/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230728.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, July 28, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 151
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Brown Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
3M COMPANY: Carter Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Dunkerly Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Earls Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Emerson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Foughty Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Hall Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Martinez Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Miller Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Orourke Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Smith Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Vaughn Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
A&W CONCENTRATE: Judge Preliminarily Approves $15M Settlement
A-1 COLLECTION: Fullmer Bid to Certify Class Partly OK'd
ACCOLADE INC: To Settle Auto-debit Row in California Court
ACUITY BRANDS: Data Breach Suits in Georgia Court Ongoing
ADORAMA INC: Agrees to Settle Video Info Sharing Class Action
AEGIS MEDIA: Kennedy Suit Seeks Class Certification
ALLIANZ SE: To Settle Class Action Over 401(k) Plan
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Bid to Amend Pleadings Due Feb. 5, 2024
AMERICAN EQUITY: Juan Monteverde Investigates Brookfield Sale
AMERICAN HONDA: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to August 14
AMERIGAL CONSTRUCTION: Renewed Bid for Collective Status Sought
ASUSTEK COMPUTER: CSK&D LLP Investigates ROG Ally Class Action
BANK OF AMERICA: Open Bank Accounts Without Consent, Ballard Says
BEAUFORT COUNTY, SC: Scheduling Order in Munday Amended
BENEFICIENT: Faces Scura Shareholder Suit Over Bond Sale
BETA ELECTRIC: Faces Ortez Wage-and-Hour Suit in D.N.J.
BOLTHOUSE FARMS: Faces Class Action Over PFAs in Smoothies
BUMBLE INC: Must Face BIPA Class Action, Judge Rules
CIGNA HEALTH: Court Tosses Neufeld Bid for Class Certification
CIGNA HEALTH: Judge Denies Motion to Certify Class Action
CIRCOR INTERNATIONAL: Juan Monteverde Investigates KKR Sale
COCA-COLA CO: Faces Class Action Over PFAS in Juice Products
CREDIT SUISSE: Shareholders Have Until Aug. 4 to Join Suit
DANAHER CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 15
DELTA AIR: Class Action Over Carbon-Neutral Claim Pending
DERMATOLOGY AND COSMETIC: Sued Over Hygiene and Safety Breaches
DESERT FIRE: Laube Bid for Atty's Fees, Costs Partly OK'd
EDGIO INC: Faces Assad Stockholder Suit in Delaware Court
EDGIO INC: Faces Botelho Stockholder Suit in Delaware Court
EDGIO INC: Faces Mehran Stockholder Suit in Delaware Court
FCTI INC: Order on Bids for Class Certification Entered
GEICO INDEMNITY: Remand Ruling in Drivers' Class Suit Discussed
GOOGLE LLC: 7th Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Privacy Class Action
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Action Over Tax Info Sharing
H&R BLOCK: Parker Waichman Files Privacy Class Action in New York
HCA HEALTHCARE: Class Actions Over Data Breach Pile Up
HIH INSURANCE: DC Legal Sues Ex-Solicitor Over Settlement
HOME BOX: Averts Meta Data Privacy Class Action
HSBC GLOBAL: Faces Class Action for Engaging in "Closet Indexing"
JACKSON COUNTY, MO: Independence City Votes to Join Tax Class Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Collaza Sues Over Mislabeled Analgesic Drug
JUSTANSWER LLC: Foley & Lardner Attorneys Discuss ARL Class Suit
MACKENZIE INVESTMENTS: Merchant Law Group Files Privacy Class Suit
META PLATFORMS: Aug. 25 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
META PLATFORMS: Faces Teen Mental Health Class Suit in Louisiana
META PLATFORMS: Oct. 11 BIPA Deal Approval Hearing Set Oct. 11
MG BILLING: Porn Site Users File Class Action Over Membership
MINEBEA MITSUMI: $9.75MM Settlement to be Heard on October 12
MJ FRAMING & DRYWALL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Midence Alleges
NEOVIA LOGISTICS: Sued Over Employee Fingerprint Scans
OMNI FINANCIAL: Court Consolidates Appeals in Wood Lending Suit
PETLAB CO: Sued in California Over Auto Renewal Purchases
RAIN ONCOLOGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 12
RIPPLE LABS: SEC Case Victory May Undermine XRP Class Action
ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Aniol Says
SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Sued Over Hydrocortisone Cream's False Ads
SCHNUCK MARKETS: Settles False Ads Class Action for $4 Million
SIMPSON STRONG-TIE: Homeowner Class Action Can Proceed
SL GREENFIELD: Appeals Court Vacates Order, Remands Wage Case
SUDS BY THE PARK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Alleges
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Supreme Court Ruling in PAGA Claims Discussed
WALTER KIDDE: Faces False Advertising Class Action
WESTERN DIGITAL: Silver Golub & Teitell Investigates False Ads Suit
WORKDAY INC: Seeks Dismissal of AI Class Action in California
[*] Michigan's Marquette County Board Joins PFAS Class Action
[*] SFFA Case Ruling May Have More Widespread Implications
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 20 States Challenge Bestwall’s Asbestos Shield
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Sues Doctors Linking Talc Use to Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victims Asks 4th Circuit to Rehear Bestwall Ch. 11
*********
3M COMPANY: Brown Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
----------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Charles Brown, et al., v. 3M Company, et al.,
Case No. 01-CV-2023-901983.00 was removed from the Circuit Court
for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama, to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
on July 12, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00906-ACA.
The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other the Defendants
liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing,
and/or selling aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and/or
firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used
in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to the
Plaintiffs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
Email: gregc@elglaw.com
gary@elglaw.com
kmckie@elglaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
M. Christian King, Esq.
Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq.
W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq.
Wesley B. Gilchrist, Esq.
LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C.
The Clark Building
400 North 20th Street
Birmingham, AL 35203-3200
Phone: (205) 581-0700
Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com
hprater@lightfootlaw.com
lradney@lightfootlaw.com
wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com
3M COMPANY: Carter Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Doris Jean Carter, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-03178-RMG (D.S.C., July 2,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with
hyperthyroidism as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Dunkerly Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin J. Dunkerly, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-03334-RMG (D.S.C., July 13,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with hypothyroidism
as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Earls Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Lee Earls, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-03181-RMG (D.S.C., July 2,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with hypothyroidism
as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Emerson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Michael Emerson, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-03335-RMG (D.S.C., July 13,
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: Foughty Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Lee Foughty, Jr., and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-03336-RMG (D.S.C., July 13,
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: Hall Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Billy Hall, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-03171-RMG (D.S.C., June 30, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Martinez Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Martinez, as Surviving Spouse and Heir to the Estate of
Stephen Manzano Martinez, 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-03325-RMG (D.S.C., July 12, 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 Kimberly Martinez is is the Surviving Spouse of, and
Heir to the Estate of, Stephen Manzano Martinez, 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 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:
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: Miller Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Miller, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-03338-RMG (D.S.C., July 13, 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: Orourke Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul A. Orourke, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-03182-RMG (D.S.C., July 2, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer
as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Smith Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edmund Smith, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-03339-RMG (D.S.C., July 13, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with bladder cancer
as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Vaughn Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Teresa M. Vaughn, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-03183-RMG (D.S.C., July 2, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer
as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
A&W CONCENTRATE: Judge Preliminarily Approves $15M Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Lakamp, writing for The Buffalo News, reports that it's a
question you might expect to hear in a kitchen -- not a courtroom:
The vanilla and banana flavoring in Bumbu Original Craft Rum make
it closer to a sweet, syrupy liqueur -- not rum, one consumer suit
argued.
Without butter, can you really call it a shortbread cookie?
But that's what U.S. District Judge John L. Sinatra Jr. had to
decide in a recent lawsuit over the labeling of Nabisco's Lorna
Doone cookies.
Other foods have been on his docket, too, as he and other judges in
Western New York have seen an uptick in such lawsuits.
There are cases about whether brands are genuine. Is it misleading
to market tortillas as "A Taste of Mexico!" or use ancient-Greek
font on packages of feta cheese when they are made in the United
States?
Another sued over what to call his drink. The vanilla and banana
flavoring in his bottle of Bumbu Original Craft Rum make it closer
to a sweet, syrupy liqueur -- not rum, the Niagara Falls man said.
And it's not just edible products on the court's plate.
The Febreze brand of air fresheners promises to "eliminate odors,"
but a Hamburg woman's lawsuit contends the product "merely
envelops" odors to reduce their release into the air.
A Buffalo woman says she was "taken in" by the stylized design of
flowers, leaves and butterflies on her bottle of Gain Original
Aroma Boost. The packaging makes the detergent seem more
environmentally friendly than it really is, according to her
lawsuit.
There's a reason for the increase in these product-labeling
lawsuits. And his name is Spencer Sheehan.
Credit or blame the Long Island attorney, who filed all but a few
of the local cases and has sued hundreds of manufacturers and
retailers across the nation. Sheehan has filed 20 federal cases in
Western New York since 2021, and he's on pace this year to exceed
the 10 cases he filed here last year. A prolific class-action
filer, Sheehan has filed most of his 545 federal lawsuits since
2020 in New York City and Chicago.
Beyond testing the patience of corporate defense lawyers, the sheer
number of Sheehan's cases caught the attention of one federal
judge, who noted that Sheehan doesn't win many of them.
"By the look of things, attorney Sheehan is filing consumer fraud
cases over and over again, seemingly covering just about every
aisle in the grocery store, without much success," Chicago-based
U.S. District Judge Steven C. Seeger said in a recent court order.
"At some point, a losing streak should tell you something.
"Sheehan keeps bringing cases about how to read product labels, but
he can't seem to read the tea leaves from the judiciary," Seeger
said.
Seeger, however, did call a Sheehan case before him about
"butterless butter spray" a notable exception.
"They might roll their eyes, but I think they like them," Sheehan
told The Buffalo News about the federal judges who preside over his
cases.
Product-labeling cases can seem like a refreshing break from the
serious criminal matters that fill court calendars.
"It can seem like it's kind of silly," Sheehan said. "But the
allegations in these complaints are based on laws and regulations.
There are laws about these things. And I do my best to bring those
to the court's attention."
'Reasonable consumers'
Sheehan acknowledges his legal losses but adds, "We often do have
success."
"For most plaintiffs in federal and state court, you're going to
lose most of the time, no matter what the case," he said.
His case against Lorna Doone cookies crumbled. He represented a
consumer who said she "believed and expected" ingredients like
butter to be included in the cookies. Court papers from Sheehan
included a passage from "How to Bake," published by Harper Collins,
that noted, "You can't make shortbread without butter."
The company's lawyers replied that "nothing in her complaint
suggests that reasonable consumers share her far-fetched
interpretation of shortbread."
Sinatra, the federal judge in Buffalo who handled the case,
dismissed the lawsuit earlier this year.
"While avid bakers and pastry chefs might insist on butter in
shortbread -- for reasons of tradition or quality or taste -- it is
unreasonable to conclude that reasonable consumers would expect
butter in a mass-produced shortbread cookie -- where the label and
packaging are clear that there is no butter," Sinatra ruled.
Other product-labeling cases not involving Sheehan have been
dismissed, too.
A Buffalo man sued over the packaging of La Banderita Taco Size
Flour Tortillas, which he bought at a West Seneca grocery store.
The Mexican flag, the phrase "A Taste of Mexico!" as well as the
brand name "La Banderita" and the word "Authentic" appear on the
label, which he said caused him to believe the tortillas were made
in Mexico.
The back of the packaging is clear, in English, about the origin:
"MADE IN U.S.A."
"At worst, the front-label representations are ambiguous as to
where the tortillas are made, which is resolved after reading the
clear country of manufacture on the back of the package," Sinatra
ruled.
His ruling in that case might offer a clue about the prospects of
Sheehan's feta cheese case. His lawsuit against Lactalis American
Group, headquartered in Buffalo, alleges the label for the
Président brand gives consumers the impression the feta cheese was
made in Greece in part because "feta" is "stylized in ancient-Greek
font."
"The packaging undisputedly does not contain the word Greece, a
Greek flag, or a single word in Greek," the company's lawyers
responded in a court filing. "By contrast, the packaging does
explicitly say 'MADE IN THE USA.' "
No court ever has concluded that a font can give rise to
country-of-origin deception claim, the company said.
"The courthouse doors simply should not be open to this speculative
and unfounded putative class action lawsuit," according to the
company filing.
'Big fuss about a little lemon'
The breadth of Sheehan's lawsuits became clearer a few months ago
when the federal judge in Chicago ordered him to list all of his
class-action filings since 2020.
The spreadsheet Sheehan submitted to the court revealed lawsuits in
18 states, with about four of every 10 in Manhattan or Brooklyn.
About one in four were filed in Illinois.
He sued Coca-Cola and Walmart a dozen times, followed by 7-Eleven,
Kellogg's and Trader Joe's nine times each.
Seeger appears to be running out of patience with Sheehan after his
recent case over a 12-pack of lemon seltzer water. The consumer
called the packaging misleading because it uses the word "lemon."
"She apparently wanted the cans of water to contain a bunch of
juice," the judge said. "Not just a little juice – a big squeeze
of lemon juice, right in each can. So she makes a big fuss about a
little lemon."
The case was not close to viable, the judge ruled, and he warned
Sheehan about filing another case in Chicago with the same legal
theory.
"Going forward, counsel should proceed with eyes wide open," the
judge said.
Christopher Cole, a Washington, D.C., lawyer, reviewed Sheehan's
list of cases. Between January 2020 and April 2023, about one in
five were dismissed outright, with the remaining either settled or
pending.
So why file the lawsuits if so many get tossed?
"If one assumes Mr. Sheehan settled roughly 300 of the filings
since 2020, which seems plausible in light of the reported data,
and even assuming an average of just $20,000 per settlement, Mr.
Sheehan and his clients would have recovered roughly $6 million
since 2020," Cole recently wrote on the legal website JD Supra.
"From the defense perspective, if one assumes defense costs of
$75,000 per case, which may be low, that amounts to nearly $42
million in defense legal fees incurred due to his cases alone,"
Cole added.
Class-action result
Some settlements run in the millions of dollars.
Consider Sheehan's downstate A&W Root Beer and Cream Soda case,
which settled last month for $15 million.
The three named plaintiffs are in line to receive $5,000 each.
Since the court allowed the lawsuit to proceed as a class action,
others could also receive money: those who bought either regular or
diet A&W Root Beer or A&W Cream Soda anywhere in New York State
between February 2016 and March 2021 and who say they were deceived
by the label saying "Made With Aged Vanilla," since the soda's
vanilla taste comes from artificial flavoring.
Those who submit a claim without a proof of purchase shall receive
$5.50. To receive more, up to $25, a person must submit a proof of
purchase.
A judge preliminarily approved the settlement.
The claim "MADE FROM AGED VANILLA" on the label cultivates a
wholesome and natural image in an effort to promote the sale of the
soft drinks and to compete with vanilla beverages that do use real
vanilla, Sheehan said.
But the A&W sodas owe their flavor to artificial and natural
flavors – not from real vanilla, he argued.
The defendants in the case, A&W Concentrate Co. and Keurig Dr.
Pepper Inc., denied the allegations of misleading labeling but
agreed to the settlement.
Sheehan's law firm and another law firm that joined in the case are
seeking $7.83 million for the cost of their work and to pay experts
involved in the lawsuit, according to FoodRepublic.com.
The vanilla cases he lost elsewhere didn't hurt Sheehan in the A&W
case.
Dismissals in some jurisdictions don't discourage him from filing
similar lawsuits in other parts of the country.
"The law is not a science," he said, noting there is no "easy
formula" to plug in for all of the cases around the nation.
Each judge has a set of facts particular to a case, Sheehan said.
"I do this so much I can argue to a judge that it's not so clear
cut," he said. "How courts arrive at what a reasonable consumer may
believe or expect is not something that is amenable to clear
answers." [GN]
A-1 COLLECTION: Fullmer Bid to Certify Class Partly OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN FULLMER, SEAN
MCINTYRE, SABRINA PROVO, and all others similarly situated, v. A-1
COLLECTION AGENCY, LLC, and MOAB VALLEY HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No.
4:20-cv-00143-DN-PK (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge David Nuffer entered
an order granting in part and denying in part the Representative
Plaintiffs' motion to certify class.
The following class is conditionally certified for purposes of
determining the Defendants' liability:
-- Utah class
"All individuals against whom the Defendants filed a debt
collection lawsuit in the State of Utah, where, as part of
the
lawsuit, the Defendants publicly disclosed the debtor's
social
security number or protected health information, and where
the
disclosure was made between December 2, 2016, to the
present."
The Utah class is certified only as to liability at this
point,
not as to damages.
The proposed Fair Debt Collection Act (FDCPA) subclass is not
certified at this time. The conditional certification of the Utah
class and the denial of certification of the proposed FDCPA
subclass may be altered or amended before final judgment.
The Representative the Plaintiffs' counsel, Daniel M. Baczynski and
Troy Kent Walker, are appointed as class counsel for the
conditionally certified Utah class.
