/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230726.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, July 26, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 149
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Bertrand Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Connors Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Kuratle Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Prewitt Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Roach Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Taylor Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Williams Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
A2B INDIAN: Ranga Sues Over Kitchen Laborers' Unpaid Wages
AMAZON.COM INC: Heinz Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
ANDERSON REHABILITATION: Underpays Nursing Assistants, Imel Says
AQ TEXTILES: Claims Submission Deadline Set April 27, 2024
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Must Oppose Crawford Class Cert Bid by Nov. 14
BAMIA 2 LLC: N.D. California Grants Accord to Stay Valenzuela Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Lair Suit Alleges Hidden Wire Transfers Fees
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Sept. 11
BIOXCEL THERAPEUTICS: Martin Sues Over Decline in Share Price
BISSELL INC: Rodriguez Suit Removed to C.D. California
CATCO VENTURES: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CERTEGY PAYMENT: Stachewicz Files FCRA Suit in C.D. Illinois
CITI TRENDS: Sambrano Files Suit in S.D. Georgia
COLBEA ENTERPRISES: Darden Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
COLONIAL FIRST: Settles Super Member Fees Class Action for $100MM
COMPASSION INTERNATIONAL: Munoz Suit Removed to C.D. California
CREDIT SUISSE GROUP: Turner Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
CREDIT SUISSE: SASV to File Lawsuit Over Rival UBS Takeover
CREDIT UNION: Class Cert. Briefing Schedule Extended in Lucero Suit
CYCLEBAR FRANCHISING: Pinn Suit Removed to N.D. Texas
DASHAMERICA INC: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DISTRIBUIDONA LIMENA: Jawad Files Suit in N.D. Alabama
DOORDASH INC: Eakins Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma
DOUGHTRONICS INC: Gonzales Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
EGS FINANCIAL CARE: Lyle Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
ERA INDUSTRIES: Illegally Collects Biometrics, Gonzalez Alleges
EXPENSIFY INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Cinner Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
FORD MOTOR: Vangel Sues Over Vehicles' Transmission Defects
GATOR WADERS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GENERAL AUTOMOBILE: D'Angelo Suit Removed to S.D. California
GEOFFREY STRONG: McCants Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
GEORGIA-PACIFIC: Salazar Suit Removed to E.D. California
GIJUNGLE INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GREAT AJAX: Halper Sadeh Investigates Potential Securities Claims
H2W INC: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HARBORSTONE CREDIT: $187K Settlement in Garcia Suit Has Prelim. OK
HARVARD PILGRIM HEALTH: Dyer Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
HAT STORE LLC: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HAT WORLD INC: Coleman Suit Removed to N.D. California
HOLY FAMILY: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HUB CYBER: Efrat Investments Sues Over Securities Act Breach
HUMBL LLC: Pasquinelli Suit Transferred to D. Delaware
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Monetary End of Payment to Affected Stays in Court
INTELLIHARTX LLC: Kelly Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access
JCF HOUSEMENTS: Hadley Sues Over Layoffs Without Advance Notice
JOHNS HOPKINS: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Gregory Suit Claims
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Santana Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
JPAY LLC: Oliver Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
JPMORGAN CHASE: U.S. Virgin Islands Files Damages in Epstein Suit
KKR REAL ESTATE: Willingham Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Class Actions Over Sleep Apnea Devices Pending
LEGALLY ADDICTIVE: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LM GENERAL INSURANCE: Grant Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
LOAN DEPOT: Ahringer Must Show Cause Why Suit Should Not Be Tossed
LOFTIE INC: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LOS ANGELES, CA: Millstein Partly Wins FLSA Prelim. Certification
MADE BY MARY: Morgan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Schonwald Sues Over Bed Bug Infestation
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Villanueva Suit Removed to N.D. California
META PLATFORMS: Kadrey Sues Over Unfair Use of Copyrighted Books
MILLS AIR INC: Anderson Sues to Recover Unpaid, Overtime Wages
NATIONSBENEFITS LLC: Guerrero Suit Transferred to D. Connecticut
NATIONSBENEFITS LLC: Lizotte Suit Transferred to D. Connecticut
NATIONSBENEFITS LLC: Wilczynski Suit Transferred to D. Connecticut
NEW DOMINION LLC: Dinsmore Files Suit in E.D. Oklahoma
NEW ENGLAND GREENS: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NEW YORK: Wallach Appeals Ruling in Suit v. HHC
ONIX GROUP LLC: Lyston Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
PARA ENERGY: Smith Sues Over Solids Control Technicians' Unpaid OT
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Baker Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Aug 8
PENNSYLVANIA: A. P. Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
PHARMERICA CORP: Raney Sues Over Failure to Implement Data Security
PIPSTICKS INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
POSTAL FLEET SERVICES: Pair Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida
PREMIER HEALTH CHOICE: Vazquez Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN: Wade Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY: Woodstock Suit Removed to N.D. Oklahoma
REEVE TRUCKING: Alexander Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
REV GROUP: Garfield Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
RLB USA: Fails to Properly Pay Store Employees, Cabrera Claims
SAFECO INSURANCE: 11th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Signor Suit
SAFETY INSURANCE: Judge Denies Class Certs in Insurance Suits
SHIPT INC: Faces Izenman Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Szoke Alleges Illegal Overdraft Fee Collection
SPOTOPTION: Founder Pini Peter Testifies in Fraud Class Action
STATE FARM: District of Kansas Refuses to Dismiss Gulick Class Suit
TEAM ENTERPRISES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Cipolla Wage and Hour Suit
TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Taylor Swift Tickets Fraud Suit Pending
TOP TECH: Underpays Forklift Drivers, Maldonado Suit Alleges
TWITTER INC: Former Employees in Africa Sue Over Severance Package
UNITED STATES: Lewis Appeals Judgment Entered in Medicare Suit
VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Knapp Sues Over Defective Inflators
WW GRAINGER: Sanchez Suit Removed to E.D. California
*********
3M COMPANY: Bertrand Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Bertrand, 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; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.;
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC. DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT,
INC.); 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 Du Pont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS L.P.; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.,
Case No. 2:23-cv-02983-RMG (D.S.C., June 23, 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 firefighting training and during his working career as a
merchant mariner and was diagnosed with kidney cancer and
ulcerative colitis 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:
Tessa Cuneo, Esq.
Alexandra Robertson, Esq.
2600 Eagan Woods Drive, Suite 400
St. Paul, MN 55121
Phone: (651) 289-3855
Fax: (651) 406-9676
Email: tcuneo@askllp.com
arobertson@askllp.com
3M COMPANY: Connors Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Connors, 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-03313-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 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:
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: Kuratle Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Kuratle III, 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-03283-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: Prewitt Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------
Gayla Prewitt, as Surviving Spouse and Heir to the Estate of Peter
Gerald Prewitt, deceased, and other similarly situated v. 3M
COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC
CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL
SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY
SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.;
STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC., Case No.
2:23-cv-03263-RMG (D.S.C., July 10, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury and death resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Gayla Prewitt is an adult resident of the State of
Idaho and is the surviving spouse of Gerald Prewitt, who regularly
used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to
extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or
civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with Acute Myeloid Leukemia
as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Roach Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kirk Roach, 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-03288-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: Taylor Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming 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
3M COMPANY: Williams Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
------------------------------------------------------
Gary Williams, 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-03292-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
A2B INDIAN: Ranga Sues Over Kitchen Laborers' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
VINOD RANGA, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. A2B INDIAN VEGETARIAN RESTAURANT,
aka HEAVEN SPICE USA LLC, aka COPPER POINT USA LLC, and all other
affiliated entities and/or joint employers, all whose true names
are unknown, RAJASEKARAN SENTHILKUMAR, Individually, and VIJI
SENTHILKUMAR, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-03706
(D.N.J., July 11, 2023) arises from the Defendants' violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey State Wage and Hour
Law, and associated provisions of the New Jersey Administrative
Code as well as the New Jersey Wage Payment Law.
The complaint asserts that Named Plaintiff and potential Plaintiffs
who elect to opt-in as part of the collective action are all
victims of the Defendants' common policy and/or plan to violate the
FLSA, NJWHL, and NJWPL, by failing to provide overtime wages, at
the rate of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay, for all
time worked in excess of 40 hours in any given week.
Plaintiff Ranga became employed by Defendants, full-time, as a
non-exempt kitchen laborer, in June 2022, until the beginning of
February 2023.
A2B Indian Vegetarian Restaurant is an Indian restaurant
headquartered in South Plainfield, 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
AMAZON.COM INC: Heinz Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brian Heinz, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Amazon.com Inc., Audible Inc., Case
No. 2:23-cv-00282 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington on July 11, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01073 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.
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:
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN
21031 Ventura Boulevard, Ste. 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Email: abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com
- and -
Chad Saunders, Esq.
Craig Wallace Straub, Esq.
Zachary Miles Crosner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL P.C.
9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Phone: (310) 496-5818
Email: chad@crosnerlegal.com
craig@crosnerlegal.com
zach@crosnerlegal.com
- and -
Michael Crosner, NCAED, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
433 N. Camden Dr., Suite 400
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Phone: (310) 496-5818
Fax: (818) 700-9973
- and -
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN
21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Heather F. Canner, Esq.
James Hyeoun Ju Moon, Esq.
Sancho Accorsi, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
865 S. Figueroa Street, Ste 24th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 633-6800
Fax: (213) 633-6899
Email: heathercanner@dwt.com
jamesmoon@dwt.com
sanchoaccorsi@dwt.com
- and -
John A. Goldmark, PHV, Esq.
Ellen Parodi, PHV, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Phone: (206) 757-8068
Email: johngoldmark@dwt.com
ellenparodi@dwt.com
ANDERSON REHABILITATION: Underpays Nursing Assistants, Imel Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE IMEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ANDERSON REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE
CENTER, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01210-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind.,
July 10, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Wage Payment Statute.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a certified nursing
assistant from June 26, 2021 until January 23, 2023.
Anderson Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center, LLC is a
rehabilitation hospital based in Indiana. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith L. Hancock, Esq.
RILEYCATE, LLC
11 Municipal Drive, Suite 320
Fishers, IN 46038
Telephone: (317) 588-2866
E-mail: khancock@rileycate.com
AQ TEXTILES: Claims Submission Deadline Set April 27, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------
Free Stuff Insider reports that attention shoppers! You can file a
claim in the Macy's Bed Sheet Class Action Lawsuit Settlement until
April 17, 2024 if you bought bed sheets between 2013 and 2023,
regardless of whether you have proof of purchase. Customers who
purchased one or more CVC Sheets supplied by AQ Textiles, LLC from
a Macy's store in the United States, Guam, or through Macys.com,
are included in the settlement.
What is the Settlement about?
During the specified time period, Macy's promoted and sold bed
sheets with inflated thread counts, according to the lawsuit. Class
members will receive $7.50 per unit of CVC Sheets with proof of
purchase. Class members will receive $2.50 per household if they do
not provide proof of purchase.
How to File a Claim?
You must complete and submit a Claim Form no later than one hundred
eighty calendar days after the Effective Date to be eligible for a
settlement payment. You can fill out and submit a Claim Form here
-- https://www.cvcsheetsettlement.com/submit-claim
Claim Forms can also be obtained by calling 1-844-483-0488 or
emailing info@cvcsheetsettlement.com. [GN]
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Must Oppose Crawford Class Cert Bid by Nov. 14
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Crawford v. Arizona
Beverages USA, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00220 (S.D. Ill., Filed Feb 6,
2022), the Hon. Judge David W. Dugan entered an order granting
consent motion for extension of time.
The Defendant may file its opposition brief to the Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification by November 14, 2023 . The extension
does not, however, change the Plaintiff's deadline to respond to
the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
In the punitive class action, the Plaintiff Kenneth Crawford
alleges consumer fraud claims against AriZona Beverages related to
the Defendant's 20oz "Lite Arnold Palmer" beverage.
On January 30, 2023, the Court partially granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss, and now only claims for consumer fraud and
unjust enrichment remain.
On June 13, 2023, the Plaintiff filed his motion for class
certification. On June 26, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion for
summary judgment. The Defendant now asks for an extension of time
to file a response to the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification. The Defendant represents that it has requested to
depose the Plaintiff's expert, whose expert report was relied upon
in the Plaintiff's class certification motion.
However, the Plaintiff's expert is expecting a child and is not
available to appear for a deposition until September 29, 2023.
Thus, the Defendant asks that its deadline to respond to the
Plaintiff's class certification motion be extended to November 14,
2023. the Plaintiff consents to this request.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Fraud.
Arizona Beverages was founded in 2010. The Company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of groceries and
related products.[CC]
BAMIA 2 LLC: N.D. California Grants Accord to Stay Valenzuela Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California approves the parties' stipulation
to stay the lawsuit titled ALEJANDRO VALENZUELA and ANGELEIGH
MANJARREZ, individuals, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BAMIA 2 LLC, a
Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-03675-HSG (N.D. Cal.).
The matter comes before the Court on the Parties' Stipulation to
Stay Pending Final Approval of Settlement.
The Parties will file a joint report with the Court by Sept. 15,
2023, to apprise the Court of the status of the Settlement in the
Furtado Class Action.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 3, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ms93mcap from Leagle.com.
BANK OF AMERICA: Lair Suit Alleges Hidden Wire Transfers Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
REX LAIR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., and DOES 1 through 5,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-01345 (C.D. Cal., July 10,
2023) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of
contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, unjust enrichment, money had and received, conversion, and
violations of the California Unfair Competition Law and the
California False Advertising Act.
According to the complaint, Bank of America has breached its
contracts and violated California consumer protection laws by
charging recipients of wire transfers fees on incoming transfers
without properly disclosing such fees. As such, customers do not
know they are going to be charged these fees until after they
receive an incoming wire deposit and the fee is assessed.
Therefore, Plaintiff and similarly situated customers are allegedly
unable to take these fees into account when deciding how to receive
money into their accounts. As a result, the Plaintiff seeks
damages, injunctive relief, and other remedies.
Bank of America, N.A. is a national bank with its headquarters and
principal place of business in Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard D. McCune, Esq.
Steven A. Haskins, Esq.
Valerie L. Savran, Esq.
McCUNE LAW GROUP, APC
3281 E. Guasti Road, Suite 100
Ontario, CA 91761
Telephone: (909) 557-1250
Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
sah@mccunewright.com
vls@mccunewright.com
- and -
Emily J. Kirk, Esq.
McCUNE LAW GROUP, APC
231 N. Main Street, Suite 20
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Telephone: (618) 307-6116
Facsimile: (618) 307-6161
E-mail: ejk@mccunewright.com
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Sept. 11
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on July 16
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of securities of Baxter International Inc. (NYSE: BAX)
between May 12, 2022 and February 8, 2023, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been
filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the
Court no later than September 11, 2023.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Baxter securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Baxter class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=17664 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 11,
2023. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants made
false and/or misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants
failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company concealed the
true extent of the supply chain problems it was experiencing while
simultaneously exaggerating its ability to maintain a healthy
supply chain in the face of global pressures; (2) as a result, the
Company's projected earnings were materially misleading during the
Class Period; (3) the foregoing, once revealed, was reasonably
likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's
financial condition; and (4) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.
To join the Baxter class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=17664 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
BIOXCEL THERAPEUTICS: Martin Sues Over Decline in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
KATELYN MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BIOXCEL THERAPEUTICS, INC., VIMAL MEHTA, and
RICHARD STEINHART, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00915 (D. Conn.,
July 7, 2023) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired BioXcel
securities between December 15, 2021 and June 28, 2023, inclusive,
pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company lacked
adequate internal controls over protocol adherence and data
integrity; (2) that, as a result, the Company's principal
investigator failed to adhere to the informed consent form approved
by the Institutional Review Board; (3) that the Company's principal
investigator failed to maintain adequate case histories for certain
patients whose records were reviewed by the Food and Drug
Administration; (4) that the Company's principal investigator
fabricated email correspondence with a pharmacovigilance safety
vendor that was then provided to the FDA; (5) that the foregoing
would negatively impact the Company's ability to obtain regulatory
approval of BXCL501 for the treatment of agitation associated with
dementia in patients with probable Alzheimer's disease; and (6)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the suit.
BioXcel is a biopharmaceutical company that claims it uses
artificial intelligence approaches to develop medicines in
neuroscience and immuno-oncology.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David A. Slossberg, Esq.
Erica O. Nolan, Esq.
HURWITZ, SAGARIN, SLOSSBERG & KNUFF, LLC
147 North Broad Street
Milford, CT 06460
Telephone: (203) 877-8000
Facsimile: (203) 878-9800
E-mail: DSlossberg@hssklaw.com
ENolan@hssklaw.com
- and -
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com
clinehan@glancylaw.com
prajesh@glancylaw.com
- and -
Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 914-5007
BISSELL INC: Rodriguez Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Rebeka Rodriguez, individually and on behalf
of all others similar situated v. BISSELL INC., a Michigan
corporation d/b/a WWW.BISSELL.COM, Case No. 23STCV12416 was removed
from the Superior Court of the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on July 7, 2023, and
assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-05447.
The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a single cause of action against
Bissell for violation of the Video Protection Privacy Act ("VPPA").
The Complaint alleges that Bissell "tracks the videos that visitors
watch on its website and reports each visitor's video-watching
behavior to Google" in violation of the VPPA.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Nick S. Pujji, Esq.
Kimberly G.A. Dennis, Esq.
DENTONS US LLP
601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5704
Phone: 213 623 9300
Facsimile: 213 623 9924
Email: nick.pujji@dentons.com
kimberly.dennis@dentons.com
CATCO VENTURES: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Catco Ventures, Ltd.
The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Catco Ventures, Ltd., Case No.
1:23-cv-05835-LGS (S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Catco Ventures, Ltd. is located at 2610 S Texas Ave in Bryan and
has been in the business of Business Services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
CERTEGY PAYMENT: Stachewicz Files FCRA Suit in C.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Certegy Payment
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Nancy Stachewicz, on behalf
of herself And all others similarly situated v. Certegy Payment
Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01258-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill., July 11,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Certegy -- https://certegy.com/ -- enables low-risk, low-cost
transactions between consumers and businesses leveraging digital
ACH, check and BNPL technology.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry P Smith, Esq.
David Michael Marco, Esq.
SMITHMARCO, P.C.
5250 Old Orchard Road, Suite 300
Skokie, IL 60077
Phone: (312) 324-3532
Fax: (312) 602-3911
Email: lsmith@smithmarco.com
dmarco@smithmarco.com
CITI TRENDS: Sambrano Files Suit in S.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Citi Trends, Inc. The
case is styled as Yeimy Sambrano, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Citi Trends, Inc., Case No.
