 Units. -- Denied for both Ascent and the Plaintiffs: Snodgrass Unit. -- The Defendant Gulfport Energy Corporation and Gulfport Appalachia, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment for all damages prior to May 17, 2021, is granted. COUNT I – Declaratory Judgment: denied for all parties. COUNT II – Trespass: granted in part, denied in part for the Defendants; denied for the Plaintiffs. COUNTS III & IV – Conversion & Unjust Enrichment: DENIED for the Plaintiffs; granted in part for the Defendants as related to application of the rule of capture and DENIED in part for remainder of argument for the Defendants. COUNT V – Fees: the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. COUNT VI – Breach of Contract: the Plaintiffs' Motion is denied; the Defendants Rice Drilling D, LLC’s Motion is granted; the Defendant Gulfport's Motion is granted in part and denied in part. -- Affirmative defenses: The Plaintiffs' Motion is denied as to all affirmative defenses. On December 31, 2013, the Defendant Rice leased the Plaintiffs' property for the development of oil and gas. Rice assigned its leases with TERA II to the Defendant Ascent, who in turn assigned a partial interest to the Defendant Gulfport Energy. Rice allowed Gulfport and Ascent to drill horizontal wells on TERA II, TERA III, and TERA IV's properties, and entered into an agreement with Gulfport to develop the Plaintiff Thomas Shaw and Joyce Chambers' property. The Defendants own interests in the respective wells and benefit from the sale of any oil, gas, and other hydrocarbons produced from these wells. The Plaintiffs' property is spread across ten pooled units. Under Ohio law, landowners can pool together adjoining properties to form a single drilling unit, and all production of oil and gas from anywhere in the unit is considered produced from the unit as a whole no matter where the well was drilled. On April 25, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed suit in the Belmont County Court of Common Pleas seeking a declaratory judgment regarding their rights under the leases and alleging trespass, conversion, and unjust enrichment. On May 28, 2019, Rice timely removed this action to this Court. The parties proceeded through motions to dismiss and discovery, and one the Plaintiff and two defendants were dismissed. A copy of the Court's order dated June 28, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44HxojX at no extra charge.[CC] RICHARD & SON: Class Action Settlement in Douglass Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLAIR DOUGLASS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. P.C. RICHARD & SON, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01710-SHR-SM (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Maureen P. Keeley entered an order granting plaintiff's unopposed motion for certification of the settlement class and final approval of the class action settlement. On March 16, 2023, the Court preliminarily approved the proposed class action settlement set forth in the Agreement, directed that notice of the Agreement be given to the Settlement Class, and preliminarily certified the following Settlement Class: A national class of individuals who are Blind and/or who have a Visual Disability and who use Appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services to navigate digital content and who have accessed, attempted to access, or been deterred from attempting to access, or who will access, attempt to access, or be deterred from attempting to access, [https://www.pcrichard.com/] from the United States. The Court finds that Plaintiff Blair Douglass will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class. As a result, the Court appoints and designates Mr. Douglass as representative of the Settlement Class. The Court finds Kevin Tucker, Kevin Abramowicz, Stephanie Moore, and Chandler Steiger of East End Trial Group LLC are experienced and competent class action counsel who fairly and adequately protected the interests of the putative class throughout this litigation and appoints them as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. P.C. Richard provides online products and services. The Company offers a range of home appliances, consumer electronics, and computer products. A copy of the Court's order dated June 27, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PNb0RM at no extra charge.[CC] RIPPLE LABS: Zakinov Wins Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VLADI ZAKINOV, et al., v. RIPPLE LABS, INC., et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-06753-PJH (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton entered an order: -- Granting the plaintiff's motion for class certification; -- Denying as moot the Defendants' motion to strike; and -- Denying the motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief. The court concludes that defendants' arguments regarding the disagreement between class members over the legal issue of whether XRP qualifies as a "security" does not defeat adequacy. The court agrees that defendants have no support for their proposed end date, but also agrees that it is preferable to have a certain end-date for the class period, and thus, it sets the date of this order as the end date for the class period. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification came on for hearing on April 26, 2023. The Plaintiff appeared through his counsel, Nicholas Spear, James Taylor-Copeland, Steven Sklaver, and Oleg Elkhunovich. the Defendants appeared through their counsel, Andrew Michaelson, Damien Marshall, Bradley Oppenheimer, Meghan Strong, and Bethan Jones. Having read the papers filed by the parties and carefully considered their arguments and relevant authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby rules as follows. The matter is a securities case. The Plaintiff Sostack seeks to pursue securities claims against defendants Ripple Labs, XRP II (a subsidiary of Ripple), and Bradley Garlinghouse, CEO of Ripple. The gravamen of the case is the argument that the XRP cryptocurrency issued by Ripple is a "security" under relevant securities laws and should have been registered, and that the failure to do so was a violation of federal and state law. Ripple Labs is an American technology company which develops the Ripple payment protocol and exchange network. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NVtTPR at no extra charge.[CC] SIMPLURIS INC: $17.85MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 27 --------------------------------------------------------------- If you purchased FEI or TRIBE tokens in the Genesis Event between March 31, 2021 and April 3, 2021, a class action settlement may affect your rights A court authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. Simpluris Inc. disclosed that a settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit concerning the sale of "FEI" or "TRIBE" tokens through the Fei Protocol in an initial sale conducted between March 31, 2021 and April 3, 2021, called the "Genesis Event." The settlement will provide $17,850,000.00 to pay claims to persons and entities who purchased FEI or TRIBE tokens in the Genesis Event. If you qualify, you can submit a Proof of Claim form to get your share of the settlement, exclude yourself from the settlement to retain your right to sue, or object to the settlement. The amount of your claim could be substantial. The Superior Court of California for San Francisco County authorized this notice. Before any money is paid, the Court will have a hearing to decide whether to approve the settlement. WHO IS INCLUDED IN THE SETTLEMENT? You are a class member and could get a payment if you purchased the digital assets FEI or TRIBE in exchange for ETH in the Genesis Event conducted between March 31, 2021 and April 3, 2021, including if you "pre-swapped" your FEI token allocation for TRIBE. If you are not sure if you are included, you can get more information, including a detailed notice and class definition, at www.FEITRIBESecuritiesSettlement.com or by calling toll free 888-427-9229. WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT? The lawsuit claims that the sale of FEI and TRIBE tokens in the Genesis Event was a sale of unregistered securities. The plaintiff claims that this entitles persons who purchased FEI and TRIBE tokens directly from the Fei Protocol in the Genesis Event to get compensation. The defendants deny any wrongdoing, and the Court has not found that any defendant has committed wrongdoing. WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE? The settlement creates a fund of $17,850,000.00 ("Settlement Fund") that will be used to pay class claims, settlement administration costs, taxes, attorneys' fees and costs, and a potential service award to the plaintiff. The Net Settlement Fund, which is the amount left over after the Court approves any notice, claims and administration costs, taxes and tax expenses, attorneys' fees and costs, a potential service award to the Plaintiff who brought the lawsuit, and other Court-approved deductions, will be divided pro rata among all class members who timely file a valid Proof of Claim form and do not exclude themselves from the settlement. The Net Settlement Fund is estimated to be at least $13 million, if the Court approves the payment of notice, claims and administration costs, attorneys' fees and costs, and a service award for Plaintiff in the full amounts sought. Your share of the Net Settlement Fund will depend on the total number of valid claims submitted, the amount of FEI and TRIBE tokens you purchased, and the amount you recouped or could recoup from selling or surrendering the tokens. All of the $17,850,000.00 fund will be paid out. Generally, if you bought more FEI and TRIBE tokens, and have more losses, you will receive a greater payment. If you bought fewer FEI and TRIBE tokens, and have fewer losses, you will receive a lesser payment. HOW DO YOU REQUEST A PAYMENT? To qualify for a payment, you must submit a valid Proof of Claim form and supporting documentation. You can download a paper version of the Proof of Claim form or submit one online at the Settlement Website www.FEITRIBESecuritiesSettlement.com. Proof of Claim forms are due by October 1, 2023. WHAT ARE YOUR OTHER OPTIONS? If you do not want to be legally bound by the settlement, you must exclude yourself by September 6, 2023, or you will not be able to sue or continue to sue the defendants about the legal claims in this case. If you exclude yourself, you cannot get money from the settlement. If you remain in the class, you may object to the settlement by October 1, 2023. For further information about your rights to object or to request exclusion from the settlement, you may visit www.FEITRIBESecuritiesSettlement.com, and in particular, the full Long Form Notice, which can be found at www.FEITRIBESecuritiesSettlement.com/long-form-notice.pdf. The Court will hold a hearing on October 27, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. to consider whether to approve the settlement, and a request by the lawyers representing class members for approximately $4,500,000.00 in attorneys' fees and costs for investigating the facts, litigating the case, and