The Court further ordered that by no later than August 4, 2023, the
Representative Plaintiffs' counsel must prepare and file (using the
Notice of Filing event) a proposed notice to the Utah class members
which complies with the requirements of Rule 23(c)(2)(B).
The Plaintiffs initiated the action to seek recourse for the
alleged improper public disclosure of confidential personal and
protected health information in state court debt collection
proceedings.1 the Plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the
FDCPA; violation of the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act (UCSPA);
invasion of privacy; and negligence.
A-1 Collection is a debt collection agency.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PZlg9F at no extra charge.[CC]
ACCOLADE INC: To Settle Auto-debit Row in California Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Accolade, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended May 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 29, 2023, that on May 8, 2021, a purported class
action complaint captioned "Robbins v. PlushCare, Inc. et al.," was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California against the company's wholly owned subsidiary,
PlushCare, Inc. The parties have tentatively agreed on a settlement
and the company has recorded a contingent liability.
The complaint, as amended, alleges that certain of PlushCare's
subscription payment practices violate California and other state
automatic renewal laws and the Federal Electronic Funds Transfer
Act, among other claims, arising from allegations that PlushCare
failed to provide adequate disclosures to members.
The lawsuit seeks restitution of subscription fees, statutory
damages for each violation, subject to trebling, reasonable
attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief. Under the terms of the
agreement to purchase PlushCare, the selling shareholders will
indemnify Accolade for losses related to this matter, subject to a
cap.
Accolade, Inc. provides care delivery services based in Washington
State.
ACUITY BRANDS: Data Breach Suits in Georgia Court Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Acuity Brands, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended May 31, 2023., filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 29, 2023, that on December 14, 2022, a former
associate filed a putative class action complaint against the
company in the United States District court for the Northern
District of Georgia on behalf of all persons whose personal
information was compromised as a result of data security incidents
the company experienced in October 2020 and/or December 2021.
On January 25, 2023, a second putative class action complaint was
filed in the same venue by two other former associates. Both
complaints contain similar allegations and claim that the company
failed to exercise reasonable caution in securing and safeguarding
associate information.
On that basis, the complaints assert claims for negligence, breach
of contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach
of fiduciary duty, invasion of privacy, and breach of confidence.
The plaintiffs seek class certification, monetary damages, certain
injunctive relief regarding the company's data-security measures,
additional credit-monitoring services, other equitable relief
(including disgorgement), attorneys' fees, costs, and pre-and
post-judgment interest. T
Plaintiffs recently filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without
prejudice, and the company continues to prepare its response
strategy to any forthcoming claims.
Acuity Brands, Inc. is an industrial technology company based in
Georgia.
ADORAMA INC: Agrees to Settle Video Info Sharing Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Adorama
Inc. told a federal court it has agreed to settle a proposed class
action alleging it shared the video-viewing histories of website
visitors with Google in violation of the Video Privacy Protection
Act.
Plaintiff Jesse Cantu filed a notice of settlement July 14 in the
US District Court for the Central District of California.
Cantu alleged that the photographic-equipment provider installed
the Google Analytics tracking tag on its websites, allowing it to
transmit information to Google permitting it to identify his
video-watching behavior.
The VPPA prohibits video-content providers from disclosing
customers' video-viewing habits without consent. [GN]
AEGIS MEDIA: Kennedy Suit Seeks Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STACEY PARKS KENNEDY,
ANGELA BOZELL and BRITTNEY WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. AEGIS MEDIA AMERICAS, INC., BOARD
OF DIRECTORS OF AEGIS MEDIA AMERICAS, INC., THE BENEFITSPLUS 401(K)
PROFIT SHARING P-LAN COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No.
1:20-cv-03624-GHW (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23:
-- Certifying the action as a class action:
"All persons, except the Defendants and their immediate family
members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
Plan,
at any time between May 8, 2014, through December 31, 2018;"
-- Appointing the Plaintiffs as representatives of the proposed
class; and
-- Appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the Class.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Y1Ej5d at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
Thomas J. Sinclair, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
thomass@capozziadler.com
- and -
Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
2933 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 233-4101
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com
ALLIANZ SE: To Settle Class Action Over 401(k) Plan
---------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that an Allianz
SE unit announced plans to settle a proposed class action
challenging the in-house funds in its employees' 401(k) plan.
The parties reached a class-wide agreement and plan to file the
settlement for court approval by Aug. 18, they said in a notice
filed on July 17 in the US District Court for the Central District
of California. The notice didn't include details about the
settlement's terms.
The six-month-old lawsuit accuses Allianz of using its $2 billion
retirement plan to promote expensive investment products from
subsidiaries AllianzGI and PIMCO, including an AllianzGI target
date fund suite. [GN]
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Bid to Amend Pleadings Due Feb. 5, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHERINE ROKSANDIC, v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02322-DSF-KS
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale S. Fischer entered a class
certification scheduling order as follows:
-- Motion to Amend Pleadings or Add Feb. 5, 2024
Parties Cut-off:
-- Discovery Cut−Off: March 12,
2024
-- Expert Witness Exchange Deadline:
Initial: March 26, 2024
Rebuttal: April 12, 2024
Cut−off: April 23,
2024
-- Motion Hearing Cut−off: May 10, 2024
-- ADR Cut−off: June 25, 2024
-- Trial Documents (Set One): July 30, 2024
-- Trial Documents (Set Two): Aug. 6, 2024
-- Final Pre-Trial Conference: Aug. 19, 2024
-- Trial Date: Sept. 17, 2024
American Airlines provides scheduled air transportation services
for passengers and cargo.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44xtlXG at no extra charge.[CC]
AMERICAN EQUITY: Juan Monteverde Investigates Brookfield Sale
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:
American Equity Investment Life Holding Co. (NYSE: AEL), relating
to its proposed sale to Brookfield Reinsurance. Under the terms of
the agreement, AEL shareholders are expected to receive 0.49707
shares of Brookfield and $38.85 in cash per share they own. Click
here for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/american-equity-investment-life-holding-co.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Eneti, Inc. (NYSE: NETI), relating to its proposed sale to Cadeler
A/S. Under the terms of the agreement, NETI shareholders are
expected to receive 3.409 shares of Cadeler per share they own.
Click here for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/eneti-inc. It is free and there is
no cost or obligation to you.
Wireless Telecom Group, Inc. (NYSE: WTT), relating to its proposed
sale to Maury Microwave, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, WTT
shareholders are expected to receive $2.13 in cash per share they
own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/wireless-telecom-group-inc. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Talaris Therapeutics Inc. (Nasdaq: TALS), relating to its proposed
merger with Tourmaline Bio, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement,
TALS shareholders are expected to own approximately 21.3% of the
combined company. Click here for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/talaris-therapeutics-inc. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
About Monteverde & Associates PC
We are a national class action securities and consumer litigation
law firm that has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders
and is committed to protecting investors and consumers from
corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have
significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and
Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by
recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr.
Monteverde, who leads the firm, has been recognized by Super
Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013 and
2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a
particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell
as a 2017-2020 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes
include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the
standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in
the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this
victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as
improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex
Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, over the years
the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds
for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.
If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
AMERICAN HONDA: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to August 14
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN A. CADENA, et
al., v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-04007-MWF-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michael W.
Fitzgerald entered an order granting joint stipulation to modify
class certification briefing deadlines as follows:
Event Current New
Deadline
Deadline
The Plaintiffs' Class July 14, 2023 Aug. 14,
2023
Certification Motion and Expert
Reports in support thereof
Honda's Class Certification Oct. 13, 2023 Nov. 13,
2023
Opposition and Expert Reports
in support thereof
American Honda is the North American subsidiary of the Honda Motor
Company.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43xj0K5 at no extra charge.[CC]
AMERIGAL CONSTRUCTION: Renewed Bid for Collective Status Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSUE BARRIENTOS, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AMERIGAL CONSTRUCTION CO. INC., et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-02618-TSC-ZMF (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs request that the
Court enter an Order:
1) Conditionally certifying the proposed Fair Labor Standards
Act
(FLSA) and D.C. Wage Laws collective;
2) Tolling the statute of limitations from October 11, 2022, the
date on which the Plaintiffs filed their original Motion for
Collective Action Certification, through the pendency of this
motion;
3) Authorizing the issuance of notice to all collective members;
4) Requiring the Defendants to promptly provide the Plaintiffs
with
the names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, and dates
of
employment of all current and former similarly situated
persons,
to post the notice at the Defendants’ office at the at 7001
Glenn Dale Road, Glenn Dale, Maryland 20769 and in company
vehicles, and to include the Notice in the paycheck envelopes
and/or pay statement envelopes of all current employees of
Amerigal; and
5) granting such further relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 6, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44QWVal at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark Hanna, Esq.
Arlus Stephens,Esq.
Nicolas Mendoza,Esq.
MURPHY ANDERSON PLLC
1401 K Street NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 223-2620
Facsimile: (202) 296-9600
E-mail: mhanna@murphypllc.com
astephens@murphypllc.com
nmendoza@murphypllc.com
ASUSTEK COMPUTER: CSK&D LLP Investigates ROG Ally Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Retro Resolve reports that following reports of damaged SD cards
and overheating problems, class action law firm Chimicles Schwartz
Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP (CSK&D LLP) has set its sights on the
ASUS ROG Ally.
According to the CSK&D LLP website, the firm is currently in the
investigation phase and is purely gathering information from
consumers who've suffered any issues.
"CSK&D LLP is investigating a potential class action lawsuit
related to reports that Asus's Rog Ally handheld gaming console
experiences a range of performance related issues impacting
gameplay," reads the site.
"The handheld system is touted by ASUS as featuring a robust zero
gravity thermal system lending to purported smooth gaming
performance. However, owners of the console have reported issues
with the system overheating causing the system to freeze
unexpectantly during gameplay and/or fail to boot-up properly after
being woken from sleep mode. Some have also reported issues with
saved game data on any inserted microSD cards becoming
inaccessible. A hard reset of the system will not always fix these
issues."
For those not up to speed with the ASUS ROG Ally woes so far,
here's a quick catch-up.
Users originally reported problems with the SD reader, with many
claiming their SD cards were rendered unusable. The working theory
back then was that heat from the CPU was -- somehow -- causing SD
cards to die.
ASUS then released a statement saying the company is looking into
the problems reported but so far hasn't found anything that lines
up with what users are experiencing.
Fast forward a week and ASUS would release a follow-up statement to
confirm the cause of the problem. As expected, it's heat-related.
"After confirmation from internal testing, under certain thermal
stress conditions the SD card reader may malfunction," said ASUS.
One thing to note: Although ASUS has confirmed the cause of the
issue, many online don't think it's purely a heat problem. Heat is
a factor, but there's concern over the SD reader's controller
becoming loose and disconnecting from the main ROG Ally
motherboard.
I personally wouldn't rule anything out at this point, but I'd also
advise not jumping to any permanent conclusions. The more consoles
that get returned to ASUS, the more investigations can be opened to
find the real cause of the problems.
In the meantime, ASUS released BIOS 322 as a temporary solution.
This BIOS update increases the CPU fan speed in the hopes of
keeping the internals even cooler. The cost of this, however, is
fans are now much louder.
I was able to decrease the volume somewhat by disabling the CPU
boost, but we won't be able to get back to a quiet console until
ASUS finds and fixes the current crop of problems and returns fan
control back to users. Here's hoping that's sooner rather than
later. [GN]
BANK OF AMERICA: Open Bank Accounts Without Consent, Ballard Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NADINE BALLARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; BANK OF AMERICA
CORPORATION; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. e
3:23-cv-00422-MOC-DCK (W.D.N.C. July 13, 2023) alleges that the
Defendants opened accounts for the Plaintiff and the Class without
their authorization or knowledge, from January 1, 2012, through
December 31, 2022, resulting to harm.
According to the complaint, in order to maximize the number of
Products sold, and thus maximize profits, the Defendant routinely
opened consumer accounts for products without the consumer's
authorization or knowledge. Then, when customers fail to maintain
mandatory account balances or pay fees for accounts that they did
not know existed, the Defendants charges the consumer penalties and
other fees.
As a result of the Defendants' practices, consumers suffered
substantial concrete damages through fees charged, impacts to
credit consumer profiles, the loss of control over personally
sensitive and identifiable information, the expenditure of consumer
time and effort investigating the facts and seeking closure of
unwanted accounts, and the need to monitor and mitigate harm going
forward, says the suit.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. is a banking institution in the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan St.
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
Email: sharris@milberg.com
- and -
Israel David, Esq.
Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq.
ISRAEL DAVID LLC
17 State Street, Suite 4010
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 739-0622
Email: israel.david@davidllc.com
blake.yagman@davidllc.com
- and -
James M. Evangelista, Esq.
EVANGELISTA WORLEY LLC
500 Sugar Mill Road, Suite 245A
Atlanta, GA 30350
Telephone: (404) 205-8400
Email: jim@ewlawllc.com
- and -
Jennifer Czeisler, Esq.
JKC LAW, LLC
269 Altessa Boulevard
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: 516-457-9571
Email: jennifer@jkclawllc.com
- and -
Marc E. Dann, Esq.
Brian D. Flick, Esq.
DANN LAW FIRM
15000 Madison Avenue
Lakewood, OH 44107
Telephone: (216) 373-0539
Email: mdann@dannlaw.com
bflick@dannlaw.com
BEAUFORT COUNTY, SC: Scheduling Order in Munday Amended
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Munday, et al., v.
Beaufort County, et al., Case No. 9:20-cv-02144 (D.S.C., Filed June
5, 2020), the Hon. Judge Molly H. Cherry entered an order amending
the following deadlines in the Consent Scheduling Order entered on
April 12, 2023, as follows:
-- The Plaintiffs, or their third-party notice administrator,
shall
send the Class Notice by July 13, 2023, followed by an opt-out
period for 60 that will expire on September 11, 2023.
-- The Plaintiffs, or their third-party notice administrator,
shall
by October 11, 2023, submit a report to the Court summarizing
the
notice process, notices sent, opt-outs and any objectors.
The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC]
BENEFICIENT: Faces Scura Shareholder Suit Over Bond Sale
--------------------------------------------------------
Beneficient disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on July 13, 2023, that on March 30, 2023, David Scura and Clifford
Day, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for Northern District of Texas against Beneficient, certain members
of its board of directors (Brad K. Heppner, Peter T. Cangany, Jr.,
Richard W. Fisher, Thomas O. Hicks, Dennis P. Lockhart, and Bruce
W. Schnitzer), certain past members of the board of directors of
GWG Holdings Inc., a significant equity holder of Beneficient, (Jon
R. Sabes and Steven F. Sabes), FOXO Technologies Inc., and Emerson
Equity LLC.
The suit alleges that the defendants defrauded GWG investors in
connection with the sale of GWG's "L" Bonds and preferred stock,
and it asserts claims on behalf of a putative class consisting of
all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired GWG's
"L" Bonds or preferred stock of GWG between December 23, 2017, and
April 20, 2022.
The suit alleges that (i) the company, the individual defendants,
and FOXO violated Sections 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, (ii) that the individual defendants
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and (iii) that Emerson
violated Section 15(c)(1)(A) of the Exchange Act.
On May 3, 2023, Thomas Horton and Frank Moore, in their capacities
as the lead plaintiffs in the Bayati Action, filed a motion to lift
the automatic stay in the Chapter 11 Cases in order to file a
motion in the Northern District of Texas seeking to consolidate the
Bayati and Scura Actions under the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act.
On June 8, 2023, the plaintiffs in the Scura Action filed a
voluntary notice of dismissal without prejudice.
Beneficient is a technology-enabled financial services holding
company based in Texas.
BETA ELECTRIC: Faces Ortez Wage-and-Hour Suit in D.N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR ORTEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BETA ELECTRIC ELP. LLC, and all other
affiliated entities and/or joint employers, all whose true names
are unknown, DOUGLAS TARNOPOLL, individually, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-03693 (D.N.J., July 11, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law,
the New Jersey Administrative Code, and the New Jersey Wage Payment
Law.
Mr. Ortez was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt electrical
job repair and installation laborer from in or about 2013 until in
or about the end of March 2023.
Beta Electric Elp, LLC is a company that specializes in electrical
work, headquartered in Sparta, 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
BOLTHOUSE FARMS: Faces Class Action Over PFAs in Smoothies
----------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action claims that certain Bolthouse Farms beverages
are falsely advertised as "100% Fruit Juice Smoothie[s]," given
that the products contain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS), a category of toxic, synthetic chemicals.
According to the 50-page case, independent testing has revealed
that Bolthouse Farms' Green Goodness, Amazing Mango, Blue Goddess,
C-Boost and Berry Superfood Boost smoothies contain a type of PFAS
known as Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) at levels more than
200 times the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's recommended
limit for drinking water.
These results are "entirely inconsistent" with the company's
"pervasive marketing efforts" to convince consumers that the
smoothies at issue are healthy, made entirely with fruit juice and
free from any artificial ingredients, the suit contends. The case
stresses that consumers viewing Bolthouse Farms' health-focused
representations would not expect the beverages to contain harmful
man-made chemicals -- especially since the defendant fails to
disclose the presence of PFAS in its products to buyers.