4:23-cv-00188-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga., July 7, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Citi Trends -- http://cititrends.com/-- is an American retail
clothing chain selling discounted products targeted primarily at
urban customers.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brent Michael Kaufman, Esq.
POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (843) 222-2222
Email: brent.kaufman@poulinwilley.com
COLBEA ENTERPRISES: Darden Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Joshalyn Darden, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. COLBEA ENTERPRISES, L.L.C. and
ANDREW DELLI CARPINI, Case No. 2381CV01694 was removed from the
Superior Court for Middlesex County, Massachusetts, to the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on July 10,
2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-11540.
The Plaintiff on June 8, 2023, in the Superior Court for Middlesex
County, Massachusetts. Mr. Delli Carpini received service of the
Complaint on June 20, 2023, and Colbea received service of the
Complaint on June 28, 2023. The Complaint includes claims for
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael D. Chittick, Esq.
Brendan F. Ryan, Esq.
ADLER POLLOCK & SHEEHAN P.C.
One Citizens Plaza, 8th Floor
Providence, RI 02903-1345
Phone: 401-274-7200
Fax: 401-751-0604
Email: mchittick@apslaw.com
bryan@apslaw.com
COLONIAL FIRST: Settles Super Member Fees Class Action for $100MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
InsuranceNEWS.com.au reports that Colonial First State Investments
has reached an in-principle agreement to pay $100 million to settle
a class action claim in relation to adviser commissions and fees
charged to super members between July 2013 and June 2020.
Slater and Gordon filed the group lawsuit, alleging the business
charged excessive fees as part of arrangements the super trustee
had to pay ongoing commissions to financial advisers, who were not
required to provide continuing services to customers in return.
The lawsuit alleges the wealth manager, part of the Commonwealth
Bank until 2021, did not act in the best interest of thousands of
customers who were members of its FirstChoice Superannuation Trust
product by continuing to charge existing members high fees under
the commission arrangements.
"This is despite legislation being introduced that banned the
charging of commissions on new super accounts from 2013 onwards,"
Slater and Gordon said.
Colonial First State Investments says in agreeing to resolve the
litigation, the wealth manager "continues to deny the allegations
and makes no admissions of liability or wrongdoing".
The two parties agreed to settle following a confidential
Court-ordered mediation on June 16 and the $100 million settlement
is subject to court approval.
"If the court approves the settlement, eligible group members will
each recover a share of the agreed settlement sum of $100 million,
after accounting for any deductions which may be approved by the
Court," Colonial First State Investments said.
Deductions may include things like legal fees charged by the
applicants' lawyers and any commission approved by the Court to be
paid to the funder of the class action.
The wealth manager expects that a notification of the in-principle
settlement will be sent to eligible group members next month. [GN]
COMPASSION INTERNATIONAL: Munoz Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Cieara Munoz, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Compassion International, Inc.
doing business as: www.compassion.com, Case No. 23STCV12470 was
removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on July 7, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-05439 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
Compassion International -- https://www.compassion.com/ -- is an
American child sponsorship and Christian humanitarian aid
organization headquartered in Colorado Springs, Colorado, that aims
to positively influence the long-term development of children
globally who live in poverty.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Teresa C. Chow, Esq.
BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
Phone: (310) 820-8800
Fax: (310) 820-8859
Email: tchow@bakerlaw.com
CREDIT SUISSE GROUP: Turner Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Braden Turner, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; Ali Diabat, Movant v. Credit Suisse
Group AG, Axel P. Lehmann, Ulrich Korner, Dixit Joshi, Thomas
Gottstein, David R Mathers, Case No. 1:23-cv-01476 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on July
10, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-05874-DLC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities for
Securities Exchange Act.
Credit Suisse Group AG -- https://www.credit-suisse.com/ch/en.html
-- is a global investment bank and financial services firm founded
and based in Switzerland.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
One Gateway Center, Suite 2600
Newark, NJ 07102
Phone: (973) 313-1887
Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
The Movant is represented by:
Vincent M. Giblin, Esq.
DECOTIIS, FITZPATRICK, COLE & GIBLIN, LLP
61 South Paramus Road, Suite 250
Paramus, NJ 07652
Phone: (201) 347-2136
Fax: (201) 928-0588
The Defendant is represented by:
Guillermo Carlo Artiles, Esq.
Jose Luis Linares, Esq.
Mark M. Makhail, Esq.
MCCARTER & ENGLISH LLP
Four Gateway Center
100 Mulberry Street
Newark, NJ 07102
Phone: (973) 639-7950
- and 0
Edward Nathaniel Moss
Herbert Scott Washer
Jason Michael Hall
Lauren Riddell
CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP
32 Old Slip
New York, NY 10005
Phone: (212) 701-3838
Email: EMoss@cahill.com
hwasher@cahill.com
jhall@cahill.com
lriddell@cahill.com
CREDIT SUISSE: SASV to File Lawsuit Over Rival UBS Takeover
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brenna Hughes Neghaiwi, writing for Reuters, reports that a Swiss
investors' association is planning to file a lawsuit seeking
compensation for former Credit Suisse shareholders, the latest
legal action triggered by the bank's emergency takeover by its
cross-town rival UBS.
"Due to the large number of inquiries, the Swiss Association for
the Protection of Investors (SASV) has decided to coordinate a
lawsuit under Art. 105 of the Merger Act," the group said in a
statement.
"The aim is to obtain a cash compensation payment for Credit Suisse
shareholders corresponding to the value between the share price set
by the merger agreement and the share price determined by the
court," it added.
UBS declined to comment.
Under the deal, sealed last month, Credit Suisse shareholders were
offered one UBS share for 22.48 Credit Suisse shares, valuing the
stricken bank at 3 billion Swiss francs ($3.49 billion).
That compared to a market capitalisation of around 7 billion Swiss
francs on the last trading day before the deal was announced in
March.
A separate class action was launched last month by Swiss legal
start up LegalPass seeking a higher payout from the deal for
shareholders.
Hundreds of claims have also been filed by holders of Credit
Suisse's Additional Tier 1 bonds -- which were all written down to
zero -- claiming compensation.
A group of Credit Suisse AT1 bondholders has also filed a class
action suit accusing former executives at the Swiss bank, including
three past CEOs, of being responsible for the bank's downfall.
SASV said shareholders had until Aug. 4 to contact the group to
join the action, which must be filed by Aug. 14 under Swiss merger
law. [GN]
CREDIT UNION: Class Cert. Briefing Schedule Extended in Lucero Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brenda Lucero, et al., v.
Credit Union Retirement Plan Association, et al., Case No.
3:22-cv-00208 (W.D. Wisc., Filed April 12, 2022), the Hon. Judge
Stephen L. Crocker entered an order granting motion for extension
of time of class certification briefing schedule.
The nature of suit states Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) involving Breach of Fiduciary Duties.[CC]
CYCLEBAR FRANCHISING: Pinn Suit Removed to N.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Kelly Pinn, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. CYCLEBAR FRANCHISING, LLC, Case No.
CC-23-03164-A was removed from the County Court at Law No. 1,
Dallas County, Texas, to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas on July 7, 2023, and assigned Case No.
1:23-cv-00155-C.
The Plaintiff filed a federal lawsuit against Defendant on December
1, 2022, which arises from the same common nucleus of operative
facts and alleges the same underlying violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris R. Miltenberger (Tx. Bar No. 14171200)
THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200
Southlake, TX 76092
Phone: (817) 416-5060
Fax: (817) 416-5062
Email: chris@crmlawpractice.com
- and -
Eric H. Weitz, Esq.
Max S. Morgan, Esq.
THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC
1515 Market Street, #1100
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: (267) 587-6240
Fax: (215) 689-0875
Email: eric.weitz@theweitzfirm.com
max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jennifer R. Brooks, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
700 Milam St., Suite #1400
Houston, TX 77002-2812
Phone: 713-225-2300
Email: jrbrooks@seyfarth.com
- and -
Kristine R. Argentine, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
Chicago IL 60606
Phone: 312-460-5332
Email: kargentine@seyfarth.com
DASHAMERICA INC: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DashAmerica, Inc. The
case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. DashAmerica, Inc. doing business as:
Pearl Izumi USA, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-05846-AT (S.D.N.Y., July 7,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
DashAmerica, Inc. doing business as PEARL iZUMi --
https://www.pearlizumi.com/ -- is a company that produces sports
apparel, primarily focusing on road cycling, track cycling,
mountain biking, and triathlon.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ara Vahe Naljian, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 584-5575
Email: analjian@steinsakslegal.com
DISTRIBUIDONA LIMENA: Jawad Files Suit in N.D. Alabama
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Distribuidona Limena
Inc. The case is styled as Linda Jawad, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Distribuidona Limena Inc., Case No.
2:23-cv-00904-SGC (N.D. Ala., July 11, 2023).
The nature if suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Distribuidona Limena Inc. specializes in commercialization of
ethnic products in the southeast US region.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles M. Thompson, Esq.
CHARLES M. THOMPSON PC
101 Mohawk Drive
Trussville, AL 35173
Phone: (205) 995-0068
Fax: (866) 610-1650
Email: cmtlaw316@gmail.com
DOORDASH INC: Eakins Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Valerie Eakins, individually on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Doordash Inc., Case No. CJ-23-00022
was removed from the Washita County District Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on July 7,
2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-00589-JD to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
DoorDash, Inc. -- http://www.doordash.com/-- is a San Francisco
based company that operates an online food ordering and food
delivery platform.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kathy R. Neal, Esq.
Mary Quinn-Cooper, Esq.
MCAFEE & TAFT-TULSA
Two West 2nd St., Suite 1100
Williams Tower II
Tulsa, OK 74103
Phone: (918) 587-0000
Fax: (918) 599-9317
Email: kathy.neal@mcafeetaft.com
maryquinn.cooper@mcafeetaft.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Joseph R. Farris, Esq.
FELDMAN FRANDEN WOODARD & FARRIS
Two W. 2nd St., Suite 900
Tulsa, OK 74103
Phone: (918) 583-7129
Fax: (918) 584-3814
Email: jfarris@tulsalawyer.com
DOUGHTRONICS INC: Gonzales Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Doughtronics, Inc, et al. The
case is styled as David Gonzales, Manuel Largaespada, Leticia
Marcos, Albert Pineda, Carelia Zuniga, as individuals on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Doughtronics, Inc.,
ACME Bread Company Division III, Inc., Does 1 to 50, Case No.
CGC23607543 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., July 11, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Doughtronics, Inc. provides bakery products. The Company produces
and wholesales bread products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP P.C.
1801 Century Park E, Ste. 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2346
Phone: 310-824-3828
Fax: 310-862-6851
Email: jm@melmedlaw.com
EGS FINANCIAL CARE: Lyle Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EGS Financial Care,
Inc. The case is styled as Timothy Lyle, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. EGS Financial Care, Inc. formerly
known as: NCO Financial Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03014-SCJ
(N.D. Ga., July 7, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
EGS Financial Care, Inc. provides financial services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON & RADBIL, PLLC -A. TX
401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540
Austin, TX 78701
Phone: (512) 322-3912
Fax: (561) 961-5684
Email: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com
- and -
Eric H. Weitz, Esq.
Max Morgan, Esq.
THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC
1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: (267) 587-6240
Fax: (267) 587-6240
Email: eric.weitz@theweitzfirm.com
max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com
- and -
John A. Love, Esq.
LOVE CONSUMER LAW
2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 330
Alpharetta, GA 30009
Phone: (404) 855-3600
Email: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com
- and -
Michael Lewis Greenwald, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON & RADBIL, PLLC
5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Phone: (561) 826-5477
Email: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
ERA INDUSTRIES: Illegally Collects Biometrics, Gonzalez Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ERA INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2023LA000703 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Dupage Cty., July 10, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for violation of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant violated BIPA by
collecting and storing its employees' handprints without (1)
notifying employees the practice is taking place; (2) informing
employees of how the practice is implemented; (3) obtaining written
consent from the employees to collect and store their biometric
data; (4) maintaining their employees' biometric data in a
sufficiently secure manner; and (5) maintaining a publicly
available disclosure of how the biometric data will be handled and
destroyed.
ERA Industries, Inc. is a contract manufacturer based in Elk Grove
Village, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
William H. Beaumont, Esq.
BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
107 W. Van Buren, Suite 209
Chicago, IL 60605
Telephone: (773) 831-8000
E-mail: rlc@beaumontcostales.com
whb@beaumontcostales.com
EXPENSIFY INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on July 16,
2023 disclosed that it is investigating potential securities claims
on behalf of shareholders of Expensify, Inc. (NASDAQ: EXFY)
resulting from allegations that Expensify may have issued
materially misleading business information to the investing
public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Expensify securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=17458 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On or around November 11, 2021, Expensify
conducted its initial public offering ("IPO"), selling 2.6 million
shares priced at $27.00 per share. Then, on June 12, 2023, Morgan
Stanley downgraded Expensify to Underweight from Equal-weight,
citing structural headwinds and the Company's risk-reward profile.
On this news, Expensify's stock price fell $0.45 per share, or
6.28%, to close at $6.72 per share on June 12, 2023.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Cinner Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Yaakov Cinner, On Behalf Of Himself And All
Others Similarly Situated v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.,
Capital One Bank USA, N.A., Case No. OCN-L-001544-23 was removed
from the Superior Court of NJ, Law Division, Ocean County, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 11,
2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-03696-ZNQ-TJB to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit for the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Experian Information Solutions, Inc. -- https://www.experian.com/
-- operates as an information services company. The Company offers
credit information, analytical tools, and marketing services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Zemel, Esq.
ZEMEL LAW LLC
660 Broadway
Paterson, NJ 07514
Phone: (862) 227-3106
Fax: (973) 525-2552
Email: dz@zemellawllc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Dorothy A. Kowal, Esq.
PRICE, MEESE, SHULMAN & D'ARMINIO, PC
Mack-Cali Corporate Center
50 Tice Boulevard
Woodcliff Lake, NJ 07677
Phone: (201) 391-3737
Fax: (201) 391-9360
Email: dkowal@pricemeese.com
FORD MOTOR: Vangel Sues Over Vehicles' Transmission Defects
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH VANGEL and BRYAN KLONTZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-22572 (S.D. Fla., July 11, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendant for breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied
warranty of merchantability, negligence, fraud/fraudulent
concealment, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act.
The Plaintiffs bring this case individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated persons who purchased or leased a Ford vehicle
equipped with a 10R80 10-speed transmission that were designed,
manufactured, distributed, advertised, marketed, sold, and/or
leased by Defendant or Defendant's parent, subsidiary, or
affiliates.
According to the complaint, the Defendant knew or should have known
that the vehicles contain one or more design and/or manufacturing
defects, including but not limited to defects contained in the
Vehicles' 10R80, a 10-speed automatic transmission that can shift
harshly and erratically, causing the vehicle to jerk, lunge, clunk,
hesitate, surge, or slip between gears. Some consumers have even
reported experiencing a sudden loss of power while driving their
vehicles. This common design and/or manufacturing defect in Ford's
10R80 transmissions is a potentially life-threatening safety issue,
and Ford has refused to recall or replace the defective
transmissions, says the suit.
Plaintiffs Vangel and Klontz purchased a 2023 Ford F-150 Lariat
with the 10R80 10-speed transmission and a 2020 Ford Ranger with
the 10R80 10-speed transmission, respectively.
Ford Motor Company is an American multinational automobile
manufacturer headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Natalie Rico, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN
2701 S LeJeune Rd, 10th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33314
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
E-mail: Nrico@milberg.com
- and -
Mitchell Breit, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN
405 E. 50th Street
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (630) 796-0903
E-mail: mbreit@milberg.com
- and -
John R. Fabry, Esq.
THE CARLSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
1717 N. Interstate Highway 35, Suite 305
Round Rock, TX 78664
Telephone: (512) 671-7277
Facsimile: (512) 238-0275
E-mail: JFabry@carlsonattorneys.com
- and -
Mark R. Miller, Esq.
WALLACE MILLER LLP
150 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 1100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 589-6280
Facsimile: (312) 275-8174
E-mail: mrm@wallacemiller.com
- and -
Sidney F. Robert, Esq.
BRENT COON AND ASSOCIATES
300 Fannin, Suite 200
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 225-1682
Facsimile: (713) 225-1785
E-mail: sidney.robert@bcoonlaw.com
GATOR WADERS: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gator Waders, LLC.
The case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Gator Waders, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-05785 (S.D.N.Y., July 6, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Gator Waders -- https://www.gatorwaders.com/ -- is an outdoor
apparel company known for uncompromised quality waders, outerwear,
boots, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
GENERAL AUTOMOBILE: D'Angelo Suit Removed to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Anthony D'Angelo, Noelle D'Angelo, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The General
Automobile Insurance Services, Inc., Does 1-100, inclusive, Case
No. 37-02023-00023048-CU-C0-CTL was removed from the Superior
Court, San Diego County, California, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California on July 10, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-01272-BEN-JLB to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
The General Automobile Insurance Services, Inc. --
http://www.thegeneral.com/-- operates as an insurance firm. The
Company offers auto insurance services. General Automobile
Insurance serves customers in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexis M. Wood
Kas L. Gallucci
Ronald Marron
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Phone: (619) 696-9006
Fax: (619) 564-6665
Email: alexis@consumersadvocates.com
kas@consumersadvocates.com
ron@consumersadvocates.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Connie Y. Tcheng, Esq.
Hunter R. Eley, Esq.
Lloyd Vu, Esq.
DOLL AMIR & ELEY LLP
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3275
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 542-3380
Fax: (213) 542-3381
Email: ctcheng@dollamir.com
heley@dollamir.com
GEOFFREY STRONG: McCants Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Timothy McCants,
Laurentiu Ovidiu Cernahoschi, and Thomas Joseph, on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated stockholders v. GEOFFREY
STRONG, OLIVIA WASSENAAR, WILSON HANDLER, CHRISTINE HOMMES, JOSEPH
ROMEO, JAN WILSON, JOHN STICE, BRAD BERNSTEIN, MATTHEW POTERE,
BARRY EDINBURG, EMIL HENRY JR., SPARTAN ACQUISITION SPONSOR II LLC,
APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT, INC., AP SPARTAN ENERGY HOLDINGS II, L.P.
FTV-SUNLIGHT, INC., and TIGER CO INVEST B SUNLIGHT BLOCKER, LLC,
Case No. 2023-0694-PAF (Del. Chancery Ct., July 11, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties."
Geoffrey Strong was Spartan's CEO since August 17, 2020 and
Chairman of the Board since January 19, 202.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen E. Jenkins, Esq.
Richard D. Heins, Esq.
Tiffany Geyer Lydon, Esq.
ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A.