negotiating the settlement, as well as a service award of up to $10,000.00 for plaintiff for litigating class members' claims. These requested fees, costs, and service award would represent approximately 25% of the settlement fund if approved. You may request to appear at the hearing, but you do not have to. For more information, you may call toll free 888-427-9229, visit the website www.FEITRIBESecuritiesSettlement.com, email info@FEITRIBESecuritiesSettlement.com, or write to FEI TRIBE Securities Settlement, P.O. Box 25243, Santa Ana, CA 92799. SIXTY VINES: Faces Pryor Wage-and-Hour Suit in M.D. Tennessee ------------------------------------------------------------- JENNA PRYOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIXTY VINES NASHVILLE, LLC D/B/A SIXTY VINES, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00674 (M.D. Tenn., July 7, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed as a server at Sixty Vines restaurant and bar, located at 5055 Broadway, Suite 3200, Nashville, Tennessee from approximately November or December of 2021 through approximately January of 2023. Sixty Vines Nashville, LLC is the owner and operator of a restaurant and bar called Sixty Vines in Nashville, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. Nicole A. Chanin, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC Philips Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com nchanin@barrettjohnston.com - and - N. Chase Teeples, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC P.O. Box 159033 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 250-2000 Facsimile: (615) 250-2020 E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com mel@yezbaklaw.com teeples@yezbaklaw.com SMILEDIRECTCLUB LLC: Provider Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DR. JOSEPH CICCIO, et al., v. SMILEDIRECTCLUB, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00845 (M.D. Tenn.), the Provider Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting bid for class certification. Provider Plaintiffs have sued the Defendants for false advertising and deceptive and unfair practices under the Lanham Act, the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act of 1977 ("TCPA"), the Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("FUDTPA"), and New York General Business Law sections 349 & 350-a ("NYGBL"). The Plaintiffs request the Court certify the following class and subclasses: -- Nationwide Provider Class "All dental or orthodontic providers who provided traditional orthodontic services or goods similar to those that SmileDirect purportedly offers, and/or the practice entities through which they provided such services, other than any who are affiliated with the Defendants, from the start of the applicable statute of limitations through the final disposition of this action." -- Florida Provider Subclass "All dental or orthodontic providers who provided traditional orthodontic services or goods similar to those that SmileDirect purportedly offers in the state of Florida, and/or the practice entities through which they provided such services, other than any who are affiliated with the Defendants, from the start of the applicable statute of limitations through the final disposition of this action." -- New York Provider Subclass "All dental or orthodontic providers who provided traditional orthodontic services or goods similar to those that SmileDirect purportedly offers in the state of New York, and/or the practice entities through which they provided such services, other than any who are affiliated with the Defendants, from the start of the applicable statute of limitations through the final disposition of this action." The Plaintiffs request an Order certifying the above class and subclasses in pursuit of damages under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) and in pursuit of injunctive and declaratory relief under Rule 23(b)(2), or alternatively, as to the determination of the issue of liability under Rule 23(c)(4). SmileDirectClub is a teledentistry company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 30, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XZXr3K at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edward M. Yarbrough, Esq. W. Justin Adams, Esq. SPENCER FANE LLP 511 Union Street, Suite 1000 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 238-6300 Facsimile: (615) 238-6301 E-mail: eyarbrough@spencerfane.com wjadams@spencerfane.com - and - Robert K. Spotswood, Esq. Michael T. Sansbury, Esq. Morgan Franz, Esq. SPOTSWOOD SANSOM & SANSBURY Financial Center 505 20th Street North, Suite 700 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 986-3620 Facsimile: (205) 986-3639 E-mail: rks@spotswoodllc.com msansbury@spotswoodllc.com mfranz@spotswoodllc.com - and - Richard Stone, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD L. STONE, PLLC 11 East 44th St., Suite 1900 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (561) 804-9569 E-mail: rstoneesq@rstoneesq.com The Defendants are represented by: John R. Jacobson, Esq. Elizabeth O. Gonser, Esq. RILEY WARNOCK & JACOBSON, PLC 1906 West End Avenue Nashville, TN 37203 E-mail: jjacobson@rwjplc.com egonser@rwjplc.com - and - David Rammelt, Esq. Nicholas J. Secco, Esq. Emily N. Dillingham, Esq. Carl M. Johnson, Esq. Hannah Stowe, Esq. Michael D. Meuti, Esq. Andrew G. Fiorella, Esq. Mark K. Norris, Esq. James R. Bedell, Esq. Michael B. Silverstein, Esq. BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN AND ARONOFF, LLP 71 South Wacker Drive, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60606 E-mail: drammelt@beneschlaw.com