First developed by scientists in the 1940s, PFAS are often referred
to as "forever chemicals" due to their tendency to accumulate in
the body and the environment over time, the complaint explains. A
report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
states that exposure to these chemicals, even at low levels, has
been linked to a host of adverse health effects, including cancer,
liver damage, decreased fertility and increased risk of asthma and
thyroid disease, the lawsuit relays.
Per the suit, Bolthouse Farms' alleged misrepresentation of its
smoothies has exposed "thousands of unsuspecting consumers" to
harmful PFAS and their associated health risks. The complaint
contends that buyers would not have purchased the beverages, or
they would have paid less for them, had they known the products
contained toxic synthetic chemicals that could negatively impact
their health.
The case further alleges that the presence of PFOS in the Bolthouse
Farms smoothies renders the products adulterated and misbranded
and, therefore, illegal to sell under federal and state law.
The lawsuit seeks to cover anyone who purchased any of the
Bolthouse Farms smoothies listed above within the United States for
personal use and not for resale. [GN]
BUMBLE INC: Must Face BIPA Class Action, Judge Rules
----------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
federal judge won't swipe left on a class action lawsuit accusing
the company that runs dating app Bumble of violating a state
biometrics privacy law.
Dario Dzananovic sued Bumble, Buzz Holdings and Bumble trading in
Cook County Circuit Court, alleging the app collected facial scans
from users without complying with Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act regulations regarding consent and data retention
policies. The companies removed the complaint to federal court,
where on July 7 U.S. District Judge Andrea Wood rejected a motion
to dismiss the complaint.
According to Dzananovic, Bumble promotes its optional photo
verification tool as a means for users to "flirt, connect, and
network comfortably, knowing the person you're talking to is
exactly who they say they are." To use this feature, users have to
upload a picture -- posed per the app's suggestion -- after which
Bumble "uses an artificial intelligence tool to conduct a facial
scan of the photo, extract geometric data from it, and then create
a facial template," according to Wood.
In arguing for dismissal, Buzz said it didn't target its photo
verification feature to Illinois residents specifically, but merely
operated a global internet site Illinoisans could access the same
as anyone else. However, Wood quoted a 2010 U.S. Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals opinion, Mobile Anesthesiologists Chicago v.
Anesthesia Associates of Houston Metroplex, which held "a
defendant's deliberate and continuous exploitation of the market in
a forum state, accomplished through its website as well as through
other contacts with the state, can be sufficient to establish
specific personal jurisdiction."
Dzananovic alleged Bumble has thousands of paying customers in
Illinois, an assertion the companies didn't dispute. Wood cited
estimates from the third quarter of 2021 that each paying Bumble
user generated $31 in revenue and pointed to Bumble's use of
billboards and happy hour events in Chicago along with creation of
multiple "BumbleSpot" locations where matched users can meet. Buzz
also has offered Chicago restaurant guides, sponsored booths at
Lollapalooza and hired recruiters to find users at colleges in the
city.
Wood further cited a 2022 federal case from the Southern District
of California, Chien v. Bumble, where Bumble Trading failed to
prevail on similar arguments about doing business in that state.
Bumble and Buzz Holdings argued they should be dismissed because
they are just holding companies and don't conduct operating
business. To support that argument, they relied on Securities and
Exchange Commission filings and corporate declarations, but
"Dzananovic points to a declaration in a separate litigation from
Caroline Roche, Bumble Trading's chief of staff in 2021, where she
states that Bumble Inc. is the parent company of Bumble Trading, is
involved in the marketing decisions of its subsidiaries, and is a
party to the Bumble App's terms and conditions," Wood wrote.
She further said the cited SEC filings "specifically describe Buzz
Holdings and Bumble Inc. as 'providing online dating and social
networking platforms through subscription and credit-based dating
products" through 'websites and applications that it owns and
operates.' The SEC filings further note that Bumble operates the
Bumble App, Bumble conducts brand marketing and field marketing
such as sponsorships and brand ambassadorships, and Bumble employs
machine and deep learning to personalize user matches and inform
its product pipeline."
The companies also said the BIPA claims weren't adequately linked
to Bumble's business model, but Wood agreed with Dzananovic's
position that Bumble's marketing strategy includes a perception of
greater safety and privacy than other dating apps and, in
particular, promotion of the optional image-based verification.
Finally, Wood rejected arguments that keeping the case in Chicago
would be unreasonable or unfair. Her opinion came less than a month
after another federal judge in Chicago agreed to transfer to Texas
BIPA litigation involving Bumble competitors OkCupid and Tinder. In
that ruling, U.S. District Judge Manish Shah ruled the sites'
contracts with users fall under Texas law.
Wood said because she determined Bumble "purposefully directed"
business activities at Illinoisans, the companies have to make a
compelling case for a venue switch. In addition to falling short,
she said, "Illinois has an interest in providing a forum for its
residents, such as Dzananovic and other class members, to seek
redress for the collection of their biometric information in
violation of BIPA, an Illinois statute."
The plaintiffs are represented in the action by attorneys Katrina
Carroll and Kyle A. Shamberg, of the firm of Lynch Carpenter, of
Chicago.
Buzz and Bumble are represented by attorneys Tiffany Cheung and
Purvi G. Patel, of the firm of Morrison & Foerster, of San
Francisco and Los Angeles, and John C. Ellis and Samantha Ditore,
of Ellis Legal, of Chicago. [GN]
CIGNA HEALTH: Court Tosses Neufeld Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY NEUFELD et al., v.
CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE CO., Case No. 3:17-cv-01693-KAD (D.
Conn.), the Hon. Judge Kari A. Dooley entered an order denying the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification:
"All individuals residing in the United States and its
territories
who:
(A) Were enrolled in a health benefit plan administered by
Cigna
Health and Life Insurance Company or its affiliates (Cigna)
meeting the following criteria:
-- was identified in Cigna's data as subject to Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA); and
-- provided that a member "may be required to pay a portion
of
the Covered Expenses"; and
-- provided that "The term Covered Expenses means the
expenses
incurred by or on behalf of a person for the charges
listed
below if they are incurred after he becomes insured for
these benefits"; and
-- provided that "The term 'charges' means the actual billed
charges; except when the provider has contracted directly
or
indirectly with Cigna for a different amount"; and
-- if the plan provided, in the Coordination of Benefits
section, that "If Cigna contracts with an entity to
arrange
for the provision of Covered Services through that
entity's
contracted network of health care providers, the amount
that
Cigna has agreed to pay that entity is the allowable
amount
used to determine your coinsurance or deductible".
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to meet their
burden to establish commonality under Rule 23(a). Certification
Under Rule 23(b). As the Court finds that there is no basis to
certify the class under the less stringent commonality requirement
of Rule 23(a), there is certainly no basis upon which to certify
the class under the more rigorous requirements of Rule 23(b).
However, the Court observes that, even if the class did meet the
commonality requirement of Rule 23(a), the proposed class would
likely face even greater hurdles to certification under any of Rule
23(b) class subtypes the class cannot be certified under Rule
23(b)(3).
The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against the Cigna
alleging violations of the ERISA, 29 U.S.C. section 1001 et seq.,
arising out of Cigna’s use of third-party vendor CareCentrix in
securing and providing certain medical benefits under the
Plaintiffs' ERISA health benefit plans. Specifically, the
Plaintiffs allege that Cigna violated the terms of the Plaintiffs'
plans and breached its fiduciary duties under ERISA by overcharging
the Plaintiffs' deductibles for "durable medical equipment" (DME)
and other medical care services and supplies. After years of
coordinated and largely cooperative discovery efforts, the
Plaintiffs now seek class certification. The motion for class
certification was briefed over the course of seven months.
The Plaintiffs are participants or beneficiaries in various
employer-sponsored health benefit plans that are subject to ERISA.
Cigna Health offers life and health insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44Pc4J9 at no extra charge.[CC]
CIGNA HEALTH: Judge Denies Motion to Certify Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Law.com reports that a federal judge in Connecticut has denied a
motion to certify a class action against Cigna Health Insurance,
citing lack of evidence of commonality and predominance.
U.S. District Judge Kari A. Dooley for the District of Connecticut
determined in a July 6 opinion, that the plaintiffs' bid for class
certification, over allegations that Cigna violated ERISA, arising
from Cigna's third-party vendor CareCentrix in securing and
providing medical benefits, failed under Rules 23(a) and 23(b) of
the Federal Reserve Act.[GN]
CIRCOR INTERNATIONAL: Juan Monteverde Investigates KKR Sale
-----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:
CIRCOR International, Inc. (NYSE: CIR ), relating to its proposed
sale to funds managed by KKR. Under the terms of the agreement, CIR
shareholders will receive $49.00 in cash per share they own. Click
here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/circor-international-inc. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Greenhill & Co., Inc. (NYSE: GHL ), relating to its proposed sale
to Mizuho Financial Group, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement,
GHL shareholders are expected to receive $15.00 in cash per share
they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/greenhill-co-inc. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
Chinook Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: KDNY ), relating to its
proposed sale to Novartis AG. Under the terms of the agreement,
KDNY shareholders are expected to receive $40.00 in cash per share
they own and contingent value rights worth up to $4.00 per share.
Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/chinook-therapeutics-inc. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Great Ajax Corp. (NYSE: AJX ), relating to its proposed sale to
Ellington Financial Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, AJX
shareholders are expected to receive 0.5308 shares of Ellington per
share they own. Click here for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/great-ajax-corp. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
About Monteverde & Associates PC
We are a national class action securities and consumer litigation
law firm that has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders
and is committed to protecting investors and consumers from
corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have
significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and
Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by
recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr.
Monteverde, who leads the firm, has been recognized by Super
Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013 and
2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a
particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell
as a 2017-2020 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's recent successes
include changing the law in a significant victory that lowered the
standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act in
the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm successfully preserved this
victory by obtaining dismissal of a writ of certiorari as
improvidently granted at the United States Supreme Court. Emulex
Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019). Also, over the years
the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen cash common funds
for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.
If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
COCA-COLA CO: Faces Class Action Over PFAS in Juice Products
------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin reports that Coca-Cola Co. and its subsidiary, The
Simply Orange Juice Co., have been hit with a class action alleging
their "all-natural" juice product contains high levels of per- and
polyfluoralkyl substances (PFAS).
In a July 17 complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, the plaintiff alleges third-party
testing revealed defendants' Simply Tropical Juice contains forever
chemicals at levels that greatly exceed federal limits for drinking
water. [GN]
CREDIT SUISSE: Shareholders Have Until Aug. 4 to Join Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Brenna Hughes Neghaiwi, writing for Reuters, report 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 (UBSG.S).
"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, 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 -- compensation.
A group of Credit Suisse AT1 bondholders has also 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]
DANAHER CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 15
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Fistel, LLP, a shareholder rights law firm, on July 18
disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of
Danaher Corporation ("Danaher" or the "Company") (NYSE: DHR)
investors who acquired securities between April 21, 2022, and April
24, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you are a shareholder
who incurred losses during this period, you have until September
15, 2023, to move the court to become a lead plaintiff in this
action.
If you would like more information and want to join the class
action please click or copy and paste the following link:
https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/danaher-corporation
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) as the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic
subsided, revenue growth associated with Danaher's COVID-19-related
businesses was declining; (ii) contrary to the Company's prior
representations to investors, revenues associated with Danaher's
non-COVID-19-related businesses were insufficient to compensate for
the foregoing negative trend; (iii) accordingly, Danaher overstated
the Company's ability to sustain the growth it had experienced in
2020 and 2021; (iv) as a result, it was unlikely that Danaher would
be able to meet its 2023 revenue forecasts; and (v) as a result,
Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.
A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a
law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action lawsuit. An
investor's ability to share any potential future recovery of the
class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a shareholder rights law firm representing
individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative
and securities class action lawsuits. For more information, visit
their website http://www.johnsonfistel.com.
Contact:
Johnson Fistel, LLP
Jim Baker, 619-814-4471
Investor Relations
jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]
DELTA AIR: Class Action Over Carbon-Neutral Claim Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Andre Cabette Fabio, writing for Gulf Times, reports that in late
May, Delta Air Lines became the target of a proposed class action
lawsuit in the US after advertising itself as "the world's first
carbon-neutral airline".
Filed on behalf of a California-based client of the US carrier, the
complaint said the claim was "false and misleading" as it hinged on
buying carbon offsets that are largely worthless -- and led
customers to believe the airline had not been responsible for
releasing additional carbon into the atmosphere.
A Delta spokesperson said the lawsuit was "without legal merit",
and that "it was adopting industry-leading climate goals as we work
towards achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050".
The global $2bn voluntary carbon offset market -- where companies
buy credits in pollution-reducing projects like solar panel systems
or tree planting to offset their own emissions -- is facing
ever-greater scrutiny and criticism with researchers questioning
the validity and climate benefits of the offsets.
Delta in 2020 announced it would invest $1bn by 2030 to mitigate
all emissions, and has since spent at least $283mn on carbon
offsets, according to reports on its website.
However, its spokesperson said that since March 2022, Delta "has
fully transitioned its focus away from carbon offsets toward
decarbonisation", which includes investing in biofuels.
From airlines and fashion houses to technology giants, a growing
number of corporations globally have bought credits from the
voluntary offsets market as pressure grows on the private sector to
achieve net-zero emissions to limit global warming.
Yet the market has been criticised -- with studies citing poor
transparency, a limited supply of credits, and the dubious
effectiveness of many projects in actually cutting emissions.
Separately from the voluntary market, the 2015 Paris Agreement sets
out the basis for global regulated carbon trading overseen by the
United Nations, under which one country could offset emissions by
buying credits generated by another nation that has surpassed its
own targets.
While a few regulated markets have been established by South Korea,
the European Union, and the US state of California, for example,
large-scale bilateral agreements or a broader UN framework allowing
for international exchanges are not likely to materialise in the
near future, several industry experts said.
Delay in establishing the rules for the proposed UN-regulated
market is often used as justification by the private sector to take
the lead in financing environmental projects by generating and
selling credits on the voluntary market.
Ana Carolina Szklo, technical director of the Voluntary Carbon
Markets Initiative (VCMI), said regulated carbon offset markets
have proven costly and time-consuming to set up.
"There is a (climate) urgency that does not (allow for) this time,
which naturally led to the voluntary market," said Szklo, whose
organisation seeks to bring transparency to the market.
The voluntary market was worth about $2bn in 2021 and will reach
$10-40bn in value by 2030 -- transacting 0.5-1.5bn tonnes of carbon
dioxide equivalent, up from 500mn tonnes currently, energy major
Shell said in a January report.
But its credibility crisis in the face of growing criticism and
looming regulation are casting doubts over what role the voluntary
market can play in climate action in the long-term -- and if it
will be eventually absorbed by the regulated market.
"We have to act now -- we can't wait for politicians to save the
world," said Oscar Schaps, president of the Latin American division
of financial services company StoneX, during a debate at the Latin
America Climate Summit held last month in Panamá.
The voluntary market faced fresh scrutiny in January after an
investigation by The Guardian and Die Zeit newspapers said that
most rainforest credits approved by Verra -- a leading standards
group -- did not represent genuine carbon reductions.
Verra strongly disputed the findings, and said in a statement in
January that it "develops and continually improves methodologies
based on the best-available science and technology through rigorous
consultations with many academics and experts".
Following the investigation, the value of voluntary carbon credits
from nature projects registered by Verra -- which were already on a
downward trajectory -- nearly halved, falling to a record low of
$2.07 per tonne of CO2 equivalent in early February, according to
US exchange operator CME Group.
The credits were trading at about $2.29 as of July 12.
Despite the market's woes, Verra issued 93 million credits in the
first six months of this year, up from 77.8 million credits in the
same period for 2022, data on its website shows.
Carbon offsets from "avoided deforestation" projects have been the
focus of much of the criticism of the voluntary market.
Through this mechanism, land that would have been deforested or
degraded is instead kept intact, with the ensuing avoided emissions
sold as carbon credits. Yet there have been doubts raised by
several academics and analysts over the methodology.
Separately, conservationists in Kenya have said the approach can
fuel inequality by benefiting land owners more than the wider
community, while in Brazil, researchers and authorities have
accused project developers of sourcing credits from public or
communal land without authorisation, based on invalid titles.
The VCMI last month launched a new code of practice -- partially
funded by the British government -- which aims to help investors
establish whether climate claims made by companies using carbon
offsets are credible.
Under the framework, instead of declaring carbon neutrality
achieved by buying voluntary offsets, companies should make
"contribution claims" based on emissions mitigation efforts.
Governments of the countries hosting offsetting projects should be
able to claim the carbon mitigation as part of their nationally
determined contributions -- action plans to cut emissions laid out
by the Paris Agreement -- said VCMI's Szklo.
Susana Vélez Haller, a senior manager for Verra in Latin America,
said she was sceptical over whether the VCMI's new code would
appeal to the private sector.
"When companies invest they want something in exchange, some sort
of advantage", such as claiming carbon offsets, she added.