500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor
P.O. Box 1150
Wilmington, DE 19899
Phone: (302) 654-1888
- and -
Donald J. Enright
Noah R. Gemma
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
1101 Vermont Ave., Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 524-4290
GEORGIA-PACIFIC: Salazar Suit Removed to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Steven M. Salazar, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORRUGATED LLC; and
DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. MCV089578 was removed from the
Superior Court of the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Madera, to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California on July 7, 2023, and assigned Case
No. 1:23-at-00573.
The Plaintiff alleges seven causes of action against Defendant:
failure to pay minimum wage; failure to pay overtime; failure to
authorize and permit meal periods; failure to pay accrued paid sick
leave at the regular rate; failure to provide complete and accurate
wage statements; failure to timely pay all earned wages and final
paychecks; and unfair business practices.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Evan R. Moses, Esq.
Madeleine K. Lee, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213.239.9800
Facsimile: 213.239.9045
Email: evan.moses@ogletree.com
madeleine.lee@ogletree.com
GIJUNGLE INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gijungle, Inc. The
case is styled as Luis Toro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Gijungle, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-05834
(S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Gijungle, Inc. is located in Fort Worth, Texas, and was founded in
12/8/10.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
GREAT AJAX: Halper Sadeh Investigates Potential Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Halper Sadeh LLC, an investor rights law firm, is investigating the
following companies for potential violations of the federal
securities laws and/or breaches of fiduciary duties to shareholders
relating to:
Great Ajax Corp. (NYSE: AJX)'s sale to Ellington Financial Inc.
Pursuant to the merger agreement, each share of Great Ajax common
stock will be converted into 0.5308 shares of Ellington Financial
common stock. Upon the closing of the transaction, Great Ajax
stockholders are expected to own approximately 16% of the combined
company's stock. If you are a Great Ajax shareholder, click here to
learn more about your rights and options.
American Equity Investment Life Holding Company (NYSE: AEL)'s sale
to Brookfield Reinsurance. As part of the agreement, each American
Equity shareholder will receive $38.85 per share in cash and
0.49707 of a Brookfield Asset Management Ltd. class A limited
voting share per share of American Equity. If you are an American
Equity shareholder, click here to learn more about your rights and
options.
Sigilon Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: SGTX)'s sale to Eli Lilly and
Company. Under the terms of the agreement, Eli Lilly would acquire
all outstanding shares of Sigilon for $14.92 per share in cash
payable at closing, plus one non-tradeable contingent value right
per share that entitles the holder to receive up to an additional
$111.64 per share in cash. If you are a Sigilon shareholder, click
here to learn more about your rights and options.
Shareholders are encouraged to contact the firm free of charge to
discuss their legal rights and options. Please call Daniel Sadeh or
Zachary Halper at (212) 763-0060 or email sadeh@halpersadeh.com or
zhalper@halpersadeh.com.
Halper Sadeh LLC represents investors all over the world who have
fallen victim to securities fraud and corporate misconduct. Our
attorneys have been instrumental in implementing corporate reforms
and recovering millions of dollars on behalf of defrauded
investors.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Halper Sadeh LLC
Daniel Sadeh, Esq.
Zachary Halper, Esq.
(212) 763-0060
sadeh@halpersadeh.com
zhalper@halpersadeh.com
https://www.halpersadeh.com [GN]
H2W INC: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against H2W, Inc. The case is
styled as Tonimarie Rhone, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. H2W, Inc., Case No. 7:23-cv-05841-CS
(S.D.N.Y., July 7, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
H2W Technologies, Inc. -- https://www.h2wtech.com/ -- manufactures
and designs linear and rotary motion products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor H. 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
HARBORSTONE CREDIT: $187K Settlement in Garcia Suit Has Prelim. OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lauren King of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Tacoma, grants the Plaintiff's motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement in the lawsuit
styled MARIO PAREDES GARCIA, Plaintiff v. HARBORSTONE CREDIT UNION,
Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-05148-LK (W.D. Wash.).
Harborstone has agreed to pay $186,750 to establish a settlement
fund. The Court has read and considered the parties' Amended
Settlement Agreement and supporting materials, which they submitted
following a hearing on the motion on June 2, 2023.
Paredes Garcia is a noncitizen resident of Gig Harbor, who was
granted protected status under the Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals ("DACA") program. Harborstone is a Washington-based credit
union with a majority of its branches located in Pierce County.
On April 22, 2020, after previously being granted an auto loan from
Harborstone, Paredes Garcia submitted a second auto loan
application that Harborstone denied because his DACA documentation
was "not acceptable for financing." Prior to the denial,
Harborstone conducted a "hard" credit pull of his consumer credit
score, resulting in a six-point drop in his score.
Based on this experience, Paredes Garcia claims that Harborstone
engages in a policy and practice of (1) wrongfully denying DACA
participants and other noncitizen residents the opportunity to
contract for credit in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, and (2)
wrongfully conducting hard credit pulls in violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").
On Jan. 26, 2021, aredes Garcia initiated this class action lawsuit
against Harborstone in Pierce County Superior Court on behalf of
two sub-classes: one specifically pertaining to Section 1981 and
one specifically pertaining to FCRA.
On March 1, 2021, Harborstone removed the action to federal court.
After the Court denied Harborstone's motion to dismiss, the parties
moved to stay the case in in order to pursue early settlement.
In October 2022, the parties reached an agreement in principle, and
in December 2022, they finalized a long form settlement agreement.
Thereafter, Paredes Garcia filed his unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement along with the parties'
initial settlement agreement, proposed notice, and other supporting
materials.
On June 2, 2023, the Court held a hearing on the motion to address
questions raised by the proposed settlement, and the parties
submitted an amended agreement for the Court's consideration on
June 23, 2023.
The Amended Settlement Agreement defined the settlement class as:
all individuals who resided in the United States at the time
they applied for a loan from Harborstone Credit Union, and
for whom Harborstone obtained a credit report, and whose
applications were declined at any time between Jan. 26,
2018, and Aug. 31, 2021, for the reason that they had a tax
identification number because they were not permanent
residents of the United States.
The parties indicate that this class is comprised of 249 members,
assuming no one decides to opt out. During the June 2, 2023
hearing, the parties provided additional clarity on how Harborstone
identified the class members by pulling data based on loan
application denials.
Harborstone has agreed to pay $186,750 to establish a settlement
fund, which will be divided equally among the 249 class members
into $750 check payments to be issued within 21 days of the
settlement fund payment. For class members, who submit valid
exclusions, the $750 check that class member would have received
will be divided evenly among the remaining class members, who do
not opt out. Harborstone will separately provide up to $25,000 for
settlement administration costs.
Harborstone has agreed to implement the following changes to its
policies and procedures. Harborstone Credit Union will not, among
other things, maintain policies, practices or guidelines that allow
the evaluation of any person, who is a non-United States citizen,
under any different guideline or standard than it would evaluate a
person who is a United States citizen when considering whether to
admit the person as a member or extend credit to the person.
In exchange for the relief set forth in the settlement and to
settle all claims raised in this action, class members will be
bound by an agreed release.
Subject to Court approval, Harborstone has agreed to pay Paredes
Garcia up to $5,000, separate and apart from the settlement fund,
as an award for serving as class representative.
Subject to Court approval and separate and apart from any other
amount going toward settlement, Harborstone has agreed to pay up to
$150,000 in attorneys' fees and costs to Paredes Garcia's counsel.
In order to opt out of the settlement, class members will be
required to send written notice to the settlement administrator via
mail, email, or a form on the settlement website. Otherwise, a
settlement check will be sent to all class members automatically.
Class members may also object to the settlement via mail or email.
The Court finds that Paredes Garcia has met his burden of showing
that the requirements of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure are met and that the class is maintainable under Rule
23(b) for purposes of preliminary settlement approval.
The Court appoints Paredes Garcia as class representative and Toby
J. Marshall and Eric R. Nusser of Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC
as class counsel.
Judge King also finds that the proposed notice provides sufficient
time for class members to evaluate the proposed settlement and
determine if they wish to be excluded or object.
Based on the foregoing, Judge King grants the Plaintiff's Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.
The Court provisionally certifies the following Class for purpose
of settlement: "All individuals who resided in the United States at
the time they applied for a loan from Harborstone Credit Union, and
for whom Harborstone obtained a credit report, and whose
applications were declined at any time between January 26, 2018,
and August 31, 2021 for the reason that they had a tax
identification number because they were not permanent residents of
the United States."
The Court preliminarily approves the Service Award payment of
$5,000 to the Class Representative, and the attorneys' fees and
costs payment of $150,000.
The Court appoints Simpluris as Settlement Administrator. The Court
preliminarily approves the payment of costs for Settlement
Administration, up to $25,000.
The Court approves the form and content of the English language
Amended Settlement Notice substantially in the form attached as
Exhibit A to the Amended Settlement Agreement, and Orders the
Settlement Administrator to translate the English language Notice
into Spanish and to provide both Notices to Class Members as set
forth in Section II.I of the Amended Agreement.
Judge King directs the Class Counsel to file their responses to any
Class Member objections no later than Oct. 2, 2023 (ten (10) days
after the Notice Deadline).
A Final Approval Hearing will be held before the Court on Nov. 6,
2023, at 10:00 a.m. After the Final Approval Hearing, the Court may
enter a Final Approval Order and final judgment in accordance with
the Amended Settlement Agreement, which will adjudicate the rights
of the Class with respect to the claims being settled.
All proceedings before the Court are stayed pending final approval
of the settlement, except as may be necessary to implement the
settlement or comply with the terms of the Amended Agreement.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 3, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2v226hmy from Leagle.com.
HARVARD PILGRIM HEALTH: Dyer Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harvard Pilgrim
Health Care, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Justin Dyer,
individually and as parent and guardian of M.D. and T.B., minors,
M.D., T.B., Svea Elaine, Tanya Peckham, Robert Peckham, Taylor
Peckham, Megan Peckham, Amanda Peckham, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Harvard Pilgrim Health Care,
Inc., Point32Health, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-11531-NMG (D. Mass.,
July 7, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Harvard Pilgrim -- http://www.harvardpilgrim.org/-- is a leading
not-for-profit health services company serving members in
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire & beyond.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617) 398-5600
Fax: (617) 507-6020
Email: jason@blockesq.com
HAT STORE LLC: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Hat Store, LLC.
The case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. The Hat Store, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-05779 (S.D.N.Y., July 6, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Hat Store, LLC -- https://www.thehatstore.com/ -- offers custom
hand cut & shaped hats, belts, buckles & more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
HAT WORLD INC: Coleman Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Takori Juliana Coleman, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated v. HAT WORLD, INC.; and DOES 1 to
100, inclusive, Case No. 23CV034805 was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
July 10, 2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-03437.
The Complaint asserts the following cause of action: Failure to Pay
Wages for all Hours of Work at the Legal Minimum Wage Rate in
Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages in Violation
of Labor Code; Failure to Authorize or Permit Meal Periods in
Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Authorize or Permit Required
Rest Periods in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Provide
Complete and Accurate Wage Statements in Violation of Labor Code;
Failure to Pay all Wages Timely Upon Separation of Employment in
Violation of Labor Code; and Unfair Business Practices, in
Violation of Business and Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Cheryl A. Sabnis, Esq.
Saisruthi Paspulati, Esq.
VEDDER PRICE (CA), LLP
1 Post Street, Suite 2400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: +1 (415) 749 9500
Fax: +1 (415) 749 9502
Email: csabnis@vedderprice.com
spaspulati@vedderprice.com
HOLY FAMILY: Bishop Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Holy Family
University. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Holy Family
University, Case No. 1:23-cv-05909 (S.D.N.Y., July 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Holy Family University -- https://www.holyfamily.edu/ -- is a
private Catholic university in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[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
HUB CYBER: Efrat Investments Sues Over Securities Act Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Efrat Investments LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HUB CYBER SECURITY LTD., Case No.
1:23-cv-05764 (S.D.N.Y., July 6, 2023), is brought asserting claims
arising under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act")
with respect to Defendant's offering and soliciting shareholders of
Hub Cyber Security (Israel) Ltd. ("Legacy HUB") to exchange their
investments in Legacy HUB for the Company's common stock ("Common
Stock") in connection with the Legacy HUB's merger (the "Merger")
with Mount Rainier Acquisition Corp. ("Mount Rainier").
Leading up to the Merger, Legacy HUB incorrectly represented that:
(a) private investment in public equity ("PIPE") financing at the
time of the merger was committed; and, (b) the combined company
would be led by HUB's current management team, including Founder
and Chief Executive Officer, Eyal Moshe ("Moshe").
The Prospectus and other solicitations relating to the Merger
omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make its
contents, in the light of the circumstances under which they were
made, not materially misleading, including the fact that the PIPE
was not irrevocable and that the Company had no reasonable basis to
believe the minimum cash closing condition would be satisfied.
By means of the defective Prospectus, Defendant promoted,
solicited, and encouraged Plaintiff and the Class to vote in favor
of the Merger and to exchange shares of Legacy HUB for shares of
the Company, and thereby offered or sold the Company's Common Stock
issue to the Class in connection with the Merger.
The Prospectus concealed and failed to disclose material facts.
Defendant owed Plaintiff and other members of the Class the duty to
make a reasonable and diligent investigation of the statements
contained in the Prospectus and other solicitations relating to the
Merger to ensure that such statements were true and that there was
no omission to state a material fact required to be stated to make
the statements contained therein not materially misleading.
Defendant, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known of
the materialization of risks contained in the Prospectus and other
solicitations relating to the Merger.
The Plaintiff did not know, nor in the exercise of reasonable
diligence could Plaintiff have known, of the untruths and omissions
contained in the Prospectus and other solicitations relating to the
Merger at the time Plaintiff acquired Company Common Stock, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff acquired Common Stock in the Merger in exchange for
Ordinary Shares of Legacy HUB that it previously owned.
HUB was formed on February 28, 2023, by the Merger of Mount Rainier
and Legacy HUB.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jack G. Fruchter
Michael J. Klein
ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
450 Seventh Avenue, 38th Fl.
New York, NU 10123
Phone: (212) 279-5050
Fax: (212) 279-3655
Email: jfruchter@aftlaw.com
mklein@aftlaw.com
HUMBL LLC: Pasquinelli Suit Transferred to D. Delaware
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Matt Pasquinelli and Bryan Paysen, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HUMBL, LLC, BRIAN
FOOTE, JEFFREY HINSHAW, and GEORGE SHARP, Case No. 3:22-cv-00723
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Delaware on July 7, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00743-CFC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities for
Securities Exchange Act.
HUMBL -- https://www.humbl.com/ -- provides merchant services
software which is being developed to accommodate the migration by
governments to digital forms.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-233-4565
Fax: 619-233-0508
Email: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Monetary End of Payment to Affected Stays in Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Caine, writing for WTMJ, reports that it's now been two
months since car manufacturers Kia and Hyundai agreed to pay out
over $200 million following an influx of stolen cars nationwide.
The first attorney to work on the case is from Milwaukee.
James Barton from the Barton Cerjak Law has been working since 2021
on the case. In an interview with WTMJ's Libby Collins, Barton says
the number of Kias and Hyundais stolen compared to other car
manufacturers is staggering. In Milwaukee, 2/3 of the cars stolen
were either Kias or Hyundais. Earlier this year, Racine reported a
jump in stolen Kias and Hyundais as well. In studying the
statistics, Barton explained that "thefts . . . were up like 2500
percent, and I thought it was a typo at first." Groups such as the
Kia Boys have become prominent.
Both Korean manufacturers and publicly traded, Hyundai owns the
largest amount of shares of Kia, and both car companies share parts
in their manufacturing processes. Barton explained that a safety
device, called an immobilizer, is the cause of the thefts. That
immobilizer turns off a power source if the correct key is not
applied to the steering column on the car, which is normally done
through a radio frequency according to JD Power and Associates.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was
tasked to mandate this technology around the turn of the century,
but Barton says the Administration didn't have the power to
"mandate design criteria" as part of their "minimum performance
standards." However, NHTSA incentivized manufacturers to utilize
this technology, so that the car's Vehicle Identification Number
(VIN) wouldn't have to be added to parts, saving money to produce
parts.
"Virtually all car manufacturers followed suit, except Kia and
Hyundai. Then we realized that . . . a 12 year old could steal a
car in a matter of a minute." Using a USB cord, thieves are able to
hotwire the car and drive away.
Between 2011 and 2022, both Kia and Hyundai refrained from adding
the technology. Barton says after seeing repeated crashes in the
city from as far back as 2021 involving stolen Kias and Hyundais,
he felt he should take the case on, "notwithstanding that tens of
thousands of people that bought the vehicles and had no idea that
(the cars) wasn't equipped with basic . . . anti theft measures
that have caused so many problems when their cars stolen." One such
incident happened this May when a 14 year old crashed into a school
bus outside Morse Middle School; he was driving a stolen Kia.
Barton says part of the $200 million settlement is for "a self
imposed recall," where both manufacturers will have to retrofit the
cars they produced to add an immobilizer up to 9 million cars
nationwide. Barton says that those that have a Kia or Hyundai that
have not had it stolen can utilize a software update; however, a
Associated Press report suggests otherwise.
The monetary end of the payment to owners affected remains in
court. "The court needs to assure itself that the settlement is
fair," Barton adds, saying it's very difficult to craft a
settlement with so many people involved. Compensation will be
broken in several categories. Paperwork is set to be filed July
20th. Similar to other recalls, Barton says cards will be mailed
allowing for filings of claims or objections. [GN]
INTELLIHARTX LLC: Kelly Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access
-------------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS KELLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INTELLIHARTX, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-01338-JRK (N.D. Ohio, July 10, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract,
breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment/quasi
contract, and breach of confidence.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the protected health information and personally
identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
patients stored within its system following a data breach in 2023.
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.
Intellihartx, LLC is a healthcare revenue cycle company located in
Findlay, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Daniel Srourian, Esq.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 474-3800
Facsimile: (213) 471-4160
E-mail: daniel@slfla.com
JCF HOUSEMENTS: Hadley Sues Over Layoffs Without Advance Notice
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHERIKA HADLEY, TARNELL EWING, TODDRICO BEAN, MICHAEL THOMPSON, and
SHELVICK NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. JCF HOUSEMENTS MANUFACTURING LLC; JCF
HUNTSVILLE, LLC; JCF LEBANON HILL, LLC; JCF LEBANON, LLC; JCF
LIVING, LLC; JCF RESIDENCES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC; FAYETTEVILLE
CRE, LLC; JOHN FITZMAURICE, individually and as Trustee of JF
IRREVOCABLE TRUST; JULIE FITZMAURICE, individually and as Trustee
of JULIE FITZMAURICE TRUST; RYAN FITZMAURICE; RICHARD JONES; and
JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00023-KAC-SKL (E.D.