nsecco@beneschlaw.com edillingham@beneschlaw.com cmjohnson@beneschlaw.com hstowe@beneschlaw.com mmeuti@beneschlaw.com afiorella@beneschlaw.com mnorris@beneschlaw.com jbedell@beneschlaw.com msilverstein@beneschlaw.com SMILEDIRECTCLUB: Plaintiffs Seek Leave To File Docs Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DR. JOSEPH CICCIO, et al., v. SMILEDIRECTCLUB, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00845 (M.D. Tenn.), the Provider Plaintiffs move to file their class certification brief and Exhibits 2–3, 5–15, 17–18, 28–34, 37–38, 40, 44, 47, and 55 under seal: The Provider Plaintiffs contend that they do not believe their class certification brief or these exhibits should be sealed, but the Defendants have designated these documents or certain information contained in them "confidential" or "attorneys' eyes only." Thus, Local Rule 5.03 requires Provider Plaintiffs to move for leave to file these documents under seal but requires the Defendants to file a response demonstrating "compelling reasons" for sealing these documents and that sealing is "narrowly tailored to those reasons." SmileDirectClub is a teledentistry company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 30, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pJbOwH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edward M. Yarbrough, Esq. W. Justin Adams, Esq. SPENCER FANE LLP 511 Union Street, Suite 1000 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 238-6300 Facsimile: (615) 238-6301 E-mail: eyarbrough@spencerfane.com wjadams@spencerfane.com - and - Robert K. Spotswood, Esq. Michael T. Sansbury, Esq. Morgan Franz, Esq. SPOTSWOOD SANSOM & SANSBURY Financial Center 505 20th Street North, Suite 700 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 986-3620 Facsimile: (205) 986-3639 E-mail: rks@spotswoodllc.com msansbury@spotswoodllc.com mfranz@spotswoodllc.com - and - Richard Stone, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD L. STONE, PLLC 11 East 44th St., Suite 1900 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (561) 804-9569 E-mail: rstoneesq@rstoneesq.com The Defendants are represented by: John R. Jacobson, Esq. Elizabeth O. Gonser, Esq. RILEY WARNOCK & JACOBSON, PLC 1906 West End Avenue Nashville, TN 37203 E-mail: jjacobson@rwjplc.com egonser@rwjplc.com - and - David Rammelt, Esq. Nicholas J. Secco, Esq. Emily N. Dillingham, Esq. Carl M. Johnson, Esq. Hannah Stowe, Esq. Michael D. Meuti, Esq. Andrew G. Fiorella, Esq. Mark K. Norris, Esq. James R. Bedell, Esq. Michael B. Silverstein, Esq. BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN AND ARONOFF, LLP 71 South Wacker Drive, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60606 E-mail: drammelt@beneschlaw.com nsecco@beneschlaw.com edillingham@beneschlaw.com cmjohnson@beneschlaw.com hstowe@beneschlaw.com mmeuti@beneschlaw.com afiorella@beneschlaw.com mnorris@beneschlaw.com jbedell@beneschlaw.com msilverstein@beneschlaw.com SOLID WASTE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jones Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOLID WASTE SERVICES, INC., d/b/a J.P. MASCARO & SONS, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-02648 (E.D. Pa., July 11, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Jones was employed by the Defendant as an administrative assistant. SOLID WASTE SERVICES, INC., d/b/a J.P. MASCARO & SONS provides waste management and disposal services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel A. Ready, Esq. CORNERSTONE LAW FIRM, LLC 8500 Allentown Pike, Suite 3 Blandon, PA 19510 Telephone: (610) 926-7875 STAGHORN PETROLEUM: Dinsmore Sues Over Failure to Pay Oil Proceeds ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARVIN B. DINSMORE and SHERIDAN DOWNEY, III, as Administrators of the Estate of David D. Dinsmore, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STAGHORN PETROLEUM II, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00282-CVE-JFJ (N.D. Okla., July 7, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of statutory obligation to pay interest in violation of Oklahoma's Production Revenue Standards Act. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to pay oil-and-gas production proceeds to those entitled to the proceeds, including the Plaintiffs. The Defendant does not automatically pay interest on all late payments. Instead, upon information and belief, it only pays interest to owners who demand it, says the suit. Staghorn Petroleum II, LLC is an oil and gas producer, with its principal place of business in Tulsa, Oklahoma. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Reagan E. Bradford, Esq. Ryan K. Wilson, Esq. BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC 431 W. Main Street, Suite D Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 698-2770 E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com ryan@bradwil.com - and - James U. White, Jr., Esq. JAMES U. WHITE, JR., INC. P.O. Box 54783 Oklahoma City, OK 73154 Telephone: (405) 842-7545 E-mail: jwhite@wcgflaw.com TAHOE RESOURCES: $13.