Going forward, the establishment of regulated national and
international carbon offset markets is likely to replace much of
the voluntary one, according to Haller, yet she said the latter
would remain an important source of funding for poorer nations.
This is because such countries lack the resources to keep an
updated inventory of their emissions, which will be required for
them to tap into bilateral trade agreements or a UN regulated
global market, she explained.
Another issue is whether nations will want companies to keep
investing in voluntary carbon offsets projects, often overseas, if
those emissions reductions cannot be counted as official national
contributions to climate action under a UN framework.
"Why would you allow an unregulated activity to compete with a
regulated one?" said Carlos de Mathias Martins, CEO of EQAO, a
Brazilian company that develops carbon credit projects connected to
renewable energy, from hydropower dams to biomass combustion.
Martins said he expects national and international regulations to
eventually absorb most of the voluntary market.
However, Dirk Forrister, CEO of the International Emissions Trading
Association (IETA) -- a non-profit business association -- said
voluntary and regulated markets would be able to coexist.
"In places where you don't have government regulation, that's where
the voluntary market can really kick in and make a difference", he
said. -- Thomson Reuters Foundation [GN]
DERMATOLOGY AND COSMETIC: Sued Over Hygiene and Safety Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Croft, writing for LawyersWeekly, reports that patients of
Dr Daniel Lanzer's cosmetic surgery clinics across the country have
continued to come forward to take part in a growing class action in
the Victoria Supreme Court.
Almost 1,000 former patients of celebrity cosmetic surgeon Dr
Daniel Lanzer and his clinic, Dermatology and Cosmetic Surgery
Services, have now registered to participate in a class action
against the surgery clinic and former surgeon.
The class action was first launched by Maddens Lawyers in 2022 and
came after a joint Four Corners and Nine investigation that
revealed serious hygiene and safety breaches, leaving patients in
excruciating pain, suffering from ongoing medical issues and
subsequently requiring further treatment.
Following this investigation, Dr Lanzer retired after the
Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) began its
own investigation. In a statement at the time, the national medical
regulator said that "Dr Daniel Lanzer no longer appears on the
online register of practitioners as he surrendered his registration
on 2 December 2021. This means he is no longer registered with
immediate effect and cannot practise as a registered medical
practitioner anywhere in Australia."
"We are continuing our investigations into Dr Lanzer's conduct and
performance, and should they result in a regulatory outcome, this
would be considered if he was ever to seek to reapply for
registration in the future," it said.
Justin Byatt and his son both had an otoplasty (ear surgery) nearly
three years ago and are still in pain. Dr Ryan Wells performed both
procedures at Dr Lanzer's Malvern clinic in 2019. Mr Byatt then
returned to Dr Wells for further procedures to try to rectify
complications in 2020 and 2021 without success.
"If I had known the pain we'd still be in and what the appearance
of our ears were going to be, I wouldn't have had the surgeries. I
just want the doctors to be held accountable, and I want our ears
fixed," Mr Byatt said.
"After the 2021 appointment, which was just a quick procedure
performed on a day bed, the problems were still not resolved. My
request for another appointment to review my ears just went ignored
by Dr Wells and the clinic staff.
"My left ear is still in a lot of pain; it feels hard and stiff,
the ear is deformed, and the stitch is still showing. I can't sleep
properly or play sports. It's really impacted my day-to-day life.
Unfortunately, my son has similar complications, mostly in his
right ear." [GN]
DESERT FIRE: Laube Bid for Atty's Fees, Costs Partly OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEGAN LAUBE, et al, v.
DESERT FIRE LLC, et al., Case No. 6:22-cv-00378-AA (D. Or.), the
Hon. Judge Ann Aiken entered an order that the Plaintiffs' Motion
for attorney fees and costs for the Plaintiffs Megan Laube and
Kenza Minkler, is granted in part for all fees and costs incurred
prior to August 12, 2022, and otherwise denied.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has provided enough
evidence form which the Court can make a fair evaluation of the
reasonableness of the time expended and the nature and need for the
service.
The Plaintiffs filed this action on March 9, 2022, later joined by
others, alleging violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA). Laube and Minkler accepted offers of judgment from the
Defendants and now seek an award of reasonable attorney's fees and
costs.
The Plaintiffs worked as dancers at Silver Dollar Club in Eugene,
Oregon. The Plaintiffs asserted four causes of action against the
Defendants Desert Fire LLC, dba Silver Dollar Club, and the club's
owner, Damon Shrader. the Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants
misclassified them as "independent contractors" and unlawfully
charged
the Plaintiffs fees to work and forced them to tip other employees
to subsidize regular payroll.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Q1HcRv at no extra charge.[CC]
EDGIO INC: Faces Assad Stockholder Suit in Delaware Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Edgio, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2022., filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 29, 2023, that on July 18, 2022, a stockholder
filed a verified class action captioned "George Assad v. Walter
Delaware Chancery court (Case No. 2022-0626).
The class action complaint alleges that the Edgio Board of
Directors violated its fiduciary duties in entering into the
stockholders' agreement as part of the Edgecast Acquisition. The
plaintiffs challenge certain provisions of the stockholders'
agreement alleging that the defensive measures in the agreement
create a significant and enduring stockholder block designed to
entrench the Board of Directors and protect it from stockholder
activism.
The complaint seeks injunctive relief in the form of an injunction
enjoining the enforcement of the challenged provisions. Edgio filed
a motion to dismiss and the matter was heard on October 12, 2022,
in the Delaware Chancery court. The Vice Chancellor granted Edgio's
motion to dismiss on the record; however, on December 8, 2022, the
court requested supplemental briefing on certain issues raised at
oral arguments.
Supplemental briefs and answering briefs were filed in January
2023. On May 2, 2023, the Delaware Chancery court issued a
memorandum opinion reversing its order on the record and denying
the company's motion to dismiss.
On May 12, 2023, the parties entered into an interim arrangement to
avoid the costs and burdens of expedited litigation where the
company agreed not to enforce the provisions of the stockholders'
agreement that the plaintiffs challenged in the suit in connection
with the company's 2023 annual meeting. A trial date has not been
set as of the date of this filing
Edgio, Inc. provides content delivery network services based in
Arizona.
EDGIO INC: Faces Botelho Stockholder Suit in Delaware Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Edgio, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2022., filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 29, 2023, that on July 18, 2022, a stockholder
filed a verified class action captioned "Diane Botelho v. Walter
Amaral, Edgio, Inc. et al.," Delaware Chancery court (Case No.
2022-0624).
The class action complaint alleges that the Edgio Board of
Directors violated its fiduciary duties in entering into the
stockholders' agreement as part of the Edgecast Acquisition. The
plaintiffs challenge certain provisions of the stockholders'
agreement alleging that the defensive measures in the agreement
create a significant and enduring stockholder block designed to
entrench the Board of Directors and protect it from stockholder
activism.
The complaint seeks injunctive relief in the form of an injunction
enjoining the enforcement of the challenged provisions. Edgio filed
a motion to dismiss and the matter was heard on October 12, 2022,
in the Delaware Chancery court. The Vice Chancellor granted Edgio's
motion to dismiss on the record; however, on December 8, 2022, the
court requested supplemental briefing on certain issues raised at
oral arguments.
Supplemental briefs and answering briefs were filed in January
2023. On May 2, 2023, the Delaware Chancery court issued a
memorandum opinion reversing its order on the record and denying
the company's motion to dismiss.
On May 12, 2023, the parties entered into an interim arrangement to
avoid the costs and burdens of expedited litigation where the
company agreed not to enforce the provisions of the stockholders'
agreement that the plaintiffs challenged in the suit in connection
with the company's 2023 annual meeting. A trial date has not been
set as of the date of this filing
Edgio, Inc. provides content delivery network services based in
Arizona.
EDGIO INC: Faces Mehran Stockholder Suit in Delaware Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Edgio, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2022., filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 29, 2023, that on April 25, 2023, a stockholder
filed a complaint in the United States District court for the
District of Arizona a complaint captioned "Mehran Esfandiari et al.
v. Edgio, Inc." et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00691, against the
company, and current and former officers.
The Class Action Complaint includes two claims: (1) violation of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (against all
defendants), and (2) violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
(against the individual defendants).
The Class Action Complaint alleges that the defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose material facts concerning accounting and internal controls
regarding the company's "Open Edge" arrangements. It seeks
compensatory damages, including interest thereon, costs, and
expenses.
Edgio, Inc. provides content delivery network services based in
Arizona.
FCTI INC: Order on Bids for Class Certification Entered
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA DURKEE, v. FCTI,
INC., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02537-FMO-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order regarding motions for
class certification.
The Court said, "Any motion(s) for class certification shall comply
with all Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules, as well
as this Order. Please be advised that this Order contains
requirements more specific than the Local Rules and Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure."
1. Joint Brief
The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single,
fully
integrated joint brief covering each party's position, in
which
each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a party is immediately
followed by the opposing party's/parties' response.
2. Citation to Evidence
All citation to evidence in the joint brief shall be directly
to
the exhibit and page number(s) of the evidentiary appendix,
or
page and line number(s) of a deposition.
3. Unnecessary Sections
The parties need not include a "procedural history" section,
since the court will be familiar with the procedural history.
The court is also familiar with the general standard for
class
certification, so that need not be argued.
4. Evidentiary Objections
"All necessary evidentiary objections shall be made in the
relevant section(s) of the joint brief.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43rXtCp at no extra charge.[CC]
GEICO INDEMNITY: Remand Ruling in Drivers' Class Suit Discussed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wystan M. Ackerman, Esq., of Robinson & Cole LLP, in an article for
The National Law Review, reports that a recent Ninth Circuit
decision highlights the importance of the defendant clearly
pleading the basis for alleging the amount in controversy in a
notice of removal under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). In
this case, after the defendant prevailed on a summary judgment
motion and the plaintiff appealed, the Ninth Circuit vacated and
remanded for the district court to determine the amount in
controversy.
In Moe v. GEICO Indemnity Co., -- F.4th --, 2023 WL 4483690 (9th
Cir. July 12, 2023), the plaintiff filed a putative statewide class
action in Montana against GEICO. He alleged that GEICO improperly
failed to pay him, and other third-party claimants injured in
accidents for which GEICO drivers were determined to be
responsible, collection fees and interest on medical bills, and
lost wages. In removing to federal court, GEICO's notice of removal
relied on a declaration from an employee stating "that he
'generated data and can state that the claims paid by GEICO
Indemnity Co., and the damage exposure, not liability, to the
potential members of the putative class proposed by Plaintiff
exceeds the sum or value of $5 million in the aggregate.'" No
further explanation of the data and no calculations were provided.
At the district court level, neither the plaintiff nor the district
court challenged the propriety of removal. The district court
granted summary judgment on the named plaintiff's claim, and he
appealed.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit questioned sua sponte whether the $5
million threshold for the amount in controversy was satisfied.
While the Supreme Court has held in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating
Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2014), that evidence supporting the
amount in controversy is not required to accompany a notice of
removal, a "plausible assertion of the amount at issue" is
required. Here, the Ninth Circuit found GEICO's notice of removal
and accompanying declaration to be lacking. It explained that the
plaintiff's "claimed damages in his individual claim are under
$1,000," "there is little indication what the average amount of
damages the purported class members may have suffered," and "it is
unclear how large the purported class may be." 2023 WL 4483690, at
*3. The Ninth Circuit therefore vacated the summary judgment ruling
(without addressing its merits), and remanded for the district
court to determine whether the amount in controversy requirement
was satisfied.
As I see it, a key practice pointer here for defense counsel is to
include enough allegations in the notice of removal (and if
desired, although not required, an accompanying declaration) to
demonstrate how the amount in controversy is being estimated. Here,
a conclusory assertion that data existed to support it was not
enough. Some specifics as to the nature of the data and what it
reflected might have been enough to avoid a remand, and then
presumably another appeal. Sometimes it can be helpful to offer the
court more than one method of calculation. [GN]
GOOGLE LLC: 7th Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Privacy Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin Law Journal reports that 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
issued a ruling in the lawsuit styled Matt Dinerstein v. Google,
LLC.
Class-action-Privacy
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: Matt Dinerstein v. Google, LLC
Case No.: 20-3134
Officials: Sykes, Chief Judge, and Flaum and Kirsch, Circuit
Judges.
Focus: Class-action-Privacy
Google and the University of Chicago Medical Center joined forces
to develop software with the ability to predict the future
healthcare needs of patients. In order to "train" the software's
algorithms, the University provided Google with several years'
worth of de-identified patient medical records. A contractual
agreement was established, which limited Google's use of the
records to specific research-related activities and prohibited any
attempts to identify the patients whose records were shared.
However, a lawsuit was filed by Dinerstein on behalf of himself and
a class of other patients whose de-identified records were
disclosed. The claim stated that the University had breached either
an explicit or an implied contract based on a privacy notice
Dinerstein received and an authorization he signed during each
admission to the Medical Center. As an alternative argument, he
asserted unjust enrichment. By citing the same notice and
authorization, he alleged that the University had violated its
promise of patient confidentiality, thus violating the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Dinerstein
also claimed unjust enrichment and tortious interference with his
contract with the University against Google. Additionally, he
brought a privacy claim based on intrusion upon seclusion.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the
case. According to federal court requirements, a plaintiff must
plausibly allege (and subsequently prove) that they have suffered a
concrete and specific injury that is actual or imminent, and that
can be traced back to the defendant's actions. However, the
injuries alleged by Dinerstein lacked plausibility, concreteness,
or imminence, or a combination thereof.
Affirmed.
Decided 07/11/23 [GN]
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Action Over Tax Info Sharing
----------------------------------------------------
Skye Witley, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Alphabet
Inc.'s Google and online tax preparation companies H&R Block Inc.
and TaxAct Holdings Inc. are facing proposed class actions accusing
them of violating taxpayers' privacy by sharing their sensitive
financial data, citing the findings of a recent congressional
report.
Google and H&R Block were sued on July 14; TaxAct was sued on July
15, a Bloomberg Law analysis of court dockets found. Each lawsuit
claimed that embedded pixels -- strings of code that enable
websites to track user interactions -- transmitted information from
millions of digital tax filings to tech companies.
The suits seeking damages come after the companies were named in a
report released by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and other
congressional Democrats that questioned whether tax preparation
firms were improperly sharing consumers' tax data via pixels with
tech companies, which used the information to improve targeted
advertising. Warren recommended that the Department of Justice, the
Internal Revenue Service, and other agencies investigate possible
criminal privacy violations.
Pixels are used by companies to identify how successful ad
campaigns are by collecting data on where a website user clicks or
what they type. But the litigants say those pixels also dredged up
data including taxpayers' gross incomes, tax refund amounts, net
worth, and charitable contributions.
The lawsuit filed against Google in the US District Court for the
Northern District of California alleged the tech company violated
federal wiretapping protections and the state's invasion of privacy
law over its pixel's transmission of the data.
H&R Block was accused of violating the federal Electronic
Communications Privacy Act and state tax laws in a complaint filed
in the Eastern District of New York.
TaxAct faces a lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois
alleging breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and
violations of the state's deceptive business practices law.
The congressional report also named TaxSlayer LLC, which has not
been sued so far, and Meta Platforms Inc. In prior comments to
Bloomberg Law, the companies named in the report reiterated
commitments to protecting customer privacy.
Meta has been litigating a consolidated class action since December
2022, and TaxAct was already sued over taxpayer privacy concerns in
February.
Pixel technology has also fueled hundreds of privacy lawsuits over
the distribution of medical data and video-viewing information.
The cases are:
Smith v. Google, LLC, N.D. Cal., 5:23-cv-03527, 7/14/23
Pabon v. H&R Block, Inc. et al, E.D.N.Y., 2:23-cv-05363, 7/14/23
Hartz v. TaxAct, Inc., N.D. Ill., 1:23-cv-04591, 7/15/23 [GN]
H&R BLOCK: Parker Waichman Files Privacy Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Parker Waichman LLP, a national law firm, filed a class action
complaint against H&R Block, Inc., HRB Digital LLC, and HRB Tax
Group, Inc. alleging that Defendants unlawfully disseminated,
disclosed, transmitted and/or released Class Plaintiffs' private
tax return information ("TRI") to third parties such as
Facebook/Meta and Google without the consent of its customers, in
violation of state and federal law. The action was filed in the
United States District Court, Eastern District of New York on July
14, 2023, under docket number 2:23-cv-05363. The proposed class
action against Defendants seeks actual and imminent or impending
damages as a result of the Defendants' unlawful disclosure of
Plaintiff's and putative class members' private TRI.
The Complaint alleges that "[i]n or around 2022, H&R Block, along
with other major tax preparation software companies, was the
subject of an investigation by The Markup, which revealed that H&R
Block had been unlawfully utilizing pixels to disclose,
disseminate, transmit, and/or release confidential TRI to major
tech companies, including Meta and Google."
Raymond C. Silverman, Partner at Parker Waichman, explained "[t]he
abhorrent actions by H&R Block and other tax preparation companies
in surreptitiously sharing their customers' sensitive personal and
financial information is a gross betrayal to those people who
utilized these services under the mistaken belief that their
information would remain private. Parker Waichman is dedicated to
protecting the rights of consumers when they are wronged by
corporations who are only thinking about their bottom line to the
detriment of every day Americans."