Tenn., July 10, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act by implementing mass
layoffs without advance notice, failing to pay appropriate wages
for all hours worked, and failing to reimburse business expenses.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants to assist in the
manufacturing of homes since early 2020.
JCF Living, LLC is an integrated development and offsite
construction company, with its principal office address at 2210
Spedale Court, Spring Hill, Tennessee.
JCF Housements Manufacturing, LLC is a limited liability company
wholly owned by JCF Living, with its principal office address at 63
East Park Drive, Fayetteville, Tennessee.
JCF Huntsville, LLC is a limited liability company wholly owned by
JCF Living, with principal office address at 2210 Spedale Court,
Spring Hill, Tennessee.
JCF Lebanon Hill, LLC is a limited liability company wholly owned
by JCF Living, with principal office address at 2210 Spedale Court,
Spring Hill, Tennessee.
JCF Lebanon, LLC is a limited liability company wholly owned by JCF
Living, with principal office address at 2210 Spedale Court, Spring
Hill, Tennessee.
JCF Residences Development Company, LLC is a limited liability
company wholly owned by JCF Living, principal office address at
2210 Spedale Court, Spring Hill, Tennessee.
Fayetteville CRE, LLC is a limited liability company wholly owned
by JCF Living, with its principal office address at 2210 Spedale
Court, Spring Hill, Tennessee. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William "Jack" Simpson, Esq.
LANGSTON & LOTT, PLLC
100 South Main Street
Post Office Box 3 82
Booneville, MS 38829
Telephone: (662) 728-9733
Facsimile: (662) 728-1992
E-mail: jsimpson@langstonlott.com
JOHNS HOPKINS: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Gregory Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA GREGORY and AYOMIPOSI ASAOLU, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
and JOHNS HOPKINS HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-01854-BPG (D. Md., July 10, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, intrusion upon
seclusion/invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment, and declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected
health information of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated
employees, students and patients stored within their system
following a data breach on May 29, 2023. The Defendants 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.
Johns Hopkins University is a private research university located
in Baltimore, Maryland.
Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation is a non-profit
organization, with its main office, located at 1800 Orleans Street,
Baltimore, Maryland. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: agold@tzlegal.com
- and -
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street, Suite N300
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (215) 867-2399
Facsimile: (267) 685-0676
E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com
medelson@edelson-law.com
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Santana Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARMEN SANTANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00930 (E.D.
Wis., July 11, 2023) arises from the Defendant's failure to pay
wages to Plaintiff, including proper overtime, on time and in full
for all hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Like many other companies across the United States, Johnson
Controls, Inc.'s Kronos-based timekeeping and payroll systems were
affected by a service outage in beginning in December 2021. That
outage led to problems in timekeeping and payroll throughout JCI's
organization. As a result, JCI's workers who were not exempt from
overtime under federal law were not paid for all overtime hours
worked and/or were not paid their proper overtime premium on time,
if at all, for all overtime hours worked during and after the onset
of the Kronos outage, says the suit.
Plaintiff Santana is one of the many JCI employees affected by
these alleged pay and timekeeping practices.
JCI provides fire, HVAC, security equipment, and other facility
management products and services for buildings.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 999-5228
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
- and -
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) WORKERS
Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com
- and -
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
JPAY LLC: Oliver Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JPay, L.L.C. The case
is styled as Anthony Oliver, Reginald Priddy, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. JPay, L.L.C., Case No.
1:23-cv-03031-SEG-CMS (N.D. Ga., July 9, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.
JPay -- https://www.jpay.com/ -- offers convenient & affordable
correctional services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
McNeill Stokes, Esq.
MCNEILL STOKES
5372 Whitehall Place SE
Mabelton, GA 30126
Phone: (404) 352-2144
Email: mcstokes@bellsouth.net
JPMORGAN CHASE: U.S. Virgin Islands Files Damages in Epstein Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Schladebeck, writing for New York Daily News, reports that
the U.S. Virgin Islands is seeking at least $190 million in damages
from JPMorgan Chase in a lawsuit alleging the bank benefited
financially from disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein's sex
trafficking enterprise as well as neglected to report suspicious
financial activity.
In a filing in federal court in Manhattan, the territory on Friday
demanded that JPMorgan Chase shell out $150 million in civil
penalties and $40 million in fees and revenues that Epstein
generated for the bank while he was a client there.
The Virgin Islands government further requested the bank implement
an independent compliance consultant and safeguards to prevent
human trafficking in the future, as well as separate its business
and compliance functions.
"Financial penalties, as well as conduct changes, are important to
make sure that JPMorgan Chase knows the cost of putting its own
profits ahead of public safety," U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney
General Ariel Smith said in a statement to Reuters.
In response, a JPMorgan Chase spokesperson said, "This document
does not reflect the nature of settlement conversations. As for the
USVI's misdirected damages theories, they are not well founded and
are being challenged by JPM in court."
JPMorgan Chase has denied liability, but has previously said that
any association with Epstein was a mistake it has come to regret.
The bank provided the prolific abuser with services from 1998 to
2013.
The Virgin Islands government has argued JPMorgan Chase should be
held responsible for enabling Epstein to pay his victims as well as
for ignoring internal warnings and other red flags because he was a
valuable enough client.
Epstein died by suicide in 2019 at a New York City correctional
center, where he was being held on federal sex-trafficking charges.
He was found dead in his jail cell before he could face trial for
sexually abusing underage girls.
In June, JPMorgan Chase agreed to pay $290 million to settle a
similar class-action lawsuit from Epstein's alleged sexual abuse
victims. [GN]
KKR REAL ESTATE: Willingham Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Ali Willingham, Antwann Simpson, on behalf of
themselves, and a class of similarly situated persons v. KKR Real
Estate Trust, Inc., Mack Real Estate Group, Inc., Mack Property
Management, LP, Post Brothers Apartments, Post Commercial Real
Estate LLC, Case No. 230600457 was removed from the Philadelphia
Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on July 11, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02640-KSM to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Real Property.
KKR Real Estate -- http://www.kkrreit.com/-- is a global provider
of equity and debt capital across real estate investment
strategies.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alan E Denenberg, Esq.
David H Denenberg, Esq.
ABRAMSON & DENENBERG
1315 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: (215) 546-1345
Fax: (215) 546-5355
Email: adenenberg@adlawfirm.com
ddenenberg@adlawfirm.com
- and -
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
SHUB & JOHNS LLC
Four Tower Bridge
200 Barr Harbor Dr., Suite 400
West Conshohocken, PA 19428
Phone: (610) 477-8380
Email: ecf@shublawyers.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Wayne C. Stansfield, Esq.
Mark W. Fidanza, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
1717 Arch Street, Suite 3100
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 851-8100
Fax: (215) 851-1420
Email: wstansfield@reedsmith.com
mfidanza@reedsmith.com
- and -
Matthew A. White, Esq.
BALLARD SPAHR LLP
1735 Market St., 51st Fl.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 864-8849
Fax: (215) 568-0300
Email: WhiteMA@ballardspahr.com
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Class Actions Over Sleep Apnea Devices Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NL Times reports that the number of claims for damages against
Philips in the US is increasing Some 530 Americans have filed
damage claims against Philips over health complaints caused by
defects in the health technology company's sleep apnea devices.
About 400 cases were still involved when the company presented its
quarterly results in April, a spokesperson confirmed, reported the
Eindhovens Dagblad.
"The whole thing is still at a very early stage. Personal injuries
have yet to be proven for each individual case," the spokesperson
said. "We have already proven through the test results of an
independent laboratory that the foam in the sleep apnea devices
does not cause injuries, we have published that as well," according
to the spokesperson.
The problems with the sleep apnea devices that have plagued Philips
for years revolve around the insulating foam in the devices. This
could crumble or release chemicals after coming into contact with
certain cleaning agents, leading to possible health problems. The
problems forced Philips to recall and replace millions of sleep
apnea and respiratory devices worldwide.
In addition to personal damage claims, a number of class-action
lawsuits are also pending. The company has set aside hundreds of
millions for these. [GN]
LEGALLY ADDICTIVE: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Legally Addictive
Foods, LLC. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Legally Addictive
Foods, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-05933 (S.D.N.Y., July 11, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Legally Addictive Foods -- https://legallyaddictivefoods.com/ -- is
a woman-owned and founded Brooklyn-based brand making salty and
sweet things.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick William Gallagher, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: pgallagher@mizrahikroub.com
LM GENERAL INSURANCE: Grant Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Timothy Grant, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
GD-23-006382 was removed from the Allegheny County Court, to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on
June 23, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01153-CCW to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Contract Dispute.
LM General Insurance Company is an insurance company based in
Boston, Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard E. Shenkan, Esq.
Shenkan Injury Lawyers, LLC
P.O. Box 7255
New Castle, PA 48323
Phone: (248) 562-1320
Fax: (888) 769-1774
Email: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com
- and -
David A. Strassburger, Esq.
Lydia A. Gorba, Esq.
STRASSBURGER, MCKENNA, GUTNICK & GEFSKY
Four Gateway Center, Suite 2200
444 Liberty Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 281-5423
Email: dstrassburger@smgglaw.com
lgorba@smgglaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Brooks R. Foland, Esq.
MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLMAN & GOGGIN
100 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 201
Harrisburg, PA 17011
Phone: (717) 651-3714
Fax: (717) 651-3707
Email: brfoland@mdwcg.com
- and -
Tiffany L Powers, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD
1201 West Peachtree Street
One Atlantic Center
Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
Phone: (404) 881-4249
Email: tiffany.powers@alston.com
LOAN DEPOT: Ahringer Must Show Cause Why Suit Should Not Be Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JUSTIN AHRINGER AND MICHAEL DONNER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. LOAN DEPOT, INC. and VERISK ANALYTICS, INC. D/B/A
JORNAYA, Defendants, Case No. SACV 23-00186-CJC (JDEx) (C.D. Cal.),
Judge Cormac J. Carney of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Southern Division, issued an order to show
cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
In this putative class action, Plaintiffs Justin Ahringer and
Michael Donner allege that Defendants Loan Depot, Inc., and Verisk
Analytics, Inc., doing business as Jornaya, violated the California
Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA") and California's Unfair
Competition Law, and also invaded their privacy. Specifically, they
allege that Loan Depot, which collects consumers' personally
identifiable information ("PII") to provide instant quotes on
lending products, uses Jornaya's software "to surreptitiously
observe, record, store, and use visitors' keystrokes, mouse clicks,
and other electronic communications, including their entry of PII
and other private, sensitive information." They allege they did not
receive notice that their sessions on LoanDepot's website would be
recorded or shared with Jornaya, nor did they consent to this
occurring.
Though the Plaintiffs assert only state law claims, they allege
that the Court has jurisdiction over this case under the Class
Action Fairness Act, which provides federal district courts with
'original jurisdiction' to hear a 'class action' if the class has
more than 100 members, the parties are minimally diverse, and the
'matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5 million.'
The Plaintiffs' support for CAFA jurisdiction, however, rests on
their unsupported allegation that the amount in controversy in this
case exceeds $5 million, Judge Carney notes. This threadbare
recitation of the amount in controversy element for subject matter
jurisdiction under CAFA is insufficient, without more, to establish
the Court's subject matter jurisdiction, Judge Carney opines,
citing Petkevicius v. NBTY, Inc., 2017 WL 1113295, at *4 (S.D. Cal.
Mar. 24, 2017).
And the Court has doubts about whether $5 million is actually in
controversy here, Judge Carney says. The Plaintiffs' theory is that
they have suffered harm in the form of diminution of the value of
their private and personally identifiable data and content. This
harm, if it exists, is extremely difficult to quantify, and the
value of any class members' compensatory damages or restitution is
likely to be extremely low, Judge Carney points out.
The Plaintiffs also seek statutory damages under the CIPA of $5,000
per violation, but it is unclear whether thousands have been harmed
by the Defendants' alleged conduct, Judge Carney notes. The Court
needs more information both about the number of class members and
the amount each class member could possibly recover to be assured
that the Court has CAFA jurisdiction over this case.
Accordingly, the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to show cause in
writing on July 24, 2023, why this case should not be dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction. The Defendants may, but are not required to,
file a statement regarding jurisdiction by July 31, 2023.
The hearing currently set for July 17, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. on
LoanDepot's motions to dismiss and to strike class allegations, and
on Jornaya's motion to dismiss, is vacated and off calendar. The
Court will reschedule the hearing on these motions if it determines
it has jurisdiction over this case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 3, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3r2k6jf2 from Leagle.com.
LOFTIE INC: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Loftie, Inc. The case
is styled as Nadreca Reid, individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly situated persons v. Loftie, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-05868 (S.D.N.Y., July 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Loftie -- https://byloftie.com/ -- is a wellness company helping
people create tech-life balance through beautifully designed,
deceptively simple products for the home.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
LOS ANGELES, CA: Millstein Partly Wins FLSA Prelim. Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California grants in part the Plaintiff's
Renewed Motion for FLSA Preliminary Certification in the lawsuit
entitled LAUREN MILLSTEIN, Plaintiff v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES;
NORTH COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, AND DOES 1-100, Defendants,
Case No. 2:21-cv-02623-MEMF-GJSx (C.D. Cal.).
The case involves alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA"). For two years, Plaintiff Lauren Millstein was
employed by the Defendant County of Los Angeles (the "County") as a
non-exempt, hourly employee at the North County Correctional
Facility ("NCCF"). NCCF is a jail facility owned and operated by
the County.
Plaintiff Millstein was formally required to work eight-hour days,
six days a week, with shifts starting at 6:00 a.m. and ending at
2:00 p.m. However, in practice, she was required to work more than
10 hours a day and did not receive pay for all hours worked. She
was required to perform work-related tasks such as retrieving
security keys and conducting security checks one hour before her
6:00 a.m. start time. The County also did not pay her for work
performed during allotted rest breaks and meal breaks. Her last day
of work was on May 27, 2019.
Ms. Millstein asserts in her First Amended Complaint ("FAC") a
claim for failure to pay straight time and overtime wages under the
FLSA. She alleges the Defendants failed to pay failed to pay her
and other Class members for overtime work in violation of the FLSA.
She believes that the Defendants' practice of having its employees
work off the clock resulted in employees working overtime and not
being paid for it. This resulted in the Defendants failing to pay
all the overtime wages owed her and Unpaid Overtime Wage Class
members. She further alleges that when she and those similarly
situated were able to take a rest breaks, they were not paid for
such rest breaks as is required.
On March 25, 2021, Millstein filed her initial class action
complaint on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
seeking damages and injunctive relief for the County's (1) failure
to pay overtime wages; (2) failure to pay for rest breaks in
violation of 29 C.F.R. Section 785.18, (3) failure to pay for
non-duty-free meal breaks in violation of 29 C.F.R. Section 785.19;
and (4) unfair competition in violation of California Business and
Professional Code section 17200, et seq. The County filed its
Answer on May 18, 2021.
On Aug. 9, 2021, Millstein filed her First Amended Class Action
Complaint, retaining the class definitions but dropping all
original claims save the failure to pay straight time and overtime
wages in violation of the FLSA. The County filed a Motion to
Strike, seeking to strike class action allegations unrelated to a
FLSA collective action on Aug. 23, 2021, which the Court granted on
June 21, 2022.
On Dec. 12, 2022, Millstein filed a motion for FLSA preliminary
certification. On Dec. 19, 2022, the County filed an opposition,
noting that she failed to meet and confer prior to filing her
motion. On Dec. 26, 2022, she filed a reply. On Feb. 21, 2023, the
Court vacated the original hearing date on this motion because of
the failure to meet and confer as required under Local Rule 7-3.
On March 15, 2023, the Court issued an Order as to Joint
Stipulation regarding Plaintiff's Motion for FLSA Preliminary
Certification, granting in part and denying in part the
stipulation, and setting the briefing schedule for this renewed
motion. The parties submitted the renewed motion and opposition.
Ms. Millstein filed a late reply and objections in support of the
renewed motion. While the reply papers are late, the Court will
nevertheless consider them. The Court provided the parties with a
written tentative ruling in advance of the hearing.
Ms. Millstein seeks preliminary FLSA certification for three
separate classes, specifically, an unpaid overtime wage class, rest
period class, and a bona fide meal period class. She defines the
proposed classes as follows:
(1) Unpaid Overtime Wage Class:
All current and former non-exempt hourly paid Custody
Assistant[] employees that worked at the North County
Correctional Facility who worked over 40 hours in a
workweek for the County of Los Angeles at any time within
the three (3) years prior to filing the initial Complaint
through April 10, 2023 (the opt-in period closure date)
who were not paid their overtime wages;
(2) Rest Period Class:
All current and former Custody Assistant employees who
worked as . . . hourly paid non-exempt employee[s] at the
North County Correctional Facility for the County of Los
Angeles, at any time within the three (3) years prior to
the filing of this initial Complaint through April 10,
2023 (the opt-in period closure date), who could not take
rest breaks; and
(3) Bona Fide Meal Period Class:
All current and former Custody Assistant employees who
worked as . . . hourly paid non-exempt employee[s] at the
North County Correctional Facility for the County of Los
Angeles, at any time within the three (3) years prior to
the filing of this initial Complaint through April 10,
2023 (the opt-in period closure date), who did not get
bona fide meal periods.
The Court notes that Millstein alleged a policy or practice, not
solely a policy. Moreover, she provided evidence that at least one
other custody assistant that was also subjected to off-the-clock
work and that at least one supervisor was aware of the practice.
Judge Frimpong holds that this is sufficient evidence for
preliminary certification of the unpaid overtime wage class prior
to extensive discovery. Therefore, the request to preliminarily
certify the first class is granted.
In the FAC, Millstein alleged that the County by not paying her and
the other Class members for the rest breaks they took, the County
did not pay the accurate amount of wages earned. She also alleged
that by not allowing her and the other Class members to take a
duty-free meal break and requiring them to work during the meal
break, the Defendants failed to pay the accurate amount of wages
earned.
Judge Frimpong finds that these allegations as stated fail to state
a FLSA violation, and, therefore, cannot support preliminary
certification. Millstein has not provided the Court with plausible
allegations and evidence demonstrating that the second and third
classes should be preliminarily certified. Therefore, Judge
Frimpong denies the request to preliminarily certify the second and
third classes.
Ms. Millstein also argues that the Court should equitably toll the
statute of limitations for opt-in plaintiffs because, under section
216(b) of the FLSA, the clock is not stopped for the purpose of the
statute of limitations until the date the consent form of the
opt-in plaintiff is filed, citing 29 U.S.C. Section 256 and Lee v.
Vance Exec. Prot., Inc., 7 F. App'x 160, 167-168 (4th Cir. 2001).
She requests that the statute of limitations be tolled while this
motion is pending and during the notice period.