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 26 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Did you acquire shares of Tahoe Resources Inc. between May 24, 2017 and July 5, 2017 on a Canadian stock exchange or trading platform, or any exchange or trading platform outside Canada and the United States? A class action settlement has been reached for US$13.5 million to resolve all claims asserted on behalf of persons who acquired Tahoe shares between May 24, 2017 and July 5, 2017 on any Canadian exchange (including the Toronto Stock Exchange) or any Canadian alternative trading system, or on any exchange or trading platform outside Canada and the United States ("Canadian Class"). You are presumed to be a Canadian Class Member if you purchased Tahoe shares during this period and your trading records have the ticker symbol "THO" for those purchases. The settlement is subject to approval by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. A settlement approval hearing has been set for September 26, 2023. At that same hearing, the Court will also consider a motion to approve Class Counsel's fees, which will not exceed 28% of the recovery plus reimbursement for expenses incurred in the ligation. To be eligible for compensation from the settlement, Canadian Class Members must submit a Claim Form to the Canadian Claims Administrator at www.TahoeCanadianSettlement.ca by no later than January 3, 2024. If you do not wish to be bound by the settlement or receive any benefits from it, you must opt out by no later than September 5, 2023. If you wish to object to the settlement, you must do so by no later than September 5, 2023. A separate settlement for US$19.5 million has been reached on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Tahoe's common stock in the United States or on the NYSE between April 3, 2013 and August 24, 2017, inclusive ("U.S. Class"). You are presumed to be a U.S. Class Member if you purchased Tahoe common stock during this period and your trading records have the ticker symbol "TAHO" for those purchases. The U.S. settlement is being administered separately. If you are a U.S. Class Member, visit www.USTahoeSettlement.com for more information about that settlement. For important information regarding the class action, to determine if you are a member of the Canadian Class, to learn how to make a claim for compensation, opt out and object, and to understand your legal rights: View the long-form notice at www.TahoeCanadianSettlement.ca. Canadian Tahoe Resources Settlement Claims Administrator c/o Epiq Class Action Services Canada Inc. P.O. Box 507 STN B Ottawa ON K1P 5P6 Email: info@TahoeCanadianSettlement.ca Telephone: 1-888-565-3801 Fax: 1-866-262-0816 www.TahoeCanadianSettlement.ca The publication of this notice was authorized by the Superior Court of Justice of the Province of Ontario. TEACHERS INSURANCE: District Court Denies TIAA Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ Alex Ortolani of Plansponsor reports that U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken has denied a class certification claim by plaintiffs seeking to represent about 8,000 participants in Washington University in St. Louis retirement plans managed by recordkeeper TIAA in a June 27 opinion in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Oetken's decision came after the case was remanded from the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in December 2022, when a three-judge panel overturned the district court's class certification on the grounds that individual issues raised by the defense may differ from that of the full class of participants. "The Second Circuit vacated and remanded, instructing the Court to consider whether certain ERISA affirmative defenses raised by TIAA would make class treatment unwarranted because individual issues raised by the defenses predominate over those common to the class," Oekten wrote. "Following further briefing by the parties and reconsideration of the issues in light of the Second Circuit's opinion, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion for class certification." Haley et al v. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America was filed in February 2017. The complaint focused on retirement plan loan withdrawals administered by TIAA at the request of plan participants. The plaintiffs, represented by lead attorneys from Berger Montague PC, alleged that TIAA had earned interest off participants' collateral as compensation for administrating the loans. They argued those earnings were in violation of Section 406 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which prohibits plan fiduciaries from directly or indirectly engaging in a transaction that presents a conflict of interest. TIAA countered that the actions were permissible under Section 408(b)(17) of the rule, which allows for a plan to engage in actions that pay no more or less than "adequate consideration" for services. In March 2018, the district court granted TIAA's motion to dismiss on four of the five counts in the case, holding that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that TIAA was an ERISA fiduciary, according to the court record. The court allowed one claim to continue with TIAA as a non-fiduciary and permitted leave to amend the complaint. The plaintiff then requested class certification, which was granted by Oetken in November 2020. On appeal, the 2nd Circuit vacated the class certification ruling and remanded the case, arguing that the district court had not properly considered, under Rule 23(b)(3), that the defense's claims regarding individual participant issues could not be vetted on a class-wide basis, and therefore a class claim was not warranted. When the case returned to the district court, TIAA argued that evaluating its defense would require the district court to look into each of the 8,000 participants involved in the complaint, according to the court record. Oetken ultimately agreed, deciding against class action certification. "Determining the adequacy of consideration for each transaction, concerning a variety of ERISA plans, loans of differing amounts and differing time periods, and localized or regional assessments