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Raymond Silverman
Parker Waichman LLP
6 Harbor Park Drive
Port Washington, New York 11050-4647
516-466-6500 office
800-LAW-INFO (800-529-4636)
516-466-6665 fax
Licensed in New York
www.yourlawyer.com
rsilverman@yourlawyer.com [GN]
HCA HEALTHCARE: Class Actions Over Data Breach Pile Up
------------------------------------------------------
Dave Muoio, writing for Fierce Healthcare, reports that it took
less than a week for hospital chain HCA Healthcare to go from a
multimillion-patient data breach to a slew of class-action lawsuits
alleging negligence and seeking relief.
Two such cases were filed on July 12 and another two on July 14,
all in a Tennessee district court.
They follow the July 17 announcement that the 182-hospital
for-profit disclosed that an external storage location used to
automate email message formatting had been compromised. Data lists
including up to 27 million rows of data potentially impacting 11
million patients were accessed and information ranging from patient
names, emails, dates of birth and appointment locations -- but not
clinical information -- was posted online, the system said.
The plaintiffs of one case, Gary Silvers and Richard Marous, both
patients, wrote that they and other impacted patients "now face a
lifetime risk of identity theft due to the nature of the
information lost, and a diminishment in the value of their private
data."
Affected patients have also lost the time spent mitigating the
breach's consequences and face "emotional distress associated with
the loss of control over their highly sensitive private
information," the plaintiffs wrote.
HCA, they wrote, "knew or should have known" that the private
information collected is "highly sought after by criminal parties."
Security measures outlined in HCA's data security incident report
were "wholly inadequate" and allegedly did not comply with data
security guidelines shared by the Federal Trade Commission or those
outlined in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act, plaintiffs wrote.
"Defendant's failure to protect patients' private information has
harmed and will continue to harm millions of patients, causing
plaintiffs to seek relief on a classwide basis," they wrote.
Silvers and Marous' complaint outlined one count of negligence, one
count of negligence per se and one count of breach of implied
contract. They requested that the court grant monetary damages as
well as equitable and injunctive relief, the latter of which would
include an order for HCA to encrypt "all data collected through the
course of its business."
The other three complaints filed followed similar lines of argument
and prayers for relief. They also listed other charges of action
related to, among others, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment
and breach of fiduciary duty.
HCA said in the announcement that it reported the breach to law
enforcement and retained third-party forensic and threat
intelligence advisers. It disabled user access to the breached data
storage location -- a move plaintiffs said was insufficient -- and
plans to offer credit monitoring and identity protection services
where appropriate, it said.
The healthcare sector saw roughly 295 breaches affecting over 39
million individuals during the first half of 2023, according to the
Department of Health and Human Services' Office for Civil Rights.
HCA's incident stands as the largest healthcare breach of the year
to date in terms of total number of individuals potentially
affected. [GN]
HIH INSURANCE: DC Legal Sues Ex-Solicitor Over Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Naomi Neilson, writing for LawyersWeekly, reports that an
ex-solicitor who had his name stripped from the roll has taken on
his former solicitor in proceedings involving wrongful fraud
allegations and a landmark class action against a collapsed
insurer.
DC Legal, a firm established by former solicitor Bruce Dennis, is
seeking to dive into the inner workings of a trust account that had
been operated by solicitor Marcel Joukhador to receive $2,382,000
from the successful HIH Insurance class action.
The crux of the current proceedings in the NSW Supreme Court
relates to how that settlement money was distributed.
At the time the class action began, Mr. Joukhador worked with firm
Thomas Booler Lawyers but made a move to his current firm, Harrow
Legal, after NSW Supreme Court Justice Paul Brereton made a
landmark ruling in favour of the HIH plaintiffs in April 2016.
He was the principal of Harrow Legal when the money was received.
Mr. Dennis was retained in 2001 to act for certain HIH shareholders
who had acquired shares in circumstances that allegedly involved a
market affected by misrepresentation. Mr. Joukhador acted for
shareholders in proceedings that ran alongside it.
Mr. Joukhador was then retained by DC Legal to recover the costs
payable to him from the class action settlement.
After requesting a receipt of the redacted version of Harrow
Legal's trust account statement in August 2021, DC Legal learnt the
settlement sum was deposited into a trust account run by Harrow
Legal rather than into one controlled by Thomas Booler Lawyers.
DC Legal submitted Mr. Joukhador had an obligation to deposit the
settlement sum into the Thomas Booler Lawyers trust account.
When Mr. Joukhador's practising certificate was cancelled in 2017,
Phillip Madden, on behalf of Harrow Legal, agreed with Mr. Dennis
to recover and negotiate a settlement of costs to DC Legal.
This was linked to wrongful allegations made by police. The charges
were dropped, and Lawyers Weekly does not allege any wrongdoing
against Mr. Joukhador and understands his certificate was
reinstated.
Mr. Dennis has not held a practising certificate since June 2015,
and orders were made in 2016 to remove his name from the roll. DC
Legal has not had any active clients since 2015.
Running alongside this dispute is a cross-claim brought by Mr.
Joukhador seeking a payment of $381,980 that he alleges was an
overpayment of monies paid by him to DC Legal.
The proceedings have been stayed until DC Legal pays a security sum
of $91,764 and costs to Mr. Joukhador and Harrow Legal.
The matter is DC Legal Pty Ltd v Joukhador. [GN]
HOME BOX: Averts Meta Data Privacy Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Winston Cho, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that HBO
won't have to face a class action lawsuit accusing it of sharing
subscribers' personal viewing history with Facebook in violation of
a federal data privacy law.
In a notice to the court, Max subscribers who brought the suit
moved to dismiss it on July 18 "without prejudice," meaning they
can refile or alter the claims. The plaintiffs dropped their case
after a federal judge dismissed a similar suit against Scripps
Network brought by the same firm that sued HBO on behalf of
subscribers.
The legal challenges all center on allegations that companies using
Meta's Pixel tool, which allows advertisers to track users on
websites to measure the effectives of ads and serve targeted ads,
violates the Video Privacy Protection Act. The law carries damages
of up to $2,500 per class member and allows consumers to sue for
disclosure of information about their watching habits even without
sustaining an injury.
Max subscribers Angel McDaniel and Constance Simon alleged in a
suit filed last year that HBO discloses to Facebook the content
they watch on top of other personally identifiable information
without consent. Meta hasn't been named in any of the complaints.
Numerous streaming providers, including Hulu, ESPN and AMC
Networks, have been sued for alleged violations of the VPPA over
the last decade, with a judge ruling in favor of Hulu in 2015 that
it's not liable because it didn't knowingly transmit data to
Facebook. The scope of the video privacy law remains contested.
In April, a federal judge dismissed a suit against Scripps Network
alleging a violation of the VPPA, though that case involved a
different set of circumstances. U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel
found that consumers who subscribed to HGTV.com's newsletter aren't
covered by the law because they aren't considered "subscribers."
Scripps stressed that subscribers to the newsletter didn't purchase
goods or services from HGTV.
The ruling bolstered arguments from defendants in identical cases
that simply because a business is engaged in the sale or rental of
video materials or services doesn't mean that all of its products
are within the scope of the law. A federal judge held in a suit
accusing AMC of violating the law that "an individual must do more
than simply take advantage of a provided service -- even if doing
so alone allows a provider to access her information -- in order to
have acted as a 'subscriber' of the provider."
HBO and Warner Bros. Discovery didn't immediately respond to
requests for comment. [GN]
HSBC GLOBAL: Faces Class Action for Engaging in "Closet Indexing"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Langton, writing for Advisor's Edge, reports that a proposed
class action alleging that a mutual fund managed by HSBC Global
Asset Management (Canada) Ltd. harmed investors by engaging in
"closet indexing" is still struggling to find traction in the
Supreme Court of British Columbia.
In August 2022, the court declined to certify a lawsuit against
HSBC as a class action, finding it failed to establish a common
issue for fund investors that justified a class action.
Since then, the proposed plaintiff amended her claim and filed
further evidence seeking to establish that a foundation for a class
action exists.
In response, the firm sought to have the case dismissed.
The court noted that HSBC argued the revised claim fundamentally
altered the plaintiffs' definition of "closet indexing." Among
other things, the plaintiff's revised pleading argued that closet
indexing represents an investment strategy of having "low active
risk" -- as measured by metrics such as tracking error and active
share -- so the fund effectively tracks the benchmark.
The plaintiff also dropped earlier claims of fraud, now arguing
that the firm was negligent in failing to properly disclose its
investment strategy. She also argued the defendants were "negligent
in failing to ensure that their management fees were commensurate
with the level of active risk in the equity fund," the court said.
The court largely sided with HSBC, finding the revised claim
"confounding" and that the plaintiff's case still isn't clear.
Among other things, the court speculated the plaintiff may be
trying to argue that the firm was negligent because the compliance
side of the firm didn't appreciate, and so didn't properly
disclose, the strategy being implemented by the investment side of
the business.
"If such is the case, such needs to be clearly pleaded [. . .] so
that the defendants and the court may understand the plaintiff's
claim," the court said.
"Also possibly, the plaintiff is saying that the defendants, over
time, with hindsight, should have realized that their strategy
would not result in significant returns for investors having regard
to the fees the defendants charged," the decision suggested.
The court also detailed concerns about the definition of "active
risk" in the proposed plaintiff's claim.
Ultimately, the court concluded the confusing aspects of the claim
don't meet the standard of "pleadings to ensure the litigation
process is fair."
While the firm sought to have the proposed class action dismissed,
the court gave the plaintiff 30 days to revise and refile her claim
to more clearly set out her theory.
The court will then determine whether it has a case for a possible
class action.
The case is one of several being pursued against bank-owned fund
managers (the others involve CIBC Asset Management, RBC Global
Asset Management and TD Asset Management) alleging that investors
were harmed by mutual funds that charged fees for active management
while only closely tracking their equity indexes.
While the cases against RBC and TD were certified as class actions,
the other two have struggled for certification. Last July, TD
prevailed in the first case that went to trial. [GN]
JACKSON COUNTY, MO: Independence City Votes to Join Tax Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Payne, writing for KCTV, reports that Independence is trying
to join the class action lawsuit filed against Jackson County
regarding the recent property tax assessments.
"When I got the letter in the mail, I was surprised," said Barbara
Prime, an Independence resident. "It went up 83% and I was like,
'Woah, that was quite an increase!'"
Prime was one of several people at the Independence City Council
meeting on July 17 who were surprised to see their Jackson County
property tax assessment so high.
"Like they said, you are going to have to decide whether you are
going to buy groceries, medication or put gas in your car," Prime
said, "because everything has gone up."
The Independence City Council is hoping they can help ease their
residents' concerns through legal action.
The council added two agenda items. One is a resolution to direct
the city manager to consult with the city counselor, to determine
if they can join the class action lawsuit filed against Jackson
County relating to the recent property tax assessments. The other
resolution implores the Jackson County Executive Frank White Jr. to
maintain assessed valuations for real property in Jackson County at
their 2022 levels for the calendar year 2023.
A Jackson County legislator and local state representative in the
audience voiced their support for the two resolutions.
"I can speak without a doubt in my mind that people of Independence
want us to exercise all possible remedies on their behalf to
provide relief for these burdensome tax increases," said Missouri
State Representative Aaron McMullen.
"It represents a problem," said Legislator Sean Smith of Jackson
County's 6th District. "It represents a solution, in a way, to
decades of neglect on the part of the county, where our property
assessed values required under state law were probably not
correct."
The council voted unanimously in favor of both resolutions but,
despite the July 17 vote, it is still unknown whether the city has
legal standing to sue the county.
"We'll see what the attorney says when he comes back to say do we,
in fact, have standing," Independence Mayor Rory Rowland said.
"But, in that regard, we wanted to show people that we heard them,
we understand their pain and anxiety, and try to get something done
in regards to protect them."
Mayor Rowland says the city counselor and attorney were going to
start working on exploring their options on July 18 and would try
to come up with an answer as soon as possible. [GN]
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Collaza Sues Over Mislabeled Analgesic Drug
--------------------------------------------------------------
EVIE COLLAZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., Defendant,
Case No. 5:23-cv-06030 (S.D.N.Y., July 13, 2023) alleges that the
Defendant produces, manufactures, markets, and distributes
mislabeled over-the-counter products, including analgesic or
pain-relieving medicines under the Tylenol brand name.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint, despite what the
Defendant's marketing and labeling would have consumers believe,
the term "rapid release" does not actually mean that the drug works
faster for consumers than non-rapid release products.
The Defendant sells its Tylenol rapid release gelcaps with false,
misleading, deceptive labeling and marketing in an effort to dupe
consumers into purchasing these gelcaps for prices that exceed
their true value. The Defendant has pursued and continues to pursue
this course of conduct in order to profit off of unassuming,
unwitting consumers looking for the fastest pain relief possible
from an over-the-counter acetaminophen product.
The Plaintiff and the Class would not have otherwise purchased had
they known the true nature and quality of the products.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. engages in the research and
development of products. The Company provides products for
newborns, babies, toddlers, and mothers, including cleansers, skin
care, moisturizers, hair care, diaper care, sun protection, and
nursing products. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies operates in
the State of New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell M. Breit, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN
405 E. 50th Street
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (630) 796-0903
Email: mbreit@milberg.com
- and -
Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
William A. Ladnier, Esq.
Virginia A. Whitener, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
Email: aedwards@milberg.com
wladnier@milberg.com
gwhitener@milberg.com
- and -
Jay Barnes, Esq.
An Truong, Esq.
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LCC
112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 784-6400
Email: jaybarnes@simmonfirm.com
atruong@simmonsfirm.com
JUSTANSWER LLC: Foley & Lardner Attorneys Discuss ARL Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erik K. Swanholt, Esq., John J. Atallah, Esq., and Cole K.
Waldhauser, Esq., of Foley & Lardner LLP, disclosed that since its
enactment in 2010, California's Automatic Renewal Law (ARL) has
motivated an ever-increasing number of putative class action
complaints. The latest surge is due in large part to amendments
that went into effect last summer that add to the statute's
requirements for businesses offering goods or services on a
subscription basis. These amendments introduced specific
requirements for online subscription termination options, as well
as for the timing and content of reminder notices to be sent before
term expiration. While less rigorous in some respects, Colorado,
Delaware, Illinois, Idaho, and Virginia also enacted similar
statutes that, in turn, mirror several requirements of the federal
Restore Online Shoppers Confidence Act (ROSCA).
For businesses with subscription models or offerings, compliance
with dynamic regulatory schemes can prove a moving target,
particularly when even minor technical noncompliance exposes a
company to costly litigation. Added protections like arbitration
agreements with class action waivers may help to reduce the risk of
expensive class action complaints, but only if properly
implemented. The cases below illustrate key issues that courts have
recently considered when determining whether to enforce such
arbitration provisions.
Sellers v. JustAnswer LLC
The caselaw relating to the enforcement of arbitration clauses and
class action waivers in the ARL context continues to develop, with
the California Appellate Court's decision in Sellers v. JustAnswer
LLC, 73 Cal. App. 5th 444 (2021) setting the stage. Sellers
employed the concept of constructive notice -- requiring that the
arbitration and class action waiver terms were "sufficiently
conspicuous" -- in determining that those provisions were
enforceable. In arriving at its decision, the Sellers court
distinguished among the varying types of internet contracts:
Scrollwrap -- Users are presented with the entire agreement and
must physically scroll to the bottom of it to find the "I agree" or
"I accept" button.
Clickwrap -- An agreement that requires users to accept a website's
terms by clicking a button, with a link to the agreement readily
available.
Browsewrap -- Users accept a website's terms by simply browsing the
site.
Sign-in Wrap -- A hybrid of clickwrap and browsewrap in which users
are advised that by using the website, signing-in, or creating an
account, they are agreeing to the contract, which is usually
available by hyperlink.
Each of these agreements provides users with varying degrees of
notice (scrollwrap the most, browsewrap the least). Sellers was the
first California decision regarding the enforceability of a sign-in
wrap arbitration agreement, using criteria like the size, color,
contrast, and location of the text and hyperlinks to gauge the
contract's conspicuousness. The court placed great emphasis on the
"transactional context" of the agreement and acknowledged that in
circumstances where a relationship is forward-looking, like a
monthly membership, the consumer is more likely to review key
contractual terms.
Sellers' Progeny
Several state and federal cases following Sellers have clarified
its holding. In B.D. v. Blizzard Entm't, Inc., 76 Cal. App. 5th
931, 946 (2022), the same appellate district determined that
consumers need not "expressly manifest their assent to [the terms
of use] by checking a box or clicking an 'I agree' button. Instead,
the consumer is purportedly bound by clicking some other button
that they would otherwise need to click to continue with their
transaction or their use of the website[.]" Thus, "the consumer's
assent is largely passive, and the existence of a contract turns on
whether a reasonably prudent offeree would be on inquiry notice of
the terms at issue." Id.