The Court finds that it is appropriate to toll the statute of
limitations for the period of time that this preliminary
certification Motion has been pending, that is from Dec. 12, 2022,
when it was originally filed, until the date that the notices are
sent. Therefore, the request to equitably toll the statute of
limitations for opt-in plaintiffs is granted.
With respect to the Court's authority in overseeing the notice
giving process, the Court agrees that it would be proper to inform
potential opt-in plaintiffs of their obligations with regards to
their separate claims. Therefore, the parties are ordered to
include language in the notice informing opt-in Plaintiffs that
they too would be required to engage in discovery and prove their
own damages. Likewise, the Court also agrees that the notice should
be modified to reflect that the class is limited to individuals
that worked at the North County Correctional Facility, who worked
over 40 hours in a workweek for the County of Los Angeles for three
years before the date that the notice is sent, plus the tolling
period. Finally, since the Court found that Millstein did not
plausibly support allegations for the second and third proposed
classes, Millstein's proposed notice is now overinclusive.
The parties are ordered to meet and confer and file and email to
Chambers a joint proposed notice of action removing the language
concerning the second and third proposed classes and otherwise
conforming to this Order, within seven (7) days of this order.
The parties are also ordered to meet and confer regarding a new
Proposed Scheduling Order for this case and submit a new Proposed
Scheduling Order within twenty-one (21) days of this order.
For these reasons, the Motion is granted in part and denied in
part. The Court orders as follows:
1. The Motion is granted as to preliminarily certifying the
first class (overtime);
2. The Motion is denied with respect to the proposed second
and third classes (rest and meal breaks);
3. The Motion is granted with respect to equitably tolling the
statute of limitations for opt-in plaintiffs in part,
starting from December 12, 2022, and DENIED with respect to
permitting the notice to state or imply that the statute of
limitations starts on March 25, 2018 (i.e., treating the
date of the original Complaint as the date that the clock
stops for all participants);
4. The Notice should be modified to reflect that the class is
limited to individuals that worked at the North County
Correctional Facility who worked over 40 hours in a
workweek for the County of Los Angeles three years before
the date that the Notice is sent plus the tolling period;
5. The parties are ordered to submit a new proposed notice of
action form conforming to this order within seven (7) days
of this order; and
6. The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding a new
proposed scheduling order for this case and submit a new
proposed schedule within twenty-one (21) days of this
order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 3, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yzvdw75n from Leagle.com.
MADE BY MARY: Morgan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Made By Mary, LLC.
The case is styled as Paradise Morgan, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Made By
Mary, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-05870-JGLC (S.D.N.Y., July 10, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Made By Mary -- https://www.madebymary.com/ -- sells necklaces,
earrings, rings, bracelets, and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Schonwald Sues Over Bed Bug Infestation
---------------------------------------------------------------
HANNAH ROSE SCHONWALD, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2023CV382532 (Ga. Super., Fulton Cty., July 11,
2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff and the Class
arising out of their stay at the AC Hotel by Marriott Atlanta
Downtown where they suffered bed bug bites in violation of the
Georgia's Fair Business Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Hotel was well aware that it had a
bed bug infestation and took no action to eradicate the bed bugs or
otherwise warn guests of the dangerous condition in its rooms.
The Plaintiff visited the Hotel from September 28, 2022 through
October 1, 2022. During the evening of September 29, Plaintiff
noticed that she felt itchy. Later that evening she observed
several bed bugs on her pillow and requested to change rooms. The
Plaintiff developed 70 bug bites all over her body including her
back, shoulders, ankles, fingers, arms and ears, says the suit.
Marriott International, Inc. is an American multinational company
that operates, franchises, and licenses lodging including hotel,
residential and timeshare properties.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James M. Evangelista, Esq.
EVANGELISTA WORLEY LLC
500 Sugar Mill Road, Suite 245A
Atlanta, GA 30350
Telephone: (404) 205-8400
E-mail: jim@ewlawllc.com
- and -
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
KALIEL GOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
sgold@kalielgold.com
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Villanueva Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Cindy Villanueva, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Maxim Healthcare Services,
Inc., a Maryland corporation; Maxim Healthcare Services Holdings,
Inc., a Delaware corporation; Maxim Healthcare Staffing Services,
Inc., a Maryland corporation; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 23CV034697 was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Alameda, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on July 7,
2023, and assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-03403.
The Plaintiff seeks class damages for: failure to pay all wages for
all hours worked, including minimum and overtime wages; failure to
provide required meal periods; failure to authorize or permit rest
breaks; failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements;
failure to reimburse all reasonable and necessary business
expenses; and failure to pay all wages due upon separation of
employment.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Lisa Lin Garcia, Esq.
Robert Geiger, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: 415.433.1940
Fax: 415.399.8490
Email: llgarcia@littler.com
rgeiger@littler.com
META PLATFORMS: Kadrey Sues Over Unfair Use of Copyrighted Books
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Kadrey, an individual; Sarah Silverman, an individual;
Christopher Golden, an individual; individual and representative
Plaintiffs v. Meta Platforms, Inc., a Delaware corporation;
Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-03417 (N.D. Cal., July 7, 2023) is a
class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all others
similarly situated against the Defendant for alleged acts of direct
and vicarious copyright infringement, removal of
copyright-management information and false assertion of copyright,
unjust enrichment, negligence, and violation of the California
Business and Professions Code.
According to the complaint, LLaMA is a set of large language models
created and maintained by Defendant Meta Platforms. A large
language model is an AI software program designed to emit
convincingly naturalistic text outputs in response to user prompts.
Rather than being programmed in the traditional way, a large
language model is "trained" by copying massive amounts of text and
extracting expressive information from it.
The Plaintiffs and Class members are authors of books and have
copyrights in the books they published. The Plaintiffs and Class
members did not consent to the use of their copyrighted books as
training material for LLaMA. Nonetheless, their copyrighted
materials were copied and ingested as part of training LLaMA. Many
of Plaintiffs' copyrighted books appear in the dataset that Meta
has admitted to using to train LLaMA. By using Plaintiffs'
infringed works to train LLaMA, Plaintiffs and the Class were
deprived of the benefits of their work, including monetary damages,
the suit says.
Meta Platforms is a diversified internet company that creates,
markets, and sells software and hardware technology products,
including Facebook, Instagram, and Horizon Worlds.[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
MILLS AIR INC: Anderson Sues to Recover Unpaid, Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Austin Anderson, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. MILLS AIR, INC., Case No. 6:23-cv-01260 (M.D. Fla.,
July 7, 2023), is brought to recover unpaid wages, overtime wages,
and other damages resulting from the acts and omission of the
Defendant that deprived them of compensation lawfully earned by
each of them in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (the
"FLSA").
The Defendant habitually failed to compensate the Plaintiff and the
Collective by engaging in the following proscribed conduct: the
Defendant regularly (almost every single pay period) failed to pay
the Plaintiff and the Collective for all time that the employee was
clocked in and working for the Defendant, including overtime. the
Defendant routinely altered the Plaintiff's (and other members of
the Collective) hourly pay rate by significant amounts as part of
its effort to pay less compensation to the employee during a pay
period. the Defendant consistently altered employee timecard
records to illegally reduce the number of hours clocked in by the
employee to pay the person less money for the pay period, including
but not limited to reducing hours to avoid paying employees at
their overtime rate. the Defendant made unauthorized and unlawful
deductions from the Plaintiff's compensation, which further
deprived him of money that he lawfully earned while working on the
clock for the Defendant, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff (and the other individuals that would ultimately
comprise the collective and class members) are currently, or were
at one time, individuals employed by the Defendant as HVAC systems
installation, repair, and maintenance services technicians.
MILLS is a Florida corporation that provide HCVAC systems
installation, repair, and maintenance services to its customers
throughout Central Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin K. Ross-Andino, Esq.
ECLAT LAW, PA
307 Cranes Roost Blvd., # 2010
Altamonte Springs, FL 32710
Phone: (407) 636-7004
NATIONSBENEFITS LLC: Guerrero Suit Transferred to D. Connecticut
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jessica Guerrero, Eileen Clancy, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NationsBenefits,
LLC, Case No. 0:23-cv-60951 was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut on July 7, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00910-KAD to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
NationsBenefits -- https://www.nationsbenefits.com/ -- is a
supplemental benefits company that provides managed care
organizations.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
GAINEY MCKENNA & EGLESTON
501 Fifth Avenue 19th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 983-1300
Fax: (212) 683-3402
NATIONSBENEFITS LLC: Lizotte Suit Transferred to D. Connecticut
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Robert Lizotte, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. NationsBenefits, LLC,
NationsBenefits Holdings, LLC, Aetna Inc., Case No. 0:23-cv-61209
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut on July 7, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00906-RNC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
NationsBenefits -- https://www.nationsbenefits.com/ -- is a
supplemental benefits company that provides managed care
organizations.[BN]
NATIONSBENEFITS LLC: Wilczynski Suit Transferred to D. Connecticut
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Edward Wilczynski, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. NationsBenefits, LLC,
NationsBenefits Holdings, LLC, Case No. 0:23-cv-60950 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut on July 7, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00912-SVN to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
NationsBenefits -- https://www.nationsbenefits.com/ -- is a
supplemental benefits company that provides managed care
organizations.[BN]
NEW DOMINION LLC: Dinsmore Files Suit in E.D. Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Dominion, LLC.
The case is styled as Marvin B. Dinsmore, Sheridan Downey, III, as
Administrator of the Estate of Margaret D. Dinsmore, on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. New Dominion, LLC, Case No.
6:23-cv-00227-DES (E.D. Okla., July 7, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract
Dispute.
New Dominion, LLC -- https://newdominion.llc/ -- specializes in
recovering oil and natural gas from existing reservoirs. The
Company targets reservoirs that hold oil, rock, gas and water to
find oil and natural gas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
BRADFORD & WILSON, PLLC
431 W Main St., Ste. D.
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Phone: (405) 698-2770
Fax: (405) 234-5506
Email: reagan@bradwil.com
NEW ENGLAND GREENS: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New England Greens,
LLC. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. New England Greens, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-05935 (S.D.N.Y., July 11, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
New England Greens, LLC doing business as Vibrant Health --
https://vibranthealth.com/ -- offers health supplements,
superfoods, and more to boost immunity.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ian Piasecki, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (347) 745-0445
Email: ipiasecki@mizrahikroub.com
NEW YORK: Wallach Appeals Ruling in Suit v. HHC
-----------------------------------------------
JEFFREY WALLACH is taking an appeal from a court order entered in
his lawsuit styled as Jeffrey Wallach, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. New York City Health and
Hospitals Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 156269/2018, in the
Supreme Court of New York, New York County.
The case type is stated as Civil Action - General.
The appellate case is captioned Jeffrey Wallach, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, vs. New York City Health
and Hospitals Corporation, Case No. 23-03253, filed in the First
Judicial Department of New York Appellate Division on June 30,
2023. [BN]
ONIX GROUP LLC: Lyston Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Onix Group, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Melissa Lyston, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Onix Group, LLC,
Addiction Recovery Systems, Case No. 2:23-cv-02633-KSM (E.D. Pa.,
July 10, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
ONIX -- https://www.onixgroup.com/ -- provides real estate
development, management, and consulting services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Sandercock, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Ave., Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Phone: (212) 532-1091
Fax: (610) 820-6006
Email: nsandercock@sirillp.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Edward J. McAndrew, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1735 Market Street, Suite 3300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (202) 664-2939
Email: emcandrew@bakerlaw.com
PARA ENERGY: Smith Sues Over Solids Control Technicians' Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHASE SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PARA ENERGY GROUP, LLC and ZECO EQUIPMENT, LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-01756-REB (D. Colo., July 11, 2023) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Smith was employed by Defendants from September to
December 2022 as a solids control technician. Smith brings this
action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated solids
control technicians who were paid a day rate with no overtime pay.
Para Energy Group is an oilfield services company headquartered in
Denver, Colorado.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
David I. Moulton, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
dmoulton@brucknerburch.com
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Baker Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Andrew Baker, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated v. PARAMOUNT GLOBAL INC. d/b/a
PARAMOUNT PLUS, Case No. 2023-CA-003612-OC was removed from the 9th
Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on July 7, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:23-cv-01268 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Paramount Global, Inc. doing business as Paramount Plus --
https://www.paramountplus.com/ -- is an American subscription video
on-demand over-the-top streaming service owned by Paramount
Global.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Ryan Alan Roman, Esq.
AKERMAN LLP
201 E. Las Olas, Suite 1800
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33019
Phone: (954) 463-2700
Fax: (305) 982-5650
Email: ryan.roman@akerman.com
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Aug 8
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Peloton Interactive, Inc.
(NASDAQ: PTON), DouYu International Holdings Limited (NASDAQ;
DOYU), Futu Holdings Ltd. (NASDAQ: FUTU), and DZS, Inc. (NASDAQ:
DZSI). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the
court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each
case can be found at the link provided.
Peloton Interactive, Inc. (NASDAQ: PTON)
Class Period: May 10, 2022 - May 10, 2023
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 8, 2023
Based in New York City, Peloton is a fitness-equipment and media
company. During the Class Period, Peloton sold internet-connected
stationary bicycles and treadmills that were designed and marketed
for use in customers' homes. The bicycles and treadmills include
connected touchscreen devices through which customers can access
exercise classes and other content. To that end, in addition to the
exercise equipment, Peloton sells monthly subscription services
that allow customers to access fitness classes using their Peloton
equipment, or alternatively to access classes and related content
on their own devices, without using Peloton equipment.
For most of 2020 and 2021, as the COVID-19 pandemic and related
stay-at-home orders and business closures largely kept individuals
out of the gym, the demand for in-home exercise options increased
dramatically. Against that backdrop, in the months leading up to
the Class Period, Peloton experienced unprecedented demand for its
products and services. As Defendant John Foley ("Foley") confirmed
in statements to investors on February 11, 2021, "there's been
crazy demand for our products because gyms have been closed or you
didn't want to go to the gym because you might get COVID there. So,
the demand has been through the roof[.]"
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
repeatedly and falsely assured investors that Peloton's recent
success was not primarily due to COVID-related increased demand,
but rather that the Company's growth and financial results were
sustainable and would continue post-COVID. For example, on December
9, 2020, the first day of the Class Period, in response to an
investor's question about "how a post-COVID world impacts
[Peloton's] view of [its] business opportunity," Defendant Foley
assured investors that Peloton's results "ha[ve] nothing to do with
COVID. That is a human need of I want to get fit, I want fitness in
my life in a consistent way; . . . I want it to be convenient, I
want it to be fun, I want it to be motivating, and I want it to be
a great value. And all of those things are foundational to what
Peloton delivers, always delivered it. We delivered it in
pre-COVID, during COVID, and we will deliver it post-COVID."
Defendants also represented to investors during the Class Period
that investments in the Company's supply chain, including
increasing the number of bikes and treadmills produced and reducing
the average time it takes to deliver products to customers, were
sound investments that would enable Peloton to align supply and
demand for its products. For example, on February 4, 2021, in a
letter to Peloton shareholders, the Company stated that "our supply
chain investments over the last several months are helping us
better match our supply and demand going forward." Accordingly,
Defendants represented that the rising inventory levels reported in
the Company's periodic financial reports filed with the SEC during
the Class Period reflected outstanding demand, including orders
that had not yet been filled, rather than excess supply that
outpaced waning demand.
Defendants' Class Period representations that Peloton would
continue to succeed and grow post-COVID were false. In truth,
Peloton's Class Period financial results were primarily driven by
COVID-related increases in demand for at-home exercise options. As
gyms have reopened and other outside-the-home exercise options have
become more available because of COVID vaccinations being more
widespread and other COVID-related restrictions abating, demand for
Peloton's equipment and subscription services have declined
substantially. Moreover, rather than matching supply and demand,
Peloton had a massive growth in inventory that far exceeded
customer demand. Further, the Company has admitted that it suffered
from a material weakness in its internal control over financial
reporting during the Class Period, specifically concerning
inventory levels. In light of that material weakness, the Company
could not accurately report its inventory levels, and had no sound
basis to represent to investors that supply, and demand were
aligned.
The truth began to emerge on August 26, 2021, after the market
closed, when Peloton disclosed, one day in advance of its
announcement of the Company's financial results for its fiscal year
2021, that "in the course of our fiscal 2021 audit process, a
material weakness was identified in our internal controls over
financial reporting with respect to identification and valuation of
inventory." In the Company's Annual Report for its fiscal year
2021, filed with the SEC on Form 10-K on August 27, 2021, it
further disclosed that "this material weakness arose because our
controls were not effectively designed, documented and maintained
to verify that our physical inventory counts were correctly counted
and communicated for reporting in our financial statements."
As a result of these disclosures, the price of Peloton common stock
declined by $9.75 per share, or 8.5%, from a closing price of
$114.09 per share on August 26, 2021 to a closing price of $104.34
per share on August 27, 2021. At the same time, however, Peloton
made false, reassuring statements to investors, including issuing
guidance of $5.4 billion of total revenue for fiscal year 2022
(beginning September 1, 2021), representing 34% year-over-year
growth. Discussing that guidance, Defendant Jill Woodworth claimed
that "we are entering fiscal 2022 with a normalized backlog for our
Bike portfolio and guidance reflects our expectation of continued
strong demand."
Then, on November 4, 2021, after the market closed, Peloton shocked
investors when it disclosed that it had revised its full year
revenue guidance down to a range of $4.4 to $4.8 billion dollars
due to declining demand as its customers were increasingly free to
exercise outside the home. And regarding inventory, Peloton
disclosed that inventory totaled $1.27 billion, a 35% increase over
the prior quarter, 91% of which were "finished products" that the
Company still held.
As a result of these disclosures, the price of Peloton common stock
declined by $30.42 per share, or over 35%, from a closing price of
$86.06 per share on November 4, 2021 to $55.64 per share on
November 5, 2021, erasing $8.1 billion in shareholder value.