of prevailing interest rates for similar transactions in space and time … swamp common issues," Oetken wrote. ERISA attorneys from the law firm of Duane Morris, who were not involved with the case, noted in an analysis that ERISA class actions can be difficult to defend against, as the plaintiffs usually argue that plan management affects all the participants in similar ways. The Haley decision, however, will serve as "an exception to the rule." "Defendant was able to show that the case was not about a single policy, but about numerous individual actions," they wrote. "The decision underscores the importance of probing deeply into a putative class members' allegations to determine whether they meet the rigorous standards of Rule 23." Defendants who are accused of violating Section 406, the Duane Morris attorneys wrote, "must carefully consider the defenses provided by Section 408 and raise them in a timely fashion." TIAA declined to comment on the ruling. The New York-based firm was represented by Goodwin Proctor LLP. [GN] TIDI PRODUCTS: Redlin Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Warehouse Staff ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAREN REDLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TIDI PRODUCTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00866-WCG (E.D. Wis., June 30, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee in the position of Warehouse Associate at the Defendant's Neenah, Wisconsin location from November 2019 until June 2023. Tidi Products, LLC is a medical products manufacturer, with its principal place of business at 570 Enterprise Drive, Neenah, Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com TMX FINANCE: Pickens Seeks to Suspend Class Cert Filing Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SOPHIA PICKENS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. TMX FINANCE CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-00081-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order suspending or tolling the deadline for filing a motion for class certification. The Plaintiff filed this Class Action Complaint on April 4, 2023. On April 6, 2023, the Defendant was served with the Complaint giving the Defendant through April 27, 2023, within which to file a responsive pleading. On April 24, 2023, the Defendant filed its Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint which was granted on April 25, 2023 allowing the Defendant through June 12, 2023 within which to file a response to the Complaint. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 30, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pPaFne at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kris Skaar, Esq. Justin T. Holcombe, Esq. SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP 133 Mirramont Lake Drive Woodstock, GA 30189 Telephone: (770) 427-5600 Facsimile: (404) 601-1855 E-mail: kskaar@skaarandfeagle.com jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com - and - Adam E. Polk, Esq. Jordan Elias, Esq. Simon Grille, Esq. Kimberly Macey, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California St, Ste 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com jelias@girardsharp.com sgrille@girardsharp.com kmacey@girardsharp.com TRAVEL GUARD: Appeals Arbitration Award in Miller Suit to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ TRAVEL GUARD GROUP, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion to confirm arbitration award and lift stay of her claims in the lawsuit entitled Tamika Miller, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Travel Guard Group, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-09751-TLT, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves, the general public, and a class of similarly situated individuals, seeking a judgment against the Defendants that would, among other things: (1) prohibit the Defendants from charging mandatory and/or undisclosed fees (in addition to premiums) for assistance services in connection with the insurance purchases; (2) require the Defendants to plainly and truthfully disclose all premiums, fees, and charges to consumers prior to their online purchase of insurance; and (3) require the Defendants to pay the Plaintiffs and Class members restitution or damages. On April 14, 2022, the Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. On October 25, 2022, Judge Trina L. Thompson referred the case to Private Mediation and ordered that ADR must be completed by February 28, 2023. On February 10, 2023, Tamika Miller filed a Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award to which the Defendants filed an objection to. On February 24, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to vacate the arbitration award. On June 6, 2023, the Court granted Miller's Motion and denied the Defendants' motion. The appellate case is captioned Tamika Miller, et al. v. Travel Guard Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-15935, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 28, 2023. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants AIG Travel, Inc., American International Group, Inc., National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA and Travel Guard Group, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire was due on July 5, 2023; -- Appellants AIG Travel, Inc., American International Group, Inc., National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA and Travel Guard Group, Inc. opening brief is due on October 5, 2023; -- Appellees Julianne Chuanroong and Tamika Miller answering brief is due on November 6, 2023; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees TAMIKA MILLER, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Stephen Raab, Esq. Seth Adam Safier, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 113 Cherry Street, #55150 Seattle, WA 98140 Telephone: (917) 817-2665 Defendants-Appellants TRAVEL GUARD GROUP, INC., et al. are represented by: Matthew David Powers, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 984-8898 TRUCK WORLD: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Truck Drivers --------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS S. RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUCK WORLD CORP, TRUCK MOTION CORP, JOAQUIN MARTIARENA, and ANDRES MARTIARENA, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-14188 (S.D. Fla., June 30, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and for breach of employment contract. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a truck driver from approximately June 15, 2022, to May 02, 2023. Truck World Corp is a transportation and trucking company based in St. Lucie County, Florida. Truck Motion Corp is a transportation and trucking company based in St. Lucie 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 UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO: Martinez Bid for Reconsideration Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martinez et al v. University of San Diego, Case No. 3:20-cv-01946-LAB-WVG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William V. Gallo entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for Reconsideration. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs failed to provide any other support or citation to demonstrate that reconsideration is appropriate due to an absence of briefing. Courts have not adopted a blanket rule that an absence of briefing warrants reconsideration and the Court does not find the lack of briefing in this instance to warrant reconsideration." Although the Plaintiffs argue that the Court failed to provide an opportunity for briefing because the Court ordered the Parties to lodge the expert reports, deposition testimony, document productions, and emails and then subsequently "forbade" them from including any briefing or new document after the May 5, 2023, Discovery Conference, the Plaintiffs also never requested an additional opportunity to submit briefing nor did they request additional time to prepare for the May 5, 2023 Discovery Conference. On April 24, 2023, the Parties jointly contacted Judge Gallo's Chambers to raise a discovery dispute pertaining to the Plaintiffs' disclosed expert's, Gareth Macartney, Ph.D., April 20, 2023, expert report. The Defendant contended that Dr. Macartney's April 20, 2023, expert report was improper and untimely served in light of the Court’s February 6, 2023, deadline for the exchange of expert reports. The case is consolidated in University of San Diego Tuition and Fees COVID-19 Refund Litigation. University of San Diego is a private Roman Catholic research university in San Diego, California. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2023, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DcpqDI at no extra charge.[CC] WELLS FARGO: Faces Former Employees Class Suit Over Racial Bias --------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Kline of The Street reports that Wells Fargo has had an array of problems dating back to its mortgage scandal nearly a decade ago, In 2016, the bank agreed to pay $1.2 billion to settle charges that it had certified that loans were eligible for FHA Mortgage Insurance when they were not, and the bank did not disclose thousands of faulty mortgage loans to HUD Basically, the bank had been creating fake accounts in the names of some of its customers. This happened because Wells Fargo (WFC) - Get Free Report workers felt pressure to meet unrealistic sales goals. The FHA/HUD part was only a piece of the problem, but the bank paid and admitted that it has done wrong. "The revelation that the bank had been creating fake accounts in the names of its customers without their knowledge or consent was a major blow to its reputation for honesty and integrity," wrote the LearnSignal blog. "In the aftermath of the scandal, Wells Fargo faced significant backlash from customers and the public. Many customers closed their accounts and moved their business to other banks, and the company's reputation among investors was also severely damaged." You would think that a fine like that and the underlying customer issues would keep the company out of trouble for the next few decades, but Wells Fargo seems to stumble from scandal to scandal. Now, a group of its own employees have raised troubling new allegations. Wells Fargo Accused of Racial Bias A group of current and former Wells Fargo employees has come forward with charges that the bank discriminated against bilingual Hispanic mortgage sales team members and Hispanic customers in a predatory lending scheme. "The bilingual consultants were directed to steer Spanish-speaking customers away from home equity lines of credit into costlier and more profitable refinancing options without any associated disclosures, according to the complaint," Banking Dive reported. Essentially, these customers were steered toward more expensive products, according to the allegations, which were first reported by Bloomberg. The loans the Latino customers were pushed toward came with higher fees and closing costs, which the lending agents were instructed to not mention. In addition, the lending agents were not able to give their customers loan materials printed in Spanish. The complaint is part of a class action lawsuit and the plaintiffs have not asked for a specific amount of money to resolve the issue. Wells Fargo Has a Troubling History In addition to its fake account scandal, Wells Fargo paid a $3.7 billion fine in 2022 for mismanaging loans. "Wells Fargo's rinse-repeat cycle of violating the law has harmed millions of American families," said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra at the time. "The CFPB is ordering Wells Fargo to refund billions of dollars to consumers across the country. This is an important initial step for accountability and long-term reform of this repeat offender." The bank tried to apologize at the time. "As we have said before, we and our regulators have identified a series of unacceptable practices that we have been working systematically to change and provide customer remediation where warranted," said CEO Charlie Scharf. "This far-reaching agreement is an important milestone in our work to transform the operating practices at Wells Fargo and to put these issues behind us." Scharf remains the CEO of Wells Fargo. In a statement to TheStreet, the company said, "We believe the claims in this lawsuit misrepresent the conversations our home mortgage consultants are having with our customers to best meet their mortgage needs. "Higher costs related to cash-out conforming refinances compared with rate-term refinances are tied primarily to pricing driven by the Government Sponsored Enterprises, which we don't control. We look forward to presenting the facts of this situation, which reflect Wells Fargo's significant and long-term commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion." [GN] WINTER PARK: Fails to Properly Pay Carpenters, Vazquez Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MINERVA VAZQUEZ and JORGE A. VAZQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WINTER PARK CONSTRUCTION CO., LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-01469 (M.D. Fla., June 30, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and for retaliatory constructive discharge. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as carpenters from approximately April 5, 2023 until on or about May 27, 2023. Winter Park Construction Co., LLC is a construction and remodeling company doing business in Florida. [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 XTO ENERGY: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Salvatora Suit to 3rd Cir ------------------------------------------------------------------- XTO Energy Inc. filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated June 22, 2023 entered in the lawsuit styled ROGER A. SALVATORA, SANDRA E. SALVATORA, D&M MARBURGER FAMILY ENTERPRISES, L.P., HEASLEY'S NURSERIES, INC., RODNEY L. LANG, BONITA A. LANG, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. XTO ENERGY INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01097-CRE, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Roger A. Salvatora, Sandra E. Salvatora, D&M Marburger Family Enterprises, L.P., Heasley's Nurseries, Inc., Rodney L. Lang, and Bonita A. Lang initiated this civil action in August of 2019 for alleged breaches of natural gas royalty leases against Defendant XTO Energy Inc. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy entered an order that to the extent the parties wish to utilize sealed documents at the hearing, the parties are on notice that the Court will not support its findings on class certification with documents filed under seal, as doing so would be against the public's right of access to the courts. On June 22, 2023, after its independent de novo review of the record and consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the Court adopted Magistrate Judge Eddy's Report and Recommendation as its Opinion. The Court overruled Defendants' June 16, 2023 R&R objections. It concurred with Magistrate Judge Eddy's thorough analysis of the pending motions and her legal conclusions. Specifically, the Court ODERED that: (1) Plaintiffs' Amended March 23, 2022 Motion for Class Certification is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; (2) Defendant's April 27, 2022 Daubert Motion to Exclude Testimony of John McArthur is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; (3) Defendant's April 27, 2022 Daubert Motion to Exclude Testimony of Barry Pulliam is DENIED; (4) Defendant's May 12, 2022 Motions to Strike Portions of the Expert Declarations of Stephen L. Becker, Angela L. Paslay, and Kris L. Terry are DENIED; and (5) Plaintiffs' March 1, 2023 Motion to Approve Confidential Designation is GRANTED. The appellate case is captioned as Roger Salvatora, et al. v. XTO Energy Inc., Case No. 23-8031, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on July 6, 2023.[BN] Defendant-Petitioner XTO ENERGY INC. is represented by: David R. Fine, Esq. K&L GATES 17 N Second Street, 18th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Telephone: (717) 231-5820 - and - Jeffrey C. King, Esq. Elizabeth Tiblets, Esq. K&L GATES 301 Commerce Street, Suite 3000 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 347-5035 - and - Justin H. Werner, Esq. REED SMITH 225 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1200 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 288-3838 Plaintiffs-Respondents ROGER A. SALVATORA, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, et al., are represented by: David A. Borkovic, Esq. JONES GREGG CREEHAN & GERACE 20 Stanwix Street, Suite 1100 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 261-6400 ********* 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 ***