California district courts continually find sufficient notice for
sign-in wrap agreements where the checkout pages contain
disclosures above or below the "Place Your Order," "Create Your
Account," or "Continue" button stating, "I accept and agree to your
Terms of Use Agreement" or "By placing an order, you agree to our
Terms and Conditions." In each of these cases, the phrase "Terms of
Use" is displayed as a colored hyperlink that directs users to the
terms, which include an arbitration agreement. See Karim v. Best
Buy Co., No. 22-CV-04909-JST, 2023 WL 3801909, at *5 (N.D. Cal.
June 2, 2023); Hooper v. Jerry Ins. Agency, LLC, No.
22-CV-04232-JST, 2023 WL 3992130, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2023);
Capps v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A, No. 2:22-cv-00806-DAD-JDP, 2023
WL 3030990 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2023).
These cases follow a string of federal California precedent,
including the recent Ninth Circuit case Oberstein v. Live Nation
Ent., Inc., 60 F. 4th 505, 516-17 (9th Cir. 2023), which deemed a
website's terms sufficiently conspicuous because they were
distinguished from the surrounding text, located directly adjacent
to the action button, and the underlying transaction required a
full registration process before the transaction would proceed.
Upshot
Taken together, these cases can be read to provide a blueprint for
an enforceable arbitration agreement and class action waiver in the
ARL context.
Scrollwrap agreements provide the greatest protection. Requiring
users to scroll the length of an agreement then affirmatively click
"I agree" is a form of consumer notice that can provide a greater
degree of certainty with respect to the enforceability of its
terms.
Clickwrap and sign-in wrap agreements are also viable options that
may afford the consumer a more seamless user interface while still
providing sufficient notice under applicable ARLs.
Ultimately, courts view the circumstances of the transaction in
their totality to determine the sufficiency of notice. The Sellers
factors like font size, color, contrast, and location inform the
calculus, as does the context of the transaction. Recent authority
signals that use of a purchase button itself may be interpreted as
a form of consumer consent to an underlying set of terms, so long
as they are proximally and conspicuously noticed and the express
terms are readily accessible (for example, by use of a hyperlink).
Businesses offering goods or services to California consumers on a
subscription basis should consult with knowledgeable counsel to
develop or seek the enforcement of their arbitration agreements and
class action waivers. [GN]
MACKENZIE INVESTMENTS: Merchant Law Group Files Privacy Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Clare O'Hara and Irene Galea, writing for The Globe and Mail,
report that a group of investors has filed a lawsuit against
several Canadian and U.S. financial institutions, alleging they
failed to protect their clients after confidential investor
information -- including social insurance numbers -- was stolen in
a January cyberattack.
Merchant Law Group LLP has filed a class-action lawsuit against
Canadian asset manager Mackenzie Investments; securities brokerage
Edward Jones; back-office service provider InvestorCOM Inc., which
provides printing and delivery of client materials using a popular
data transfer tool called GoAnywhere; and U.S.-based Fortra LLC,
the cybersecurity company that owns GoAnywhere.
The class action was filed on behalf of investors who hold
Mackenzie funds and reside in British Columbia, Saskatchewan,
Manitoba or Newfoundland and Labrador. These provinces have passed
privacy legislation that allows for legal consequences if a privacy
breach occurs. Other provinces, including Ontario, are not
included.
The suit alleges that the January breach, which exposed sensitive
information including SINs, originated through GoAnywhere, a secure
file transfer software offered by Fortra.
The claim alleges that the vulnerability found in the GoAnywhere
software by the attackers was similar to other "well known" data
breaches that had occurred in 2021, and should have been a flag for
the group of financial companies in the class action to take
measures to prevent further attacks on client data.
"These eminent financial organizations were essentially warned that
the confidential financial information they had received from
Canadians was at risk, but nothing was done," Tony Merchant, a
partner at Merchant Law Group, said in a news release.
"Despite being aware of previous cyberattacks of a similar nature
at other companies similar to the defendants, the defendants
neglected their responsibility to exercise due diligence in
preventing such incidents."
At the end of March, InvestorCOM informed its clients -- which
include Mackenzie and Franklin Templeton -- about the data breach.
In turn, an unknown number of Canadian investors holding funds from
Mackenzie and Franklin Templeton were informed in early May that
their personal information -- including SINs -- had been breached
in a data hack. Mackenzie told clients that their SINs, names and
addresses were revealed as part of the breach.
Mackenzie spokesperson Hilary Bassett declined to comment on the
legal action.
Fund manager Gluskin Sheff + Associates Inc. and Franklin Templeton
were also affected, and notified clients of the breach in March.
Franklin Templeton said that SINs were not revealed but that
investors' names, addresses and account numbers had been. Gluskin
Sheff and Franklin Templeton have not been named in the class
action.
Many clients were also notified about the hacks through their
investment advisers. Edward Jones and Royal Bank of Canada are just
two of the institutions that notified clients who hold mutual funds
from Mackenzie or Franklin Templeton that their data were
compromised. (RBC is not named in the class action.)
Edward Jones Canada told The Globe and Mail in an e-mail that the
company has not been served with the lawsuit and therefore has not
yet reviewed it.
"We are aware of a data breach that an industry vendor used by
Mackenzie Investments experienced in January of this year," the
e-mail said. "To be clear, no Edward Jones system was compromised
in that incident. We take seriously our obligations to safeguard
and protect our clients' information. Our top priority remains
serving our clients and helping them achieve financially what is
most important to them."
The breach has left customers questioning why their sensitive data
was retained by a third party, through which the data breach
occurred. Many of those whose information was stolen had not held
assets with either fund provider for several years.
Federal privacy rules require Canadian companies to dispose of
personal information that "no longer fulfills its intended
purpose," but there are no specific requirements related to the
retention and deletion of SINs.
The legal claim alleges there is a "high probability" that an
entire batch of information stolen from the financial companies has
been "dumped on the black market or dark web," as per the previous
cyberattacks. It adds that SINs hold significant value for
criminals engaged in fraud and identity theft, putting the
plaintiffs at an "immediate and heightened risk" of financial
losses and reputational damage.
Mackenzie told an investor in a letter dated May 15 and shared with
The Globe that it had "no evidence at this time of any misuse of
investor data."
The company said it is offering clients two years of free credit
monitoring through TransUnion, as well as fraud-victim assistance,
$1-million in identity-theft insurance and monitoring of the dark
web for exposed personal information.
But many clients struggled to access the support, saying they
received notices that their TransUnion login code had already been
used when they attempted to log in for the first time. [GN]
META PLATFORMS: Aug. 25 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Heart, writing for 107.9 LiteFM, reports that it probably
won't be life-changing money, but if you feel like the social media
giant has done you wrong, this could be the most satisfying money
you've made all year.
Facebook has agreed to a $725 million class-action settlement after
they were caught your private information with multiple third
parties without asking you for permission to do so. If you're
wondering why this hasn't been all over the news, it's because the
invasion of privacy happened about five years ago. According to the
Associated Press, the class action suit is connected to a 2018
discovery that a company called Cambridge Analytica paid one of
Facebook's app developers to get access to personal info for close
to 87 million users. That company turned around and used that
information for commercial purposes and political campaigns.
The settlement notice explains that not only did Facebook share
users' data with multiple third parties, but it also shared
information about your friends on the platform and did not monitor
how the third parties used that data.
So why is this news, now? Because the deadline to file a claim so
that you can receive funds from the lawsuit is quickly approaching
in August.
Since the privacy breach, Facebook has changed its name to Meta.
Meta still won't admit that they did anything wrong but decided to
settle out of court. That means that users, including the thousands
in Idaho, now have the opportunity to get some cash from the shady
social network.
Who In Idaho Can Get Money from Facebook?
Any user that had an active account between May 24, 2007 and
December 22, 2022.
How Much Money Will I Get?
Right now, that's unclear. Facebook is paying out $725 million but
part of that money will go toward covering payment for the lawyers
who were part of the case. Then they'll distribute what's left to
people who have submitted valid claims. The longer you had an
active account during the time period listed above, the more money
you'll receive.
How Will I Recieve My Money?
We're happy you asked. We're still mad at Facebook for continuing
to allow scammers to steal our personal images to create fake
profiles claiming to be one of our on-air personalities and direct
our trusting listeners to phishing websites that will steal their
credit card information…so you know we filled out a claim form as
soon as we found out we could! You can choose to receive your money
on a Prepaid Mastercard via e-mail, PayPal, Venmo, Zelle or a
physical check.
What Information Do I Need to Submit?
They'll want to know which e-mail addresses, phone numbers and user
names you had associated with the Facebook account you're filing a
claim for. You'll also need to give the settlement administrator
your basic contact information.
Where Do I Submit My Claim?
You can do it in less than five minutes online HERE or download
this claim form and mail it in.
How Long Do I Have to File a Claim?
August 25, 2023
Again, the more people who file claims, the less money you'll get
but is it even about the money? Or are you just happy with flipping
Facebook the middle finger? Because after the hell they've put us
through with all these fake profiles, we'd be happy with a Taylor
Swift or Gwyneth Paltrow-esque $1. [GN]
META PLATFORMS: Faces Teen Mental Health Class Suit in Louisiana
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Bucher, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that Meta
Platforms Inc. and affiliated entities are facing a class action
lawsuit alleging Meta knowingly exploited children and negatively
impacted teen mental health to drive corporate profit.
Plaintiff Cedric Williams says he is a heavy user of the Meta
platforms. He says the addictive design of Meta products and
constant notifications caused him to engage in problematic use of
the products.
Williams alleges he became addicted to the Meta platforms and
ultimately suffered adverse consequences "including loss of
relationships, depression, social anxiety, and a reduced
inclination or ability to sleep."
The Meta class action lawsuit alleges that Meta's products,
including Facebook and Instagram, are designed to maximize users'
screen time, modifying the products to promote excessive use that
they know could lead to self-destructive behaviors.
Addictive Meta platforms negatively affect teen mental health,
plaintiff says
Facebook and Instagram collectively have more than 2 billion users,
according to the Meta class action lawsuit.
Williams is an adult, but the Meta class action lawsuit expresses
concerns about the platforms' known risks to teen mental health.
Nine out of 10 teens utilize social media platforms, and use them
for approximately three hours each day, Williams claims.
"Given the delicate, developing nature of the teenage brain and
Meta's creation of social media platforms designed to be addictive,
it comes as no surprise that we are now grappling with the
ramifications of Meta's growth-at-any-cost approach," the Meta
class action lawsuit says.
Social media use may facilitate cyberbullying, eating disorders,
sleep deprivation, negative self-image, and has reportedly been
connected to anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide, according
to the Meta class action lawsuit.
U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek H. Murthy recently released a public
advisory about the potential effects of social media on youth and
teen mental health.
Meta knew that its platforms were designed to be aggressively
addictive but failed to warn consumers about the risks of social
media addiction, Williams alleges.
Williams filed the Meta class action lawsuit on behalf of himself
and a proposed class of other consumers who used Facebook and
suffered mental health issues as a result of using the social media
platform.
Williams is represented by Andrew A. Lemmon of Lemmon Law Firm LLC
and by Paul J. Doolittle and Blake G. Abbott of Poulin Willey
Anastopoulo LLC.
The Meta teen mental health class action lawsuit is Cedric Williams
v. Meta Platforms Inc., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00927, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Lake Charles
Division. [GN]
META PLATFORMS: Oct. 11 BIPA Deal Approval Hearing Set Oct. 11
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Neveau, writing for NBC Chicago, reports that if you're an
Illinois resident and you've used the social media site Instagram
in the last eight years, you could be entitled to compensation from
a proposed class-action settlement involving the company.
According to a press release, the suit was filed in the 18th
Judicial Circuit Court in DuPage County, and stemmed from alleged
violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
That act prohibits companies from collecting and storing biometric
information, and has been cited in lawsuits against numerous
platforms, including Facebook and Snapchat. The Facebook suit was
settled in 2020, with members of the class-action receiving a pair
of payments related to the lawsuit.
A settlement reached in the case potentially impacts all Illinois
residents who used Instagram at any point between Aug. 10, 2015 and
Aug. 16, 2023, according to lawyers involved with the suit.
The settlement fund of $68.5 million will be used to pay for
payments to users, administration expenses, all taxes, and any fees
awarded to lawyers and class representatives, according to the
release.
Those Illinois residents who used the social media site must
complete a claim form at this website by Sept. 27, 2023.
Those residents who do not want to be bound to the terms of the
settlement must submit a letter requesting that exclusion by Aug.
16.
Residents who want to stay in the settlement class, but want to
object to the settlement or the payouts associated with the
settlement, must file an objection with he court by Aug. 16.
A final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Oct.
11, with a decision by the court to follow that date.
More information can be found on the class action's website --
https://www.instagrambipasettlement.com/ [GN]
MG BILLING: Porn Site Users File Class Action Over Membership
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lily Meier, writing for The Messenger Business, reports that a
class action has been filed on behalf of porn customers who were
invited to sign up for a two-day, $2 membership to an adult
entertainment website and were then were "surreptitiously" charged
for a different and expensive membership, the lawsuit alleges.
The billing company named in the suit, MG Billing Limited, which
the lawsuit claims is based in Cyprus, allegedly "lures consumers"
into providing their credit card information for a short trial
period. Then they are assessed monthly fees for "a different adult
entertainment membership" that they did not order or use, according
to the lawsuit, filed in DuPage County, Illinois.
The named plaintiff is James Vandiver, who could not immediately be
reached. The lawsuit said Vandiver has no permanent residential
address.
Brazzers, the site the plaintiff signed up with for a two-day
trial, advertises itself as the "#1 Best Porn Site In the WORLD."
The complaint claims that individuals who canceled their $2,
two-day trial in less than 48 hours, would not incur any additional
charges. The plaintiff claimed they were charged anyway.
The suit cites other individuals who had experiences similar to the
plaintiff. One claimed that after signing up for a trial
membership, they were enrolled in both a membership and a 'premium'
membership which totaled almost $75 a month.
Another alleged that while he or she believed the sign-up was only
for a $2 trial, charges amounted to about $500.
Online pornography is a nearly $100 billion industry worldwide, and
its many websites attract more visitors every month than Amazon,
Twitter and Netflix combined, according to media reports cited in
the complaint. [GN]
MINEBEA MITSUMI: $9.75MM Settlement to be Heard on October 12
-------------------------------------------------------------
Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC; Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.; Preti,
Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios, LLP; Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C.;
Cera LLP; and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC ("Settlement Class
Counsel") on July 17 disclosed that the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division
("Court") has approved the following announcement concerning a
proposed distribution plan for the proceeds of a $9.75 million
settlement with the Minebea Defendants ("Minebea Settlement Fund")
in a price fixing class action lawsuit relating to small bearings.
The settlement resolved allegations against the Minebea Defendants
that they conspired to suppress and eliminate competition for Small
Bearings by agreeing to raise, fix, maintain, and/or stabilize
prices, rig bids, and allocate markets and customers for Small
Bearings sold in the United States, in violation of federal
antitrust laws. Small Bearings refers to bearings whose outer
diameter is 30 millimeters or less.
The settlement affects those who purchased small bearings in the
United States between June 1, 2003 and February 15, 2017 directly
from MINEBEA MITSUMI Inc., NMB (USA), Inc., NMB Technologies
Corporation, NSK Ltd., NSK Americas, Inc., or NSK Corporation.
A hearing will be held on October 12, 2023, at 2:00 p.m., before
the Honorable Sean F. Cox, United States District Judge, for the
purpose of determining whether to approve: (1) the proposed plan of
distribution of the Minebea Settlement Fund; (2) Settlement Class
Counsel's request for an award from the Minebea settlement proceeds
of attorneys' fees and litigation costs and expenses; and (3) a
service award for the Class Representative.
A Notice of Hearing and Claim Form (the "Notice") was mailed to
potential Settlement Class members on or about July 6, 2023. The
Notice describes in more detail the litigation and options
available to Settlement Class members with respect to the proposed
plan of distribution of the Minebea Settlement Fund, and Settlement
Class Counsel's requests for attorneys' fees, litigation costs and
expenses, and a service award to the Class Representative. The
Notice and other important documents related to the settlement can
be accessed at www.AutoPartsAntitrustLitigation.com/SmallBearings,
or by calling 1-888-396-9607 or writing to Small Bearings Direct
Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, P.O. Box 3560, Portland, OR
97208-3560. Those who believe they may be a member of the Minebea
Settlement Class are urged to obtain a copy of the Notice.
URL: www.AutopartsAntitrustLitigation.com/SmallBearings
SOURCE: The United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan, Southern Division [GN]
MJ FRAMING & DRYWALL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Midence Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARLON ANDRES CASTILLO MIDENCE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MJ FRAMING & DRYWALL, LLC;
MIGUEL ORTIZ; JOSE ORTIZ; and BENJAMIN WARD, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-02425 (W.D. Tenn., July 13, 2023) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Midence was employed by the Defendants as a painter.
MJ FRAMING & DRYWALL, LLC; MIGUEL ORTIZ provides drywall, and
insulation services. The Company offers plastering, metal framing,
paint, doors, frames, and hardware services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip Oliphant, Esq.