For more information on the Peloton class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/PTON
DouYu International Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: DOYU)
Class Period: April 30, 2021 - May 9, 2023
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 8, 2023
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose,
among other things, that: (1) The Chinese government, due to
concerns about issues such as video game and computer addiction, as
well as content challenging its authority, could become
increasingly aggressive towards DouYu regardless of how effective
or sincere its attempts to comply with Chinese law were; (2) this
increasingly aggressive posture subjected DouYu to a heightened
risk of an investigation and subsequent government enforcement
action and ultimately resulted in enforcement action; and (3) as a
result, Defendants statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
For more information on the DouYu class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/DOYU
Futu Holdings Ltd. (NASDAQ: FUTU)
Class Period: April 27, 2020 - May 16, 2023
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 11, 2023
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose,
among other things, that: (1) Futu's business was, quite simply,
illegal as it related to operations in China as a result of its
failure to obtain the proper licenses; (2) it did not fully
disclose to investors that it was engaging in unlawful activity and
instead falsely characterized the applicable Chinese laws as
ambiguous; (3) the foregoing subjected the Company to a heightened
risk of regulatory enforcement; and (4) as a result, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
For more information on the Futu class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/FUTU
DZS, Inc. (NASDAQ: DZSI)
Class Period: March 10, 2023 - May 31, 2023
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 14, 2023
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose,
among other things, that: (1) DZS' financial statements from March
31, 2023 to the present contained certain errors; (2) as a result,
DZS would need to restate its previously filed quarterly financial
statement for the period ending March 31, 2023; (3) the Company had
ongoing undisclosed issues with its internal controls over
financial reporting; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements
about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
For more information on the DZS class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/DZSI
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
PENNSYLVANIA: A. P. Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pennsylvania
Department Of Education. The case is styled as A. P., by and
through his parents, U.P. and M.T., individually and on behalf of a
class of those similarly situated v. Pennsylvania Department Of
Education, Case No. 2:23-cv-02644 (E.D. Pa., July 11, 2023).
The nature if suit is stated as Education Civil Rights for
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
The Pennsylvania Department of Education --
https://www.education.pa.gov/Pages/default.aspx -- is the executive
department of the state charged with publicly funded preschool,
K-12 and adult educational budgeting, management and
guidelines.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Caroline Ramsey, Esq.
PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CENTER
2 Penn Center, 1500 JFK Blvd., Ste. 802
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: (267) 546-1314
Email: cramsey@pubintlaw.org
PHARMERICA CORP: Raney Sues Over Failure to Implement Data Security
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Raney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PHARMERICA CORPORATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-00353-BJB
(W.D. Ky., July 11, 2023), is brought arising out of the recent
cyberattack and data breach ("Data Breach") resulting from
PharMerica's failure to implement reasonable and industry standard
data security practices.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal
information--which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual
understanding that Defendant would protect it against
disclosure--was targeted, compromised, and unlawfully accessed due
to the Data Breach. PharMerica collected and maintained certain
personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and the putative
Class Members, who are (or were) patients at PharMerica or a
company that contracted with PharMerica.
The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included
Plaintiff's and Class Members' full names, addresses, dates of
birth, Social Security numbers, ("personally identifiable
information" or "PII") and medical and health insurance
information, which is protected health information (“PHI”, and
collectively with PII, "Private Information") as defined by the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
("HIPAA"). The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach
was exfiltrated by cyber-criminals and remains in the hands of
those cyber-criminals who target Private Information for its value
to identity thieves.
As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and approximately 5.8
million Class Members, suffered concrete injuries in fact
including, but not limited to: Plaintiff's Private Information
being disseminated on the dark web; Plaintiff experiencing an
increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails; lost or diminished
value of their Private Information; lost opportunity costs
associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of
the Data Breach, including but not limited to lost time; invasion
of privacy; loss of benefit of the bargain; and the continued and
certainly increased risk to their Private Information, which:
remains unencrypted and available for unauthorized third parties to
access and abuse; and remains backed up in Defendant’s possession
and is subject to further unauthorized disclosures so long as
Defendant fails to undertake appropriate and adequate measures to
protect the Private Information.
The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and
protocols necessary to protect its patients' Private Information
from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff received a Notice Letter, directly from Defendant,
via U.S. mail, dated June 14, 2023.
PharMerica is a national leader in pharmacy services, serving
partners and patients in over 3,100 long-term care, senior living,
IDD/behavioral health, home infusion, specialty pharmacy, and
hospital management programs across all fifty states.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John C. Whitfield, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
19 North Main Street
Madisonville, KY 42431
Phone: (270) 821-0656
Facsimile: (270) 825-1163
Email: jwhitfield@milberg.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (865) 247-0047
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Dean Meyer, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 646-8146
Email: dmeyer@milberg.com
- and -
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
5335 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 440
Washington, DC 20016
Phone: 866-252-0878
Email: dlietz@milberg.com
PIPSTICKS INC: Toro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pipsticks, Inc. The
case is styled as Jasmine Toro, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Pipsticks, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-05794
(S.D.N.Y., July 6, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Pipsticks -- https://www.pipsticks.com/ -- is an e-commerce
platform that offers printables, stationery, gift cards, holiday,
and goodies sticker products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
POSTAL FLEET SERVICES: Pair Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Joshua Pair, William Garner, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Postal Fleet Services
Inc., The Stageline Company, Vilano Employment Services, Inc., Don
Dorris, Leslie Dorris, Brenda Dorris, Case No. 5:21-cv-00759 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Oklahoma, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida on July 7, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-00785-MMH-LLL to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Postal Fleet Services, Inc. -- https://postalfleetsvs.com/ --
provides dedicated surface transportation service for the United
States Postal Service.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Molly E. Brantley, Esq.
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Phone: (405) 235-1560
Fax: (405) 239-2112
Email: meb@federmanlaw.com
wbf@federmanlaw.com
- and -
D. Colby Addison, Esq.
3901 Sendera Lakes Dr.
Moore, OK 73160
Phone: (405) 708-3066
Email: colby@addison.law
The Defendants are represented by:
Elaine R Turner
HALL ESTILL-OKC
100 N Broadway Ave., Suite 2900
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Phone: (405) 553-2828
Fax: (405) 232-8004
Email: eturner@hallestill.com
- and -
Joann M. Bricker
JOANN M. BRICKER
13105 Holsinger Blvd.
Jacksonville, FL 32256
Phone: (904) 342-2417
Email: jbricker-employlaw@comcast.net
PREMIER HEALTH CHOICE: Vazquez Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Premier Health Choice
LLC. The case is styled as Steve Vazquez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Premier Health Choice
LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-22504-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 6, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Premier Health Solutions, LLC -- https://premierhsllc.com/ -- is a
diversified medical consulting services company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN PA
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com
- and -
Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
31 Samana Drive
Miami, FL 33133
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN: Wade Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive Northern
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Danielle Wade,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Progressive Northern Insurance Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-04434
(N.D. Ill., July 10, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract for E.R.I.S.A.
Skin Savvy Medical Spa -- https://skinsavvy.com/ -- provides
injectables, laser treatments, skin rejuvenation, and body
care.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 Ne 1st Ave, Suite 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY: Woodstock Suit Removed to N.D. Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as John C. Woodstock, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Public Service Company of Oklahoma,
Homeserve USA Repair Management Corp., Case No. CJ-23-01977 was
removed from the Tulsa Cty. Dist. Ct., to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Oklahoma on July 7, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-00283-GKF-CDL to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Property Damage.
PSO Ranked #1 By J.D. Power -- http://www.psoklahoma.com/-- is
best in customer satisfaction with business electric service in the
south among midsize utilities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew D. Alison, Esq.
INDIAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW GROUP, PLLC
9 E 4th St. S., Ste. 204
Tulsa, OK 74103
Phone: (918) 347-6169
Email: matthew@iaelaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Norman Lance Bryan, Esq.
Tom Quintin Ferguson, Esq.
DOERNER SAUNDERS DANIEL & ANDERSON LLP (TULSA)
Two W. Second St., Ste. 700
Tulsa, OK 74103-3117
Phone: (918) 582-1211
Fax: (918) 591-5360
Email: lbryan@dsda.com
tferguson@dsda.com
- and -
Cathleen Whitaker McMahon, Esq.
GORDON & REES, SCULLY, MANSUKHANI, LLP
101 Park Ave., Ste. 1300
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Phone: (918) 645-7763
Email: cwmcmahon@grsm.com
- and -
Robert Alan Bragalone, Esq.
GORDON & REES LLP
2200 Ross Avenue, Ste. 3700
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (214) 231-4660
Fax: (214) 461-4053
Email: bbragalone@grsm.com
REEVE TRUCKING: Alexander Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reeve Trucking
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Travis Alexander, on behalf of
himself ad all others similarly situated and on behalf of the
generic public v. Reeve Trucking Company, Inc., Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2023-0007044 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., July
11, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Reeve Trucking Company, Inc. -- https://reevetrucking.com/ --
provides trucking and transport services. The Company offers
flatbed, reefer, vans, heavy haulers, and drop deck trucks.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel F. Gaines, Esq.
GAINES & GAINES, APLC
4550 E Thousand Oaks Blvd., Ste. 100
Westlake Village, CA 91362-3824
Phone: 818-703-8985
Fax: 818-703-8984
Email: daniel@gaineslawfirm.com
REV GROUP: Garfield Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
-----------------------------------------------------
ROBERT GARFIELD, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated stockholders of REV Group, Inc. and for the benefit of
nominal defendant REV, Plaintiff v. PAUL BAMATTER, JEAN MARIE
CANAN, DINO CUSUMANO, CHARLES DUTIL, JUSTIN FISH, JOEL ROTROFF,
MARK SKONIECZNY, RANDALL SWIFT, DONN VIOLA, AND AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL
PARTNERS, Defendants, and REV GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2023-0703 (Del. Ch., July 11, 2023) is
a verified stockholder class action and derivative complaint
brought against the Defendants for breaching their fiduciary
duties.
The complaint arises because REV's largest stockholder, AIP -- "a
middle market private equity firm that makes control investments"
-- has exploited its dominance of REV's Board to cause the Company
to authorize a stock repurchase program to imminently grant AIP
outright voting control over REV, with REV and its soon-to-be
minority stockholders footing the bill and receiving no control
premium in return.
According to the complaint, AIP currently owns approximately 46.1%
of REV's outstanding stock, and five of REV's nine directors are
AIP appointees and partners. On June 1, 2023, AIP exploited its
control of the Board to approve a $175 million stock repurchase
program. AIP's investment strategy demonstrates its intent to gain
control of REV, while REV's previous stock repurchases make clear
that a transfer of control is imminent and certain. AIP will soon
control REV outright through the 2023 Repurchase Program. Given
that the AIP-controlled Board just weeks ago authorized the 2023
Repurchase Program, REV plainly intends to continue to repurchase
stock in the near term to benefit the conflicted Board and AIP,
says the suit.
Through this complaint and related filings, Plaintiff seeks
expedited proceedings and a prompt hearing on a forthcoming motion
for preliminary injunction to prevent Defendants from using the
Company's funds and 2023 Repurchase Program for AIP to gain control
without paying a control premium. The Plaintiff also seek monetary
damages resulting from Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty and
aiding and abetting thereof after a full and prompt trial.
The Plaintiff is a stockholder of REV, and has held stock of REV at
all times relevant to the allegations herein.
REV is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
located in Brookfield, Wisconsin. Through its operating
subsidiaries, REV designs, manufactures, and distributes specialty
vehicles and related aftermarket parts and services, such as
ambulances, fire trucks, school buses, terminal trucks, industrial
sweepers, and recreational vehicles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J. Barry, Esq.
Christine M. Mackintosh, Esq.
Vivek Upadhya, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
123 Justison Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 622-7000
- and -
Christopher J. Orrico, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 722-8500
RLB USA: Fails to Properly Pay Store Employees, Cabrera Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ARMANDO GARCIA CABRERA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RLB USA SAFETY AND HARDWARE
INC. and MOHAMMED HOSSAIN, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-05267
(E.D.N.Y., July 10, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation,
failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate
wage statements.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a sales clerk and
cashier since approximately May 2023.
RLB USA Safety and Hardware Inc. is a hardware store owner and
operator based in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Erik M. Bashian, Esq.
BASHIAN & PAPANTONIOU, PC
500 Old Country Road, Ste. 302
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 279-1554
Facsimile: (516) 213-0339
E-mail: eb@bashpaplaw.com
- and -
Nolan Klein, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, PA
5550 Glades Road, Ste. 500
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (954) 745-0588
E-mail: klein@nklegal.com
amy@nklegal.com
melanie@nklegal.com
SAFECO INSURANCE: 11th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Signor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled GINA SIGNOR, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SAFECO
INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, Defendant-Appellee, Case No.
21-13148 (11th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit affirms the district court's order granting
summary judgment to Safeco.
The appeal arises out of an insurance dispute between Gina Signor
and Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois. After an accident in
which her vehicle suffered substantial damage, Signor made a claim
under her Safeco-issued insurance policy for the damage. Safeco
declared her vehicle a total loss and paid her what it deemed to be
the actual cash value of her vehicle.
According to Signor, under the terms of the insurance policy and
Florida law she was entitled to a greater payment. She sued Safeco,
claiming that it had breached the insurance policy in two ways.
First, she alleged that Safeco breached the policy because its
methodology to calculate actual cash value ran afoul of Florida
law. Second, she alleged that it breached the policy when it
refused to reimburse her for dealer fees (administrative fees
related to the sale of a vehicle) that she had to pay when she
purchased a new vehicle to replace her damaged one.
The district court granted summary judgment to Safeco, concluding
that it had not used an illegal methodology to calculate the
vehicle's actual cash value and was not required to reimburse
Signor for her dealer fees. After careful review, and with the
benefit of oral argument, the Court of Appeals affirms.
Unable to resolve the dispute with Safeco over the value of her
vehicle, Signor filed a putative class action against the insurer.
In her lawsuit, she alleged a breach of the policy and sought a
declaratory judgment that the policy did not allow Safeco to adjust
and settle total loss claims using the Certified Collateral
Corporation ONE Market Valuation system ("CCC system") and that
Safeco must pay dealer fees under the policy.
After discovery, the parties filed cross motions for summary
judgment. While discovery was pending, Signor filed a motion for
class certification, which the district court denied. She later
filed a motion to alter the class certification order, which the
district court also denied.
The district court granted summary judgment in Safeco's favor,
concluding that Safeco's methodology for calculating actual cash
value did not violate Florida law and that Safeco was not required,
in this instance, to pay dealer fees as part of the actual cash
value. Signor appealed.
First, Signor argues that the district court erred in granting
summary judgment on her claim that Safeco breached the policy by
using an illegal methodology to calculate actual cash value.
Second, she maintains that the district court erred in granting
summary judgment on her claim that Safeco was required to reimburse
her for the dealer fees she incurred in purchasing her new
vehicle.
Circuit Judge Jill Pryor, writing for the Panel, finds that the
district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Safeco
on the illegal methodology claim.
To sum up, Judge Pryor explains, Safeco's use of the Uniform
Condition Adjustment, advertised prices, and the CCC system to
calculate the actual cash value of Signor's vehicle complied with
the statute. The Court of Appeals, therefore, concludes that
Safeco's actual cash value methodology did not violate Florida
law.
The Court of Appeals also finds that the district court did not err
in granting summary judgment to Safeco on the dealer-fees claim.
Judge Pryor opines that Signor has failed as a matter of law to
satisfy the standard under Mills v. Foremost Insurance Co., 511
F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2008); therefore, the district court correctly
awarded Safeco summary judgment on this issue.
The Court of Appeals concludes that the district court did not err
in ruling that Safeco's methodology for calculating the actual cash
value of Signor's vehicle complied with Florida law and that Safeco
was not required to pay Signor for her out-of-pocket dealer fees.
Accordingly, the Panel affirms the judgment of the district court.
Affirmed.
Grant, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated July 3, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3xehs5fd from Leagle.com.
SAFETY INSURANCE: Judge Denies Class Certs in Insurance Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Insurance Journal reports that a judge in Massachusetts denied
class certifications for claimants seeking payments from two
insurers for the lost resale value of their motor vehicles that
were damaged in accidents and then repaired.
Suffolk County Superior Court Justice Kenneth W. Salinger ruled
that the damage and liability determinations being sought require
individualized proof and cannot be addressed through class
actions.
Plaintiffs Jarret McGilloway, Linda Estrella and Adam Ercolini
sought class certifications for their claims against Safety
Insurance Co. and the Commerce Insurance Co.
The two insurers allowed plaintiffs' claims for third-party
collision damage and paid to repair their vehicles and restore them
to their prior condition, but did not pay for alleged loss of
resale value.
The plaintiffs moved for class certifications on their claims for
breach of contract and for violation of the state's consumer
protection law. They filed separate motions, seeking certification
of one class with claims against Safety and a separate class with
claims against Commerce.
The proposed class with claims against Safety would have at least
26,000 members, while the class asserting claims against Commerce
would have roughly 470,000 members.
The kind of loss that plaintiffs sought to recover is known as
inherent diminished value or IDV. This term refers to "the concept
that a vehicle's fair market value may be less following a
collision and repairs" and it equals the "difference between the
resale market value of a motor vehicle immediately before a
collision and the vehicle's market value after a collision and
subsequent repairs."
The class action move followed a 2018 Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court ruling that the standard Massachusetts auto policy
required insurers to pay third-party collision damage claims for
IDV to vehicles that are damaged and subsequently repaired. [GN]
SHIPT INC: Faces Izenman Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------
JON IZENMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHIPT, INC., and DOES 1-20, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 23STCV16034 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
July 10, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General
Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants' violations include (a)
willful misclassification of Plaintiff and other aggrieved
employees as independent contractors; (b) requirement that
Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees work more than six days a
week without one day of rest; (c) requirement that Plaintiff and
other aggrieved employees enter into written agreements with
Defendants that contained numerous illegal provisions; (d) failure
to remit gratuities to Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees; (e)
failure to post the requisite information about time and place of
employment and failure to pay compensation in cash-negotiable
instruments; (f) improper deduction of costs of equipment and tools
necessary to Plaintiff's and other aggrieved employees' work for
Defendants, as well as improper deduction of costs associated with
damage to property and merchandise; (g) failure to allow Plaintiff
and other aggrieved employees to accrue and use paid sick days when
permitted; (h) failure to secure workers' compensation for
Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees; (i) failure to pay all
wages earned for labor performed each pay period; (j) failure to
pay earned minimum and/or overtime wages for all hours worked; (k)
failure to provide meal periods before the end of the fifth hour
worked and failure to pay an additional hour's pay in lieu of
providing a meal period before the end of the fifth hour worked;
(l) failure to authorize and permit rest breaks for every four
hours or major fraction thereof worked and failure to pay an
additional hour's of pay in lieu of providing a rest period; (m)
failure to provide wage statements containing all required
information; (n) failure to maintain required records of all hours
worked by Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees; (o) failure to
pay all wages earned and owed upon separation from Defendants'
employ; and (p) failure to indemnify Plaintiff and other aggrieved
employees for all necessary expenditures required by Defendants.
Shipt, Inc. is a provider of shopping delivery services based in
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald W. Makarem, Esq.
Samuel Almon, Esq.
Daniel J. Bass, Esq.
MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES APLC
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 312-0299
Facsimile: (310) 312-0296
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Szoke Alleges Illegal Overdraft Fee Collection
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHERRIE SZOKE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-23-015562 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial,
Broward Cty., July 11, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendant over (1) the improper assessment and collection of
overdraft fees on debit card transactions authorized on sufficient
funds, and (2)assessment of multiple fees on an item in violation
of the Florida Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act.
Through the imposition of these fees, Defendant has made
substantial revenue to the tune of millions of dollars, seeking to
turn its customers' financial struggles into revenue.
Unfortunately, Plaintiff, like thousands of others, has fallen
victim to Defendant's fee revenue maximization schemes, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Broward County, Florida
and has maintained a checking account with Defendant at all times
relevant hereto.
Southwest Airlines Federal Credit Union is a credit union with more
than $750 million in assets, with its principal place of business
located in Dallas County, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Winston S. Hudson, Esq.
Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq.
JOHNSON FIRM
610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 372-1300
E-mail: chris@yourattorney.com
tyler@yourattorney.com
winston@yourattorney.com
- and -
Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
950 Gilman Street, Suite 200
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com
- and -
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 280-4783
E-mail: jkaliel@kalielgold.com
SPOTOPTION: Founder Pini Peter Testifies in Fraud Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Simona Weinglass, writing for The Times of Israel, reports that in
his first-ever court testimony regarding his binary options
operations, industry kingpin Pini Peter railed against American law
enforcement, the media and even his Israeli competitors for
allegedly conspiring to paint him as a criminal.
Peter, also known as Malhaz Pinhas Patarkazishvili, testified in
Tel Aviv District Court last month in a preliminary hearing for a
June 2021 class-action suit alleging that his now-defunct company
SpotOption carried out "systematic fraud, unprecedented in scope,
of investors in Israel and around the world."
Shmulik Cassouto, an attorney who is representing the plaintiffs
along with Nir Friedman and Shahar Capusha, told the judge he
estimated SpotOption had carried out fraud to the tune of NIS 500
million ($134 million). Both SpotOption and Peter are named as
defendants in the suit.
SpotOption's Pini Peter at a Chabad event in Cyprus (Facebook) In
his first-ever court testimony regarding his binary options
operations, industry kingpin Pini Peter railed against American law
enforcement, the media and even his Israeli competitors for
allegedly conspiring to paint him as a criminal.
Peter, also known as Malhaz Pinhas Patarkazishvili, testified in
Tel Aviv District Court last month in a preliminary hearing for a
June 2021 class-action suit alleging that his now-defunct company
SpotOption carried out "systematic fraud, unprecedented in scope,
of investors in Israel and around the world."
Shmulik Cassouto, an attorney who is representing the plaintiffs
along with Nir Friedman and Shahar Capusha, told the judge he
estimated SpotOption had carried out fraud to the tune of NIS 500
million ($134 million). Both SpotOption and Peter are named as
defendants in the suit.
The testimony comes on the heels of a civil enforcement action by
the US Securities and Exchange Commission, which in April 2021
accused Peter of defrauding US investors alone out of over $100
million. The SEC alleged that SpotOption had used "deceptive and
manipulative" tactics, including rigging the trading platforms to
fix the outcomes of trades. Peter neither showed up in US court nor
sent an attorney to defend him against the allegations.
The SEC won a default judgment in January 2023, requiring
SpotOption to pay the US government $140 million and Peter
personally to pay $87 million. The judgment is not a criminal
conviction and Peter has never admitted any wrongdoing. In March,
Peter appealed the judgment.
Peter, 47, took the stand for the first time on June 26 to defend
himself against separate allegations, in the Israeli class action
lawsuit. He argued that his company was legitimate, and that those
leading the charges against him had ulterior motives.
"It's all political. There was an insane witch hunt against binary
options from every direction," he said.
In late 2017, the Israeli Knesset outlawed the binary options
industry for being largely fraudulent and tied to organized crime.
As one of the most dominant binary options companies, SpotOption
and its representatives Moshe Avrahami and Miri Mileikowsky pleaded
at the time on behalf of the entire industry in the Knesset.
But Peter claimed the ultimate decision to outlaw binary options
was not the outcome of a fair parliamentary process but a
conspiracy among his rivals.
"It was a terrific business, that's the problem. We were so
successful that the big forex companies and the banks decided to
kill our product," he told the court.
The fraudulent binary options industry flourished in Israel for
over a decade, from 2007, when the first such company, eTrader, was
founded, until the industry was outlawed by the Knesset in 2017, as
a direct result of The Times of Israel's investigative reporting,
which began with a March 2016 article entitled "The wolves of Tel
Aviv: Israel's vast, amoral binary options scam exposed." Many of
the Israeli firms have since relocated overseas and continued to
carry out internet investment fraud.
SpotOption, which later changed its name to Spot Tech House Ltd.,
was the largest firm providing trading platforms to binary options
companies, with hundreds of affiliated websites using its software,
marketing systems and business model, according to its own
marketing material. SpotOption brokers, or companies that ran
websites, employed thousands of Israelis in sales, marketing, and
technology development.
Fraudulent binary options companies ostensibly offered customers
worldwide a potentially profitable short-term investment, usually
by having them bet on whether a certain stock or commodity would go
up or down. But in reality -- through rigged trading platforms,
refusing to pay out winnings, and other ruses -- these companies
fleeced the vast majority of customers out of most or all of the
money they put in. The fraudulent salespeople routinely concealed
where they were located, misrepresented what they were selling, and
used false identities, according to law enforcement and testimony
from ex-employees.
The class-action lawsuit draws heavily on allegations made by the
US Securities and Exchange Commission in its April 2021 lawsuit
against SpotOption. It also draws on allegations made against
SpotOption in the course of prior prosecutions by the US Justice
Department, the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
against several brokers that used the SpotOption platform,
including Yukom Communications, LBinary, and websites owned by
Jared Davis.
The class-action lawsuit alleges that SpotOption both masterminded
the fraud and rigged the platform used by individual websites. In
its preliminary stage, the judge has to decide whether or not to
approve the lawsuit. Most class action suits are settled before
going to trial.
In his impassioned self-defense, Peter cited numbers even higher
than those estimated by his accusers.
"We had five million customers who deposited money in our system.
Five million and not a single complaint," he said.
SpotOption largely operated behind the scenes and it is therefore
possible that it received fewer complaints than brokers that
interacted directly with customers. Nevertheless, it is alleged to
have had significant influence and control over these brokers.
Meanwhile, a Cypriot sister company of SpotOption, Spot Capital
Markets, owned by Peter's father, has in fact been the subject of
fines or warnings from regulators in Cyprus, Poland, Australia and
elsewhere.
"We had more than 500 brands, from Brazil to China to Australia,
everywhere across the globe except for the US. We were the best. Do
you know how much that is, 500 brands?" said Peter.
The US Securities and Exchange Commission had previously put the
number of SpotOption partners at around 300.
The American 'steamroller'
During his mercurial three-hour testimony, Peter swung wildly
between shouting angry epithets and lavishing the plaintiffs'
attorney with endearments like "sweetheart" and "cutie," and
occasionally making self-deprecating jokes.
"My wife, thank God, has six children to raise and I am the seventh
child and the most problematic," he joked when asked about
SpotOption shares transferred to her in 2017.
Peter told the court that the years since 2017 have been difficult
for him, pointing to the Knesset ban, media reports alleging
SpotOption committed fraud, the class-action lawsuit, and, worst of
all, the SEC lawsuit.
"It was a heavy trauma, the American steamroller and the media
reports. These were like 100-kilo hammers on my head. It was very
hard. You see me standing here and I look like a man with
self-confidence, a strong Georgian man. But the Americans, they
crush you and grind you and grind you."
Peter also lashed out angrily against the SEC for the high sum of
the judgment.
"Doesn't that fine show how stupid the Americans are? And how
mentally unstable? The Americans just threw out that number. Where
did they get it from?"
"The Americans are liars," he added. "Liars is not… they're the
biggest mafia in the world."
Peter's relationship with American law enforcement had not always
been so adversarial, he testified, claiming he provided the SEC
with information that led to the surprise September 2017 arrest of
Lee Elbaz, the CEO of Yukom Communications, one of SpotOption's
bigger clients.
Yukom Communications had operated the websites BigOption.com and
BinaryBook.com using SpotOption's software and other tools provided
by the company. Elbaz went on trial in July 2019, and was convicted
and sentenced later that year to 22 years in prison for conspiring
to defraud investors out of $145 million.
"The SEC in the United States was in contact with us via the Israel
Securities Authority (ISA). The ISA asked us for material. We
cooperated with them from day one. The owners of the company Lee
Elbaz ran didn't know we were cooperating because if they had Lee
Elbaz would not have traveled to America," Peter testified.
Peter also pooh-poohed the SEC allegations, saying they were merely
"administrative."
"It's an administrative lawsuit. If the Americans really thought we
had done something wrong they would have brought criminal charges
like they did against Lee Elbaz," he said.
Aisha Johnson, a spokesperson for the SEC, declined to comment on
Peter's remarks, but sent The Times of Israel an affidavit
explaining the judgment amount, noting that "the SEC has only civil
enforcement authority; other U.S. agencies have jurisdiction over
criminal enforcement."
Civil charges brought against Peter resulted in an award of $13.3
in penalties and approximately $74.3 million in returned profit
plus interest, as well as "injunctive remedies," she said.
SpotOption was fined $66.2 million and also ordered to give back
$74.3 million in profits and interest.
Making money from customer losses
Among the accusations against SpotOption is that it made money when
investors lost, without clients being aware of that fact. The
arrangement results in a conflict of interest that can harm
consumers, according to regulators.
Peter defended the practice at some points in his testimony and at
others repudiated it.
"Did we earn money when the customer lost? Yes! That was the
business. It's not shameful, it's the business! When a person comes
along and wants to earn 80 percent in an hour he takes the risk
that he can lose," he said.
But at another point, Peter said he had actually been uncomfortable
with this business model.
"The idea that I make money when the customer loses -- the entire
leveraged trading world operates this way. But I didn't really like
it. There is a conflict of interest. I didn't like it," he said.
Peter said that when the Knesset outlawed binary options in late
2017 he could have opened a company that sold forex investments --
bets on global currency moves, which remained legal -- but decided
not to.
"I could have continued to work in forex. It was disgusting to me.
I did not want to work in this anymore. I threw the software in the
garbage, software that is worth millions, Your Honor. I swear to
you, I said I will not even sell this."
'Not my slide deck'
One of the plaintiffs' key pieces of evidence was a slide deck that
they claimed had been seized from SpotOption's Ramat Gan offices by
the FBI. The slide deck had been presented as evidence at the 2019
trial of Lee Elbaz, Cassouto said.
The slide deck instructs binary options sales agents in great
detail, and offers tips on how to prevent investors from
withdrawing their money. Peter repeatedly insisted that the slide
deck did not originate with SpotOption.
"That's something that Lee Elbaz gave the FBI," he said. "Lee Elbaz
would tell the Americans anything to save her butt and cast the
blame on us."
Peter acknowledged that some of the content in the slide deck was
objectionable, but proposed the theory that Lee Elbaz had
fabricated the content to shift the blame onto SpotOption.
"I can't confirm that this slideshow came from my company, I did
not write it, I never read it and it's not connected to me. You are
trying to connect me to things that have nothing to do with me," he
shouted.
In response to a Times of Israel query as to the origins of the
slide deck, the SEC responded: "The SEC did not prosecute the Lee
Elbaz case. We refer you to the Department of Justice on that
case."
The Times of Israel had not received a response from the US
Department of Justice prior to publication.
SpotOption, Peter insisted, had nothing to do with the end
customers.
"We were a technology company par excellence."
A 'stormy' life
Throughout his testimony, Peter shared a great deal of
autobiographical information, often unbidden, with the court.
He said he had moved to Israel at the age of two from the Soviet
Republic of Georgia, and in addition to Hebrew, speaks Georgian and
a little Russian. He said he grew up in Kfar Shalem, a
working-class neighborhood of Tel Aviv, where he exhibited business
acumen at an early age, despite spending a lot of time on the
"streets."
Peter followed in his father's footsteps and opened a money service
business, exchanging one country's currency for another. At the age
of 22, he said, he had a turnover of NIS 1 billion ($282 million).
His brother Boris was murdered in a July 1997 robbery by a group of
foreign workers from Colombia.
"I grew up in Kfar Shalem. At a young age I was shot at. They
murdered my brother. My life has been stormy all along," he told
the court.
"In business wherever I go, whatever I do, with the help of God I
succeed big-time. If I had had the privilege to study in a
university, today I might be the CEO of the biggest company."
Peter attributed some of his family's setbacks to the fact that
they come from the Caucasian country of Georgia.
"My father was a history teacher in Georgia; in Israel he became a
currency changer. My mother was the best math teacher in Tel Aviv
but no one would give her work. They turned her away everywhere,
just because her name was Patarkazishvili."
"But I have no complaints," he added a moment later.
Working hard and building empires
Peter attributed SpotOption's success to his own prodigious energy
and work ethic.
"I am creative, I am a doer. One of the reasons I like to work hard
and build empires is to help others. Truly. During the time of
SpotOption maybe I earned 60, 70 million shekels ($16-19m) but I
donated more than 15-20 million shekels ($4-$5m). I really like to
work for things."
Peter revealed to the court that he founded a charity for autistic
children and youth called Yad Layeled Hameyuhad (Lend a Hand to a
Special Child) whose flagship program is known as Gdolim Bemadim
(Grown Up in Uniform). But his name does not appear on the
paperwork of this charity, he said.
He said he had given the charity NIS 10 million ($2.7 million) over
the years.
"This is the biggest startup that I have established, thank God.
And it's not written anywhere, you won't see my name or how much I
donated. You won't see my name anywhere in connection to this
nonprofit. That was one of my conditions," he said.
In fact, SpotOption does appear in the charity registry as one of
the organization's donors, along with the Jewish National Fund, the
Jewish Agency, Rothstein Real Estate, and Friends of Lubavitch of
Florida, Inc., among others.
"My wife is also the chairperson of the charity. It's been ten
years. We established the first unit in Eilat in 2012. Today there
are 1,000 soldiers, blessed be God. Thanks to SpotOption, autistic
young people are serving in the army, Your Honor."
The charity has given rise to many occasions in which Peter has met
and been photographed with prominent Israeli politicians, including
the prime minister.
Judge encourages a compromise
At the end of Peter's testimony, Judge Hadas Ovadia declared the
evidentiary stage of the proceedings complete. She said she would
need to review the evidence in order to decide whether or not to
approve the next stage of the class action suit, but encouraged the
parties to reach a compromise on their own in order to lighten the
load on Israel's court system.
"It's a long road to approval of the lawsuit," Ovadia told the
plaintiffs, "and your chances are not good," she said, referring to
the fact that most initial requests for class action lawsuits in
Israel are rejected.
"What sum of money do you think is proportionate and reasonable? A
sum that will have a symbolic or deterrent effect?" she asked.
"She wants to take all my money," Peter muttered under his breath.
Cassouto said that despite the fact that he estimated the total
damage at NIS 500 million, he would accept NIS 20 million ($5.4
million), which would be used to compensate as many alleged victims
as could be found, with any remaining money used to fund an as-yet
to be determined nonprofit organization that benefits consumers.
Peter's lawyers immediately rejected the proposal.
In the coming weeks the sides will submit summaries of their
arguments to the court, then either await a decision from the judge
on whether the case can proceed, or decide to settle. [GN]
STATE FARM: District of Kansas Refuses to Dismiss Gulick Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Toby Crouse of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas issued a Memorandum and Order denying the Defendant's motion
to dismiss the lawsuit captioned PAULA GULICK, Plaintiff v. STATE
FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-02573-TC-GEB (D. Kan.).
Plaintiff Paula Gulick filed this lawsuit as a putative class
action on behalf of herself and other customers alleging breach of
contract and seeking a declaratory judgment against Defendant State
Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. State Farm moves to
dismiss for failure to state a claim.
The matter is an insurance dispute stemming from damage to Gulick's
vehicle that State Farm insured. It concerns the appropriate
calculation of the value of Gulick's totaled vehicle. Gulick and
her husband purchased an automobile insurance policy from State
Farm. Gulick filed a property damage claim regarding her insured
vehicle, and in May 2021, State Farm deemed the vehicle a total
loss.
State Farm elected to pay Gulick the actual cash value of the
vehicle. It followed a routine "total loss settlement process" in
which it obtained a "Market-Driven Valuation" report from an
outside vendor, Audatex. The report for Gulick's vehicle determined
that the "Total Condition Adjusted Market Value" was $16,816. This
figure was $882.75 less than it would have been had the typical
negotiation adjustment not been applied. State Farm adopted the
report's market value figure as Gulick's total loss claim and paid
her that amount.
Ms. Gulick's Amended Complaint, filed on behalf of herself and all
those similarly situated, contends that this methodology violates
the parties' agreement. She alleges, among other things, that State
Farm's reliance on Audatex's figure breached its obligation to pay
the vehicle's actual cash value. Essential to that claim, she
alleges that State Farm was required to consider her vehicle's fair
market value when determining the actual cash value. Because the
adjusted total fell below fair market value, Gulick alleges that
State Farm breached its promise to pay the actual cash value.
Based on this conduct, Gulick brings two claims. First, she alleges
that State Farm breached the insurance contract by using the
typical negotiation adjustment to pay her an amount below the
actual cash value of her vehicle. Second, she seeks a declaratory
judgment against State Farm to clarify the parties' rights and
liabilities under the insurance contract.
State Farm moves to dismiss both claims for failure to state a
claim. It argues that Gulick failed to identify a provision of the
policy that was plausibly breached. Alternatively, State Farm seeks
an order requiring her to amend her complaint with a more definite
statement as to what provision was breached and how.
As to the declaratory judgment claim, State Farm argues the claim
is superfluous in light of her breach of contract count. State Farm
also asserts that Gulick lacks Article III standing to bring a
declaratory judgment claim because the injury (the lesser insurance
payout) would be remedied through the breach of contract claim, and
that the likelihood of future injury from a total loss of her
vehicle is too remote to confer standing.
According to the Memorandum and Order, State Farm's motion to
dismiss is denied because Gulick alleges a plausible breach of
contract claim and has standing to bring her declaratory action.
And State Farm does not show why Gulick's declaratory action, which
is substantially similar to her breach claim, should be dismissed
as duplicative.
State Farm also moves to dismiss Gulick's declaratory judgment
claim for lack of standing and because it is duplicative of the
breach claim. Judge Crouse holds that neither of its argument is
persuasive. The Judge explains that neither the Declaratory
Judgment Act nor the federal rules prohibit Gulick from pleading
her claims for breach and declaratory judgment together, and State
Farm does not otherwise make a compelling argument why the
declaratory action should be dismissed at this stage.
For these reasons, State Farm's Motion to Dismiss is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated July 3,
2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/58wsbdsd from
Leagle.com.
TEAM ENTERPRISES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Cipolla Wage and Hour Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
lawsuit entitled FELICIA CIPOLLA, ALEXIS WOOD, BERNADETTE
BLANCHARD, SHIRIN LESSAN, DENNIS FISHER, and JAMIE ARIAS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. TEAM ENTERPRISES, LLC, NEW TEAM LLC, doing business
as TEAM ENTERPRISES, Defendants, Case No. C 18-06867 WHA (N.D.
Cal.).
In this wage-and-hour putative class action, the Defendants move to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs in turn move for class
certification.
The Plaintiffs are part-time models called "promotional specialist"
based in California. They bring suit against their employers, two
Florida-based marketing companies, collectively "Team Enterprises,"
for various alleged violations of the California Labor Code.
Promotional specialists go to various venues, set up tables, and
advertise products during social events. The products -- usually
beers and spirits -- are provided by third-party clients, who have
contracted with Team Enterprises. The goal is to encourage the
product's purchase by interacting with potential customers,
providing samples, and taking numerous photos.
Using an app called "Brand Trend," the promotional specialists are
free to pick up any shift that works with their schedule at any
location and submit their time after each event. Shifts are
typically three hours long but can be more or less time depending
on the particular event. Two promotional specialists normally
attend an event -- one acting as a "team lead" and the other
working as support. The team lead often must retrieve a "kit" a day
or two before the event begins, which contains promotional
materials like posters, signage, banners, and branded swag.
Team Enterprises pays a flat fee of five dollars to team leads for
retrieving these kits but does not keep track of the dates or
distances promotional specialists travel to do so, which can vary.
At the end of each event, the models must complete a "recap" and
upload it to the Brand Trend app. When it comes time to submit
hours after the shift, the app pre-populates the start and end
times of the given event but provides an option to manually alter
the times as needed before pressing submit. All promotional
specialists use their personal cellphones to access the Brand Trend
app and complete their required job duties.
In their fourth amended complaint, the Plaintiffs allege, inter
alia, that they work off-the-clock regularly, are not paid for
overtime work, are not provided required meal and rest breaks (or
required premiums if such breaks are missed) and are not reimbursed
for business expenses. A prior order denied the Plaintiffs'
previous motion for class certification due to the failure of the
then-class representative to satisfy typicality under Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23.
The Plaintiffs were granted leave, however, to find a more suitable
named plaintiff and file a fourth amended complaint. Of note, all
promotional specialists signed an arbitration agreement, but, as of
February 2019, an updated agreement created a carve-out for
"pending litigation," such as this civil action. Thus, the class
proposed in this motion involves approximately 357 employees, who
signed the 2019 agreement and are free to proceed with these
claims.
The Defendants now move to dismiss the newly filed complaint due to
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and the Plaintiffs move for
class certification.
The Defendants challenge subject-matter jurisdiction on the grounds
that the new complaint does not adequately allege a
five-million-dollar amount in controversy sufficient for
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. As to the factual
challenge, both parties agree that the amount in controversy must
have been met at the time of the original complaint, but both now
also rely on experts, who estimate damages based on class-wide data
that was not available at the time of the original complaint. The
Defendants' expert says at most only $3,109,848 can be recovered
while the Plaintiffs' expert says $5,872,500 can be recovered.
With some misgivings, Judge Alsup says this Order holds the
five-million-dollar threshold is met and, therefore, CAFA
jurisdiction existed under 28 USC 1332(d)(2) when this action
began.
Given that the Plaintiffs did not have access to the full class
profile data at the time of the complaint, Judge Alsup opines that
it is unfair to criticize the estimate as made in bad faith or
insufficient merely because it does not correspond exactly with the
data now revealed. On the face of the complaint, an inference using
basic arithmetic can show satisfaction of the amount in
controversy.
The Defendants' "factual challenge" is equally unpersuasive, Judge
Alsup holds. The Plaintiffs' expert calculations plausibly satisfy
the amount requirement even if certain assumptions are reduced.
Judge Alsup points out that the jurisdictional statement does not
frustrate the local rules or the past order's directive to be
"clear and concise."
Lastly, Judge Alsup finds that Jamie Arias is an adequate
representative. He opines that the Defendants make a mountain out
of a molehill in attempting to discredit the slight inconsistencies
in her declarations as compared to her deposition. These small
errors do not rise to the level of impeachment that would prejudice
the class. At trial, though, defense counsel may try to impeach
her. Hence, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied.
With respect to the motion for class certification, the Order finds
there is no practical class-wide method of proof for most of the
smorgasbord of wage and hour claims. Three narrow issues may be
certified, however, using the Defendants' class profile data to
accurately identify those allegedly entitled to relief, Judge Alsup
holds.
The Plaintiffs move on three theories of claims: (1) failure to pay
promotional specialists for "off-the-clock" work; (2) failure to
provide meal and rest breaks (or failure to pay associated premiums
when such breaks are missed) and (3) failure to provide
reimbursement for business expenses. Within each theory, the
Plaintiffs propose a series of different scenarios that would
allegedly entitle promotional specialists to relief.
Plaintiffs argue defendants maintain a "policy and practice" of
only paying for scheduled time rather than actual hours worked. The
Defendants counter that their policies are facially lawful and the
Plaintiffs allege here "a de facto" unlawful policy that relies on
individualized issues, unsuitable for resolution on a class-wide
basis.
Judge Alsup says there is no class-wide method to prove liability
for these scenarios. Although there is some evidence of managers
sending emails to arrive fifteen minutes earlier to certain events,
such emails do not rise to the level of a class-wide policy.
Certain issues, however, may be addressed and resolved using the
Defendants' class profile data.
Reimbursement related to driving expenses allegedly accrued while
picking up kits (i.e., mileage, tolls, and parking fees) will not
be certified due to the difficulty in discerning who in fact picked
up kits, Judge Alsup holds.
For these reasons, Judge Alsup denies the Defendants' motion to
dismiss. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied
in part and granted in part. Trial will take place on Monday, Jan.
22, 2024, at 7:30 a.m., with a final pretrial conference on
Wednesday, Jan. 17, 2024.
Counsel will submit a proposed form of class notice and a plan for
distribution by July 25 at noon. Judge Alsup asks not to waste time
with motions to reconsider or to "clarify."
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated July 3, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3n9ctjc5 from Leagle.com.
TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Taylor Swift Tickets Fraud Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtney Yuen, writing for 9News, reports that thousands of
Swifties have taken over Denver in the last few days for Taylor
Swift's two-night Eras Tour.
But, to get tickets for the performances was a nightmare for a lot
of people, resulting in hundreds of fans suing Ticketmaster in a
class action lawsuit as reported by Denver Gazette media partner
9News
More than 300 Taylor Swift fans are suing the major ticket sales
and distribution company after allegations of misrepresentation,
fraud and anti-trust violations that took place back in November
when tickets for the Eras Tour went on sale.
"I just feel bad for a lot of the Swifties who are true fans who
weren't able to get tickets because of all that," said Kyle
Sakacs.
Back in November, Taylor Swift fans called the process to buy
tickets for the Eras Tour a disaster.
"It kept kicking me out at first and finally I got the seats," said
Kayla O'Malley.
Fellow Swifties and besties, Sakacs and O'Malley, said they're glad
some fans are taking action with a lawsuit against Ticketmaster.
"They shouldn't be allowing all these people that don't even want
to go to the concert, they just want to resell the tickets and make
a profit out of it," said Sakacs.
Denver resident Joe Akmakjian is one of the 355 plaintiffs suing
Ticketmaster.
"This was such a big display of those predatory practices that I
felt like there had to be something that needed to be done," said
Joe Akmakjian.
"That first day I waited nine hours to get a ticket and didn't
secure them. Luckily the next day I had a Capital One credit card
so I was able to get tickets that day but I got the last three in
the entire stadium," said Akmakjian. "Within six minutes of tickets
going on sale on the east coast, they were already on the resale
market."
Tickets for the last night of the tour in Denver were around a
thousand bucks a pop for nose bleeds.
"The queue got backed up by a lot of bots and people who didn't
have codes, so by the time you got into the platform, the tickets
were taken," said Akmakjian. "It's very shady to me that the bots
are able to do that and Ticketmaster seems to be allowing it."
He said he isn't suing for the money, but rather wants change that
prioritizes fans over big resellers.
"We knew that Taylor Swift tickets were going to be hard to come by
and it was going to be a fight to get those tickets anyway, but
what we wanted was a fair chance to get tickets and that's not what
was given to us," said Akmakjian.
He said some fans were processing their payments for tickets, only
to be told the price changed and they'd have to pay a few hundred
more.
"Or, they would change the ticket once they got their confirmation.
They said, 'I know you bought this seat in this row but actually
that one got purchased by someone else, so here's a comparable
ticket,' so the terms and conditions that people were agreeing to
didn't really matter because Ticketmaster was selling them whatever
they wanted to at whatever price they felt was necessary," said
Akmakjian.
The lawsuit hasn't gone to trial yet, but there's a hearing in Los
Angeles later on in July that will determine whether the case stays
in federal court or moves to state court.
"I really just hope for the next tour, it's a lot more smooth,
people are able to get tickets and more people are able to
experience a Taylor Swift concert."
Ticketmaster did give some fans a second chance at buying tickets
after their website crashed back in November.
Akmakjian said he will consider the lawsuit a win if they can get
more transparency on the fees Ticketmaster charges, while
prioritizing fans over big resellers.[GN]
TOP TECH: Underpays Forklift Drivers, Maldonado Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
ISAI HERNANDEZ MALDONADO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOP TECH AUDIO INC., and TONY
CHALOUH, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-05243 (E.D.N.Y., July 10,
2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to provide wage notices, failure to provide accurate wage
statements, and failure to timely pay wages.
The Plaintiff was employed as a forklift driver and warehouse
worker at the Defendants' audio equipment wholesale business known
as "Top Tech Audio" located in New York from approximately July
2017 to, through and including June 13, 2023.
Top Tech Audio Inc. is an audio equipment company doing business in
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0046
E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com
TWITTER INC: Former Employees in Africa Sue Over Severance Package
------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Madowo, writing for CNN, reports that former employees of
Twitter Africa who were laid off as part of a global cost-cutting
measure after Elon Musk's acquisition have not received any
severance pay more than seven months since leaving the company,
several sources told CNN.
In late May, the former employees, who were based in the Ghanaian
capital Accra, accepted Twitter's (TWTR) offer to pay them three
months worth of severance, the cost of repatriating foreign staff
and legal expenses incurred during negotiations with the company,
but they have not received the money or any further communication,
the sources said.
"They literally ghosted us," one former Twitter Africa employee
told CNN.
"Although Twitter has eventually settled former staff in other
locations, Africa staff have still been left in the lurch despite
us eventually agreeing to specific negotiated terms."
The former employees say they reluctantly agreed to the severance
package without benefits, even though it was less than what
colleagues elsewhere received.
"Twitter was non-responsive until we agreed to the three months
because we were all so stressed and exhausted and tired of the
uncertainty, reluctant to take on the extra burdens of a court case
so we felt we had no choice but to settle," another former employee
told CNN.
The former employees spoke to CNN on condition of anonymity because
they said they were asked to sign non-disclosure agreements as part
of their exit terms.
According to Carla Olympio, an attorney who is representing the
former employees, the last communication from Twitter or its
lawyers was in May, shortly after settlement was agreed.
CNN reached out to Twitter for comment on the status of the
severance package for the former employees in the Ghana office but
received an automated response - a poop emoji. It's unclear whether
Twitter still has a media relations department.
In March, Musk tweeted that Twitter would respond to all press
inquiries with the poop emoji. He completed a deal to buy the
social media platform in October.
CNN also asked Ghana's Ministry of Employment and Labor Relations
for comment. A spokesperson said they are investigating the
claims.
Whether Ghanaian authorities can compel Twitter to comply with the
settlement is uncertain. The former employees and their attorney
say the offer was never finalized.
Recently opened office
The dozen or so team members were laid off just four days after the
social network opened a physical office in Accra last November.
Some of them said they had moved to Ghana from other African
nations, and depended on their jobs at Twitter to support their
legal status in the country.
"Unfortunately, it appears that after having unethically
implemented their terminations in violation of their own promises
and Ghana's laws, dragging the negotiation process out for over
half a year, now that we have come to the point of almost
settlement, there has been complete silence from them for several
weeks," Olympio said.
Twitter and Musk face multiple lawsuits where plaintiffs are
claiming the company has failed to pay former staffers what they
are owed.
Last week, a former US employee filed a proposed class action
lawsuit claiming the company didn't pay the full amount of
severance benefits it promised last November prior to mass
layoffs.
The plaintiff said Twitter promised senior employees severance of
six months of base pay plus one week for every year of service, in
addition to other benefits. Instead, the plaintiff said they
received a total of three months of pay, according to the lawsuit.
In response to a request for comment on the lawsuit, Twitter sent
CNN an automated poop emoji.
In April, Musk told the BBC more than 6,000 people had been laid
off since he completed his acquisition of the company in late
October.
"We're exploring our options with respect to causes of action
against Twitter in various jurisdictions including Ghana," Olympio
told CNN.
Twitter did not open negotiations with the African team until after
CNN reported in November that they had been offered separation
terms that differed from those offered to departing staff in Europe
and North America. [GN]
UNITED STATES: Lewis Appeals Judgment Entered in Medicare Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Carol A. Lewis, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's June 8, 2023 Order entered in their lawsuit
entitled Carol Lewis, et al. v. Xavier Becerra, in his capacity as
Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human
Services, Case No. 1:18-cv-02929-RBW, in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia.
The Plaintiffs, Carol Lewis and Douglas Sargent, bring this civil
action on December 13, 2018 against Xavier Becerra, in his official
capacity as the Secretary of the United States Department of Health
and Human Services, pursuant to Title XVIII of the Social Security
Act; the Administrative Procedure Act; and the Declaratory Judgment
Act arising from the denial of coverage of the Plaintiffs' Medicare
claim.
According to the Plaintiffs, over a considerable period of time,
the Secretary has defied Congress' will by refusing to provide
Medicare coverage for diabetic patients needing continuous glucose
monitors (CGMs). These FDA-approved, life-saving devices
continuously test glucose levels and alert patients to changes.
Without these devices, the Plaintiffs contend, many diabetes
patients suffer a risk of slipping into a diabetic coma and death.
On June 8, 2023, Judge Reggie B. Walton entered a Memorandum &
Opinion and Order granting the Defendant's July 14, 2022 Motion for
Partial Entry of Judgment in Plaintiffs' Favor, and to Dismiss
Remaining Causes of Action and Claims for Relief on Mootness
Grounds. The Court further ORDERED that summary judgment is ENTERED
for the plaintiff on Count III of the Complaint, to the extent that
it seeks (1) reversal and vacatur of the Secretary's decisions as
arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not
in accordance with the law, and (2) issuance of an order finding
that a continuous glucose monitor (CGM), including those CGMs for
which the plaintiffs sought coverage, and their related supplies
are covered durable medical equipment; that the administrative
decisions denying the plaintiffs' coverage claims are VACATED; that
CGMs, including those CGMs for which the plaintiffs sought
coverage, and their related supplies are covered durable medical
equipment; and that the plaintiffs' remaining claims are DISMISSED
AS MOOT. Additionally, the court ORDERED that the case be CLOSED.
The appellate case is captioned as Carol Lewis, et al. v. Xavier
Becerra, Case No. 23-5152, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on July 7, 2023.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Carol A. Lewis, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by:
Jenlain Scott, Esq.
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
3000 K Street, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20007-5109
Telephone: (202) 672-5300
Defendant-Appellee Xavier Becerra, in his capacity as Secretary of
the United States Department of Health and Human Services, is
represented by:
DOJ Appellate Counsel
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 514-2000
VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Knapp Sues Over Defective Inflators
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDY KNAPP, ENIKO GEDO, EVA JACINTO, PATRICIA JONES, and FRANCINE
LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT; AUDI
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT; AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC; and VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF
AMERICA, INC., D/B/A AUDI OF AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-00889-MSN-WEF (E.D. Va., July 10, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for fraud by omission and concealment,
unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty of merchantability, violations of state consumer
protection laws and unfair competition laws in the U.S.
The case arises from the Defendants' production, marketing, and
selling of vehicles with defective inflators. Instead of protecting
Class members during a crash, the defective inflators may explode,
sending shrapnel into the passenger compartment and injuring or
killing occupants. The Plaintiffs and Class members were not aware
of the defect when they purchased or leased their Class vehicles.
Had they known the truth about the inflator defect, they would not
have purchased or leased the Class vehicles or would have paid
significantly less for them, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs and the Class assert nationwide and state claims and
seek all available damages, penalties, and punitive damages for the
Defendants' misconduct. The Plaintiffs also seek declaratory and
injunctive relief, including a court order directing the Defendants
to expeditiously repair the Class vehicles with demonstrably safe
airbags.
Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft is an automobile manufacturer based
in Germany.
Audi Aktiengesellschaft is an automobile manufacturer based in
Germany.
Audi of America, LLC is a distributor of Audi brand vehicles sold
in the U.S., with its principal place of business in Virginia.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., doing business as Audi of
America, Inc., is a company that markets Volkswagen vehicles in the
U.S., with its principal place of business located at 2200 Woodland
Pointe Ave., Herndon, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steven T. Webster, Esq.
WEBSTER BOOK LLP
300 N. Washington St., Suite 404
Alexandria, VA 22314
Telephone: (888) 987-9991
E-mail: swebster@websterbook.com
- and -
Nathan D. Finch, Esq.
Kevin R. Dean, Esq.
Lance Oliver, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
28 Bridgeside Boulevard
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (843) 216-9000
E-mail: nfinch@motleyrice.com
kdean@motleyrice.com
loliver@motleyrice.com
WW GRAINGER: Sanchez Suit Removed to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jenyfer Farias Sanchez, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated v. W.W. GRAINGER, INC., and DOES 1 to
100, inclusive, Case No. CV-23-003187 was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Stanislaus, to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
on July 10, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-at-00576.
The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts claims for: failure to provide
meal periods in violation of Labor Code; failure to provide rest
periods in violation of Labor Code; Failure to pay all wages in
violation of under Labor Code; Knowing and intentional failure to
comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions; Failure to
timely pay wages due at termination; failure to timely pay
employees in violation of Labor Code; Failure to reimburse for
business expenses in violation of Labor Code; Failure to pay for
all hours worked, including overtime hours worked in violation of
Labor Code; Failure to provide place of employment that is safe and
healthful in violation of Labor Code; and Violations of Business &
Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael J. Nader, Esq.
Elizabeth D. Rhodes, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-840-3150
Facsimile: 916-840-3159
Email: michael.nader@ogletree.com
elizabeth.rhodes@ogletree.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***