Alan G. Crone, Esq.
THE CRONE LAW FIRM, PLC
88 Union Avenue, 14th Floor
Memphis, TN 38103
Telephone: (800) 403-7868
(901) 737-7740
Email: acrone@cronelawfirmplc.com
poliphant@cronelawfirmplc.com
NEOVIA LOGISTICS: Sued Over Employee Fingerprint Scans
------------------------------------------------------
Mary Haydock, writing for Cook County Record, reports that
logistics giant Neovia has joined the ever increasing list of
employers targeted by class action lawsuits asserting they
allegedly improperly required workers to scan fingerprints under
the stringent mandates of Illinois' biometrics privacy law.
In a class action filed in Cook County Circuit Court on June 20,
plaintiff Jesus Ruelas, on behalf of himself and others, is
accusing Neovia Logistics Service of requiring employees to scan
their fingerprints to prove their identities when punching the
clock, but allegedly not first obtaining proper permissions or
providing disclosures, practices the suit contends violate the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).
The complaint is concerned with whether Neovia, a global leader in
third-party logistics, was allegedly intentional in its supposed
disregard of BIPA protocols at its warehouse in Joliet.
The lawsuit accuses Neovia, much like thousands of other Illinois
employers who have been hit with similar lawsuits, of allegedly not
first securing pre-authorized written consent from workers before
requiring the fingerprint scans, or providing them with notices
detailing how the company might handle the fingerprint scan data.
And like others sued under the BIPA law, Neovia also faces the very
real possibility of extreme losses should damages be awarded.
Under the BIPA law, plaintiffs are allowed to demand damages of
$1,000-$5,000 per violation in which someone's biometrics are
scanned. This could mean employers would be liable for up to $5,000
for each time an employee scanned a fingerprint in the workplace.
Small businesses looking for workplace efficiency through
technology face the same potential fines as their corporate
counterparts if they are not BIPA complaint.
Depending on the number of employees involved, Neovia could be
looking at potentially massive court-ordered payouts.
Fast food chain White Castle, which faced a similar lawsuit for all
of its Illinois employees, has estimated in court that they could
face up to $17 billion in damages for fingerprint scans by about
9,500 workers dating back five years before they were sued under
the BIPA law.
Despite the risks to the state economy from such crippling
judgments, the Illinois Supreme Court and other Illinois judges
have consistently rebuffed nearly every effort by employers to
limit the law's reach. The Illinois Supreme Court, for instance,
notably rejected efforts to classify workplace BIPA claims as
workers' compensation claims, which would have kicked most cases
against employers out of court.
Businesses have warned that, without relief from courts or changes
to the law from legislators, the Illinois Supreme Court's rulings
will result in economic devastation from "astronomical damages"
that put entire companies out of business, over technical
violations of the law that resulted in no concrete harm to
workers.
Plaintiff are demanding the damages allowed under the BIPA law, or
$1,000-$5,000 per employee fingerprint scan.
Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Douglas M. Werman and John
J. Frawley, of Werman Salas P.C., of Chicago. [GN]
OMNI FINANCIAL: Court Consolidates Appeals in Wood Lending Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
OMNI FINANCIAL OF NEVADA, INC. has filed a cross appeal from a
court order in the lawsuit entitled Ishayka Wood, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Omni
Financial of Nevada, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-01148-LMB-IDD, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
alleges that Omni facilitates predatory lending by using dishonest
tactics on its standard forms and unlawful terms in violation of
the Military Lending Act.
On Feb. 17, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state
a claim, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge
Leonie M. Brinkema on May 31, 2023. The Court ordered that Count I
of the amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to
the parties' stipulation and Counts II through IV of the amended
complaint are dismissed with prejudice.
On June 20, 2023, the Plaintiff filed an appeal to the Court Order,
under appellate Case No. 23-1662.
The Defendant filed its cross appeal on June 30, 2023 and was
assigned appellate Case No. 23-1730.
On July 11, 2023, the court consolidated Case No. 23-1662 with Case
No. 23-1730 as cross-appeals. The court held that the appellant in
Case No. 23-1662 shall be considered the appellant for purposes of
the consolidated appeals and shall proceed first at briefing and at
oral argument. Entry of appearance forms and disclosure statements
filed by counsel and parties to the lead case are deemed filed in
the secondary case.
The consolidated cross appellate case is captioned Ishayka Wood v.
Omni Financial of Nevada, Inc., Case No. 23-1730, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees ISHAYKA WOOD, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard
Newport News, VA 23601
Telephone: (757) 930-3660
- and -
Christopher James Brochu, Esq.
BROCHU LAW, LLC
841 Prudential Drive
Jacksonville, FL 32207
Telephone: (904) 201-1771
- and -
Drew David Sarrett, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
626 East Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 905-9900
- and -
Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
1101 East Cumberland Avenue
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (352) 753-8600
Defendant-Appellant OMNI FINANCIAL OF NEVADA, INC. is represented
by:
Patrick Broderick, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
777 South Flagler Drive
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 660-7900
- and -
Syed Mohsin Reza, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
1750 Tysons Boulevard
McLean, VA 22102
Telephone: (703) 749-1344
PETLAB CO: Sued in California Over Auto Renewal Purchases
---------------------------------------------------------
Marian Johns, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a California
woman alleges PetLab automatically renews consumers' purchases in
violation of state law.
Dana Hughes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a complaint July 2 in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California against PetLab alleging
violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and other
claims.
Hughes, according to her class action, made a purchase from PetLab
in November of 2022. She alleges that PetLab uses deceptive
advertising practices relating to its automatic renewal and
continuous services.
Hughes specifically alleges that after purchasing a supplement for
her dog for $29.96, she was automatically enrolled into an
auto-renewal subscription and was charged another $29.96 a month
later. She claims PetLab failed to give "clear and conspicuous"
disclosures regarding the auto renewal that are required by
California law.
Hughes alleges that despite numerous attempts to cancel her
subscription, she was not able to do so online and was forced to
email customer service in December of 2022 to request the
subscription cancellation. She further alleges that rather than
cancelling her subscription, PetLab suggested she "pause" the
subscription or change its frequency and refused to refund her the
second charge or cancel the shipment. Hughes claims there at least
129 complaints against PetLab over its auto-renewal subscription
tactics.
Hughes and the class seek monetary relief, interest, trial by jury
and all other just relief. They are represented by Kevin Cole of
The KJC Law Group APC in Beverly Hills, California.
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case
number 2:23-CV-05257 [GN]
RAIN ONCOLOGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Sept. 12
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP informs investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Rain Oncology Inc. (NASDAQ: RAIN) securities
between July 20, 2021 and May 19, 2023. Rain Oncology is a
late-stage precision oncology company that develops therapies that
target oncogenic drivers to genetically select patients in the
United States.
For more information, submit a form, email Aaron Dumas, Jr., or
give us a call at (800) 350-6003.
What is this Case About: Rain Oncology Inc. (RAIN) Misled Investors
Regarding the Viability of its Lead Drug Candidate Milademetan
According to the complaint, Rain's lead drug candidate was
milademetan, a drug designed to treat dedifferentiated liposarcoma
("DD LPS"). Rain first licensed milademetan from Daiichi Sankyo
Company, Limited, in September 2020 based on positive results from
a Phase 1 clinical trial. Instead of conducting additional trials
to test the safety and dosing of milademetan, Rain proceeded
straight to a Phase 3 clinical trial. Rain referred to the Phase 3
trial as the "MANTRA" trial.
Rain commenced the MANTRA trial in July 2021. For nearly two years,
Rain provided the market with false and misleading information
about the trial's design quality and approval risks for milademetan
related to its clinical development strategy. Then, on Monday, May
22, 2023, defendants announced topline data from the MANTRA trial,
revealing that milademetan had failed to show statistical
significance on the trial's primary endpoint and that the Company
was abandoning further pursuit of milademetan for treating DD LPS.
On this news, the price of Rain stock fell $8.71 per share to close
at $1.22 on May 22, 2023, a nearly 88% loss in value.
What Now: Similarly situated shareholders may be eligible to
participate in the class action against Rain Oncology Inc.
Shareholders who want to act as lead plaintiff for the class must
file their motion with the court by September 12, 2023. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class
members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate
in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no
action, you can remain an absent class member. For more
information, click here.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.
To be notified if a class action against Rain Oncology Inc. settles
or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in
wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts
Aaron Dumas, Jr.
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]
RIPPLE LABS: SEC Case Victory May Undermine XRP Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
John Kiguru, writing for Crypto News Flash, reports that as recent
market developments indicate the beginning of a bear market, all
eyes are on Ripple and the ongoing lawsuit. A victory for Ripple
(XRP) in the SEC case could undermine the class-action lawsuit.
Meanwhile, Tradecurve's presale is thriving, pocketing 80%. Traders
appreciate the newcomer for its unique hybrid exchange. Here's what
you need to know.
Ripple Lawsuit Seems To Be Endless
Ripple's (XRP) CEO, Brad Garlinghouse, is currently facing a
class-action lawsuit. However, lawyer John E. Deaton anticipates a
comprehensive victory for Ripple's case, which could undermine the
class-action lawsuit. If Ripple wins the SEC case, it could
establish a fund to compensate XRP holders. Conversely, if the SEC
were to win, they would rather collect the money than the
plaintiffs in the class-action suit.
Despite concerns from XRP holders, Deaton clarifies that the
certified classes subject to the class-action lawsuit would only
apply to US investors. XRP holders outside of the US would not be
affected by this certification. Regulatory authorities in these
jurisdictions have already declared that XRP is not a security,
implying that the certification does not impact XRP holders outside
of the US. [GN]
ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Aniol Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH ANIOL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-04524 (N.D. Il., July 13, 2023) is an action against the
Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the
Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information
stored within the Defendant's information network.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant
disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by
intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to
take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was safeguarded, failing to take
available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data, and
failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols,
policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for
internal use.
As a result, the PII of the Plaintiff and Class Members was
compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third
party—an undoubtedly nefarious third party that seeks to profit
off this disclosure by defrauding Plaintiff and Class Members in
the future, says the suit.
ROOSEVELT UNIVERSITY provides educational services. The University
offers degree programs in accounting, arts, pharmacy, mathematics,
computer science, communication, economics, language, sociology,
political science, general studies, and tourist management. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
954 Avenida Ponce De Leon
Suite 205, #10518
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (215) 789-4462
Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Sued Over Hydrocortisone Cream's False Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that class
action lawsuits have recently been in the news or filed against
companies accused of falsely advertising the effects of
over-the-counter medication.
Cortizone-10 hydrocortisone cream falsely marketed as maximum
strength, class action alleges
A consumer filed a class action lawsuit against Sanofi-Aventis U.S.
last month over claims the company sold a 1% cortisone cream
marketed as maximum strength hydrocortisone, despite competing
products containing 3% Cortizone-10.
The consumer behind the complaint argues she was disappointed after
purchasing the product and finding it did not actually contain the
maximum strength of hydrocortisone available in the marketplace.
"Consumers, including Plaintiff, lack the scientific knowledge
necessary to determine whether the Products are "Maximum Strength"
hydrocortisone products or to ascertain the true nature of the
quality or strength of the Products," the Cortizone-10 class action
states.
Theraflu Emergen-C convenience packs allegedly not actually
effective at treating cold, flu symptoms
A consumer filed a class action lawsuit against GSK Consumer Health
Inc. last month, arguing the company misleadingly labels its
Theraflu Emergen-C convenience packs to deceive customers into
thinking they are effective at curing cold and flu symptoms.
The consumer claims the Theraflu Emergen-C packs, in reality, note
in fine print on their back label that they have not been evaluated
by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and that they are
"not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease."
"By selling a proven cough and cold treatment with a vitamin c
supplement touted as having immune benefits from its high amounts
of vitamin C, consumers are misled as to its efficacy in treating
symptoms of coughs and colds," the Theraflu class action lawsuit
says.
Vicks Honey Lemon Chill lozenges don't actually contain lemon or
honey, class action claims
Also last month, a group of consumers urged a New York federal
court to keep alive a class action lawsuit accusing Procter &
Gamble Co. (P&G) of misrepresenting that its Vicks Honey Lemon
Chill lozenges contain lemon and honey.
The consumers argue the lozenges contain only a negligible amount
of lemon and honey, and that P&G is misrepresenting the
effectiveness of the product by labeling that they are "fast" and
"quick."
P&G is also accused of misleadingly labeling the Vicks Honey Lemon
Chill lozenges as "Max Strength," despite there allegedly being no
scientific indication that the amount of menthol each drop contains
increases its strength.
Judge declines to dismiss most claims Walgreens fraudulently
marketed generic children's cough medicine
A federal judge in California last month declined to dismiss the
majority of claims in a class action lawsuit filed against
Walgreens over allegations the company fraudulently marketed a
generic children's cough medicine.
Consumers argue Walgreens misrepresented the cough syrup product as
being only for children when, in reality, it is the same version of
a cough syrup the company markets for adults.
"The truth is that the Children's Cough DM product has the same
formula and ingredients as the Adult's Cough DM product," the
Walgreens lawsuit states.
The judge overseeing the class action lawsuit did dismiss with
prejudice claims of negligent misrepresentation while ruling the
claims preclude certain claims made solely for economic damages.
Cipla recalls six batches of albuterol inhalers over concerns they
could leak
In other news, Cipla announced a recall earlier this month for six
batches of its albuterol inhalers over concerns the products could
leak, resulting in not enough albuterol being administered per
dose.
The FDA published the recall July 6. It applies to six batches of
Albuterol sulfate inhalation aerosol, 90 mcg, that was manufactured
in November 2021.
Cipla said no adverse events have been reported in connection with
the recall, but it decided to initiate the recall after it received
a complaint about a consumer who observed a leak in the inhaler
valve of their Albuterol inhaler.
Consumers who own the recalled albuterol inhalers are instructed to
immediately stop using them and either return them to their place
of purchase or discard them.
While the company is not facing any legal action over the recall,
Top Class Actions follows recalls closely, as they can sometimes
lead to class action lawsuits. [GN]
SCHNUCK MARKETS: Settles False Ads Class Action for $4 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Schnucks agreed to pay $4 million as
part of a settlement to resolve claims it used false comparison
prices to advertise wine, spirits and other alcohol products.
The settlement benefits Missouri residents who purchased alcohol
(wine and spirits) from Schnucks' online store or a Schnucks store
in Missouri between Dec. 3, 2015, and Feb. 15, 2023.
According to the class action lawsuit, Schnucks violated Missouri
law by advertising its alcohol products with false and misleading
price comparisons. These false sale prices were allegedly featured
in Scnucks' print advertisements, in-store signage, mailed ads,
receipts and website listings.
Schnucks is a grocery store that sells food and alcohol products.
Under the terms of the Schnucks settlement, class members can
receive a cash payment based on the number of alcohol products they
purchased during the class period.
Class members who purchased at least one alcohol product can
receive $11 without providing proof of purchase.
Class members who purchased between 25 and 60 alcohol products can
receive $25 but must provide proof of purchase.
Class members who purchased 61 or more alcohol products can receive
a payment of $72 but must provide proof of purchase.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 8, 2023.
The final approval hearing for the Schnucks settlement is scheduled
for Oct. 10, 2023.
In order to receive a settlement payment, class members must submit
a valid claim form by Sept. 8, 2023.
Who's Eligible
Missouri residents who purchased alcohol (wine and spirits) from
Schnucks' online store or a Schnucks store in Missouri between Dec.
3, 2015, and Feb. 15, 2023
Potential Award
$72
Proof of Purchase
Schnucks store receipts or receipts stored in the class member's
Schnucks Rewards Member portal (for class members who claim 25 or
more purchases)
Claim Form
CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM »
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
09/08/2023
Case Name
Perry v. Schnuck Markets Inc., Case No. 20222-CC10425, in the
Missouri Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis
Final Hearing
10/10/2023
Settlement Website
SchnucksPricingSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Perry v. Schnuck Markets, Inc.
Claims Administrator
P.O. Box 5627
Portland, OR 97228-5627
info@SchnucksPricingSettlement.com
877-664-9133
Class Counsel
Adam Goffstein
GOFFSTEIN LAW LLC
Daniel Orlowsky
ORLOWSKY LAW LLC
Defense Counsel
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP [GN]
SIMPSON STRONG-TIE: Homeowner Class Action Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------
Elliot Mincberg, writing for People for the American Way, reports
that Judge Lucy Koh, nominated by President Biden to the US Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, cast the deciding vote reversing
a lower court and allowing a class action by homeowners against a
company for marketing allegedly defective and harmful products to
go forward. This was despite a dissent by Trump judge Eric Miller,
who would have affirmed the lower court. The July 2023 decision was
in Salhotra v Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc.
What is this Case About?
Ravi Salhotra filed a class action on behalf of homeowners,
contending that Simpson Strong-Tie Co. was selling defective
connector products that cause them to corrode and cause damage to
homes. The trial court, however, denied a motion for the case to
proceed as a class action, based on the exclusion of a key expert
report by Dr. Paul Brown, which explained the inherent defect in
the connectors. Salhotra and the other homeowners appealed.
How did Judge Koh and the Ninth Circuit Rule and Why is it
Important?
Judge Koh cast the deciding vote in an unsigned 2-1 decision that
reversed the district court. The ruling explained that Brown's
reliance on industry standards, his "extensive experience"
concerning metal corrosion in concrete, and his "testing of
specific Simpson products to reach his conclusion" all "demonstrate
his reliability" under legal standards for expert opinions.
Although the lower court and the dissent objected to some of his
specific methodologies, the panel explained that such objections
"go to the weight of the evidence, not admissibility," and did not
justify complete exclusion of Brown's report. The panel thus
concluded that the district court improperly excluded the report
and, because its decision to reject class certification "rested so
heavily" on that exclusion, the lower court must reconsider that
decision as well.
The Ninth Circuit decision is obviously important to the class of
California homeowners who seek accountability from the corporation
for what they contend are defective products that cause damage to
their homes. In addition, the ruling makes clear that courts should
not exclude expert reports that can be crucial in product defect
lawsuits based on disagreements about the weight that should be
properly accorded to an expert's opinion, an issue that should be
resolved at trial. This may well become important to other
consumers seeking accountability for product defects, particularly
in the Ninth Circuit states of California, Alaska, Arizona, Guam,
Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. The holding
is also yet another illustration of the importance of promptly
confirming fair-minded Biden nominees like Judge Koh to our federal
courts. [GN]
SL GREENFIELD: Appeals Court Vacates Order, Remands Wage Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin Law Journal reports that WI Court of Appeals – District
I issued a ruling in the lawsuit styled Sherleti Freeman v. SL
Greenfield, LLC.
Class Action Certification-Wage Payment
WI Court of Appeals - District I
Case Name: Sherleti Freeman v. SL Greenfield, LLC
Case No.: 2021AP001262
Officials: Brash, C.J., Dugan and White, JJ.
Focus: Class Action Certification-Wage Payment
This appeal arises from a complaint filed by Sherleti Freeman on
September 28, 2020, alleging that SL Greenfield engaged in systemic
violations of Wisconsin's wage payment and collection laws at
several independent living and assisted living facilities
throughout Wisconsin. Specifically, Freeman alleges that SL
Greenfield have unlawfully failed to pay certain senior care
workers for short rest breaks and meal periods lasting less than
thirty minutes, resulting in the denial of compensation and
overtime pay.
SL Greenfield, LLC and Senior Lifestyle Corporation (collectively,
"SL Greenfield") appeal a circuit court order certifying a class
action. SL Greenfield also seek review of the circuit court's
denial of their oral motion for a continuance of the hearing on
class certification. The appeals court concludes that it only has
jurisdiction over the order certifying the class. Because the
circuit court did not fully comply with the statutory requirements
for an order certifying a class, the appeals court vacates the
order and remands for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
Vacated and Remanded
Decided 07/11/23 [GN]
SUDS BY THE PARK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
CRISTINA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUDS BY THE PARK, INC. (d/b/a SUDS BY THE
PARK LAUNDRY SERVICE); and ERNESTO ACOSTA, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-06034 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2023) is an action against the
Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
provide meals and rest periods, and provide accurate wage
statements.
Plaintiff Garcia was employed by the Defendants as a laundry
worker.
SUDS BY THE PARK, INC. own, operate, or control a laundromat,
located at New York, NY, under the name "Suds By The Park Laundry
Service". [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Supreme Court Ruling in PAGA Claims Discussed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kieran D. Hartley, Esq., and Ronald W. Novotny, Esq., of Atkinson,
Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, disclosed that on July 17, 2023, the
California Supreme Court ruled that an employee maintains standing
to prosecute a representative lawsuit under the Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") even if the employee's own individual
PAGA claims are submitted to a separate arbitration. The ruling in
Erik Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., S274671, represents a major
blow to California employers who had hoped to use employment-based
arbitration agreements to keep PAGA litigation risks under
control.
Originally enacted in 2004 with the lofty goal of enhancing
California's Labor Code enforcement objectives, PAGA is more often
regarded as a recipe for "sue first, ask questions later" lawsuits
and shakedown settlements -- driven by the pursuit of attorneys'
fees rather than justice. PAGA permits any employee to sue an
employer for Labor Code violations and recover steep civil
penalties on behalf of all other employees. PAGA litigation usually
moves forward with little regard for the severity of the violations
or the merits of the plaintiff's own claims. The potential exposure
can be catastrophic.
An employer can break up a class action with a well-crafted
arbitration agreement and a timely motion to compel arbitration --
the end result finds the plaintiff-employee in individual
arbitration while the remaining class action claims simply go away.
But PAGA is not a class action, and California courts historically
ruled that PAGA claims are immune from arbitration agreements,
guaranteeing the continued livelihood of high-stakes PAGA
lawsuits.
Employers found a glimmer of hope last June when the U.S. Supreme
Court issued two employer-friendly findings in Viking River Cruises
v. Moriana (2022) 142 S.Ct. 1906. First, that a
plaintiff-employee's individual PAGA claims can be compelled to
arbitration where the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) applies to the
arbitration agreement. Second, that the plaintiff-employee, once
their individual PAGA claim is relegated to arbitration, loses
"standing" to maintain PAGA claims on behalf of the other employees
-- resulting in the outright dismissal of the representative PAGA
claims. California trial courts quickly disregarded the second
finding in Viking, because PAGA "standing" is regarded as a matter
of California state law which the California Supreme Court took
under review in Uber.
The California Supreme Court in Uber chose to disagree with the
U.S. Supreme Court, instead deciding that even when a
plaintiff-employee's individual PAGA claims are fully committed to
arbitration, the employee maintains standing to continue
representing other employees in a PAGA action in the courts.
Justifying its decision in Uber, the California Supreme Court
reasoned that PAGA has only two written requirements to confer
standing: 1. The person was employed by the alleged violator; and
2. The person suffered one or more of the alleged violations.
According to the California Supreme Court, neither of those
prerequisites are stripped from a plaintiff-employee merely because
their individual portion of the PAGA claims is relegated to a
separate arbitration proceeding.
In a potential boon to employers, the California Supreme Court
passively commented that the trial court could (in its discretion)
impose a stay on the representative PAGA claims until the
employee's individual PAGA arbitration concludes, further noting
that the employee could not proceed with the representative PAGA
claim if the arbitrator determined the employee never suffered a
Labor Code violation. The end result will give employers a fighting
chance to defeat PAGA actions at the individual arbitration stage.
However, for employers worried about fighting a PAGA war on two
fronts, it remains to be seen whether trial courts will continue to
put the representative PAGA claims on hold during arbitration.
Uber represents the final word on PAGA's representative standing
requirements. However, it leaves several unanswered questions.
First, if an employee suffered a Labor Code violation, is there any
form of settlement or judgment that can put the employee's
representative PAGA standing to rest? Second, is a
plaintiff-employee allowed to represent other employees if the
other employees signed arbitration agreements requiring individual
arbitration of their PAGA claims? These lingering questions are
sure to instigate further litigation.
Where does this leave employers? Uber leaves employers in a
complicated position as they evaluate their next steps and assess
the value of using arbitration to manage PAGA litigation risks.
Complete wage and hour victories are difficult, though not
impossible to achieve in arbitration. Employers may therefore still
face the prospect of fighting a representative PAGA lawsuit after
(or even during) arbitration. However, an employer that fails to
promptly compel arbitration may permanently foreclose valuable
future strategies to attack the PAGA claims using the arbitration
agreement.
Employers may also take heart that the California Fair Pay and
Employer Accountability Act, an initiative to repeal PAGA and put
civil penalties back into the hands of California's Labor
Commissioner, will be put to the voters on California's 2024
November ballot.
Employers with questions regarding the impact of the decision,
whether to implement arbitration agreements, or the strategic
merits of asserting their existing arbitration agreements against a
PAGA lawsuit should contact the authors of this Alert or their
usual counsel at AALRR. [GN]
WALTER KIDDE: Faces False Advertising Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a
proposed class action lawsuit claims Walter Kidde Portable
Equipment, Inc. and BRK Brands, Inc. -- which respectively do
business as Kidde Safety Equipment and First Alert -- have "placed
profits over people" by falsely advertising their ionization-only
devices as "smoke alarms."
The 51-page lawsuit says the defendants deceptively market devices
that use ionization technology as "smoke alarms," even though the
technology demonstrably fails to timely detect and warn of
smoldering fires, the most common and particularly dangerous type
of home fire.
"With deliberate disregard for the safety of the public," the
companies continue to falsely advertise and label the
ionization-only devices as "smoke alarms" despite having known for
decades that the products are unsuitable, by themselves, to
reliably alert consumers to the presence of smoke from a smoldering
fire, the suit alleges.
The case argues that only a device that uses photoelectric
technology -- the alternative to ionization technology -- should be
marketed as a "smoke alarm," as photoelectric products are capable
of quickly detecting smoke from smoldering fires and sounding an
alarm early enough to give people time to evacuate a building.
Despite being labeled as "smoke alarms," ionization-only devices
like the ones sold by the defendants "sound too late (or do not
sound at all)" in response to fires that have not yet progressed to
produce large, hot flames, the complaint relays.
Per the filing, studies show that an ionization-only device often
takes more than 30 minutes longer to sound compared to a
photoelectric product.
"By this point, it is often already too late for a person to safely
evacuate a home due to the buildup of smoke, toxic gases, and
flame," the lawsuit says.
Further, ionization-only devices are "notorious" for sounding false
alarms when placed too close to ovens, showers or other household
items that produce heat rapidly, the lawsuit explains.
"False alarms generated by ionization-only devices may prompt
residents to disarm those devices, subjecting them to even greater
risk of harm from future fires," the suit describes.
The case charges that the companies have "callously" continued to
market ionization-only devices as "smoke alarms" to an
"unsuspecting public," despite fire safety officials' warnings, and
even though the defendants are well-aware of the "all-too-frequent
deaths and serious injuries caused by ionization-only devices
failing to timely alert home occupants of a smoldering fire."
According to the complaint, the companies' ionization-only devices
are usually found in the same display racks as photoelectric
products but sold at a lower price, making them the "most
attractive option" for shoppers. Though the back or bottom panels
of some of the products' packaging include a fine-print statement
that "it is optimal to buy both kinds of alarms (ionization and
photoelectric)," the filing argues that such a disclaimer is
insufficient to inform reasonable consumers that the product is
unsuitable for timely detection of all kinds of common home fires.
Experts estimate that approximately 90 percent of households in the
United States are equipped solely with ionization-only devices, the
lawsuit stresses.
"Today, tens of millions of American families are immediately at
risk that a smoldering fire in their home will not be detected in
time, even though they bought an ionization-only 'smoke alarm' they
thought was protecting them. And even though the Defendants have
for decades also mass-produced photoelectric devices -- and
'hybrid' devices that contain both ionization and photoelectric
technology -- they have continued to profit by selling large
quantities of ionization-only devices, notwithstanding the dire
risks to the public. Each Defendant has, quite simply and
callously, placed profits over people."
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in California who purchased,
whether online or in a retail store, a Kidde or First Alert product
with ionization technology as its only means of detecting smoke or
fire and labeled as a "smoke alarm," including combination carbon
monoxide and smoke alarm devices. [GN]
WESTERN DIGITAL: Silver Golub & Teitell Investigates False Ads Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Silver Golub & Teitell LLP, a leading plaintiffs' law firm, is
investigating issues with the SanDisk Extreme line of portable
solid-state drives (SSDs), a brand owned by Western Digital. The
SanDisk Extreme SSDs were advertised as fast and durable, but have
instead proven to be unreliable, with many reports of drive
failures and widespread data loss.
SanDisk launched the Extreme SSD line in 2019 promising
"professional grade storage . . . rugged . . . worry-free . . .
dependable" operation for at least five years (the warranty
duration), with models ranging from 500GB up to the newer 4TB
variants. These devices received positive reviews, however, months
later, consumers started reporting their drives spontaneously dying
or losing all their data.
Reports suggest the issues are affecting the SanDisk Extreme SSD
2TB and 4TB models at an alarming rate, with data recovery being
hit or miss.
The following SanDisk Extreme SSD models are allegedly impacted:
SanDisk Extreme 2TB;
SanDisk Extreme 4TB;
SanDisk Extreme Pro 2TB;
and SanDisk Extreme Pro 4TB
Western Digital and SanDisk remained silent on the issue for
months, leading to increased consumer frustration and skepticism
about the company's commitment to rectifying the problem. On May
19, 2023, Western Digital finally released a statement
acknowledging the issue and issuing a firmware fix. The fix,
however, only applies to SanDisk Extreme 2TB models, not 4TB
models. Western Digital appears unwilling to acknowledge that the
issue may also impact 4TB models.
Meanwhile, Western Digital and SanDisk have been selling the
SanDisk Extreme SSDs online at deep discounts. While the company
offers a limited 5-year warranty that should cover replacements for
all affected drives, it does not account for the loss of data, a
potentially devastating blow for many consumers. Consequently, data
loss could be another factor in the class action lawsuit, as
consumers were not only sold faulty products but suffered
additional losses due to the product failures.
SGT believes purchasers of impacted SanDisk Extreme and Extreme Pro
SSDs may have claims against Western Digital and SanDisk as it
appears purchasers of these SSDs have no received what they paid
for and/or overpaid for the SSDs.
If you purchased a SanDisk Extreme or Extreme Pro 2TB or 4TB SSD
and would like to learn more about your rights, you can contact SGT
Partner Ian W. Sloss at isloss@sgtlaw.com or Associate Attorney
Brett Burgs at bburgs@sgtlaw.com, visit our website at:
https://www.sgtlaw.com/cases/sandisk-extreme-ssd-defect-investigation
or call our office at (203) 325-4491. [GN]
WORKDAY INC: Seeks Dismissal of AI Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Annelise Gilbert, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Workday
Inc. moved to dismiss a proposed class action alleging that its
artificial intelligence systems and screening tools
disproportionately disqualify Black, disabled, and older job
applicants, with the company arguing that it doesn't qualify as an
employment agency subject to federal laws.
The lawsuit should also be dismissed because plaintiff Derek Mobley
failed to allege that Workday actively engages with employees or
employers to the extent it would be considered an employer,
employment agency, or labor organization, Workday said in its
motion to dismiss filed on July 17 in the US District Court for the
Northern District of California. [GN]
[*] Michigan's Marquette County Board Joins PFAS Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Tudor, writing for WLUC, reports that the Marquette County
Board is entering into a class action lawsuit against the
manufacturers of PFAS chemicals. PFAS, sometimes called forever
chemicals because they don't break down easily, have been detected
at locations in Marquette County.
The board chair says at KI Sawyer, the county faces a more than $3
million cleanup of PFAS chemicals. The board agreed to join the
class action lawsuit at no cost to the county.
"We voted to join the lawsuit against the manufacturers of PFAS to
hold some of these people responsible for the damages that all the
local units of government and others have to pay to clean up," said
Gerald Corkin, Marquette County Board Chair.
No packet materials were made available about who the class action
suit is specifically against. [GN]
[*] SFFA Case Ruling May Have More Widespread Implications
----------------------------------------------------------
Liam Knox, writing Inside Higher Ed, reports that it's been less
than a month since the Supreme Court ruled that affirmative action
in admissions was unconstitutional.
Nonetheless, on July 11 the group that brought forth the suits,
Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), sent a letter to 150 colleges
and universities with a list of demands that went far beyond the
realm of admissions offices and into recruitment, financial aid,
scholarships, employment and data collection.
"Racially exclusive scholarships, internships and other educational
programs have always been illegal but generally ignored by many
institutions," Edward Blum, SFFA's president, wrote in an email to
Inside Higher Ed. "The cases should compel the leadership --
especially the general counsel's office -- to revisit these
programs as well."
Many higher education leaders dismissed Blum's demands as a string
of far-flung extrapolations unsupported by the actual text of Chief
Justice John Roberts's majority opinion. But even if the letter
leans on an aggrandized view of his victory's impact, its premise
-- that while the scope of the ruling is technically limited to
admissions, it will likely have more widespread implications—is
hardly disputed by legal experts, including those who disagree with
the court's decision.
"While there are still a lot of unanswered questions, the
fundamental lay of the land now will be race-neutral policies,
looking at those robustly and investing differently than ever
before," said Art Coleman, managing partner and founder of
EducationCounsel LLC, an education legal consulting firm that
released guidance for institutions navigating the wake of the
decisions. "That's not just a question of what factors into
admissions; it's about what you're doing in recruitment and
outreach, it's scholarships, it's a whole range of things."
That range is likely to have a more profound and wide-reaching
impact on higher education than the striking down of race-conscious
admissions, since the majority of institutions are nonselective and
don't use affirmative action when admitting applicants. What those
specific implications will be, which institutions they'll affect
and when they could begin to rear their heads, however, are all
still unknown.
Ann Franke, the former vice president of the insurance company
United Educators who now runs her own education consulting firm,
has decades of experience advising colleges on their legal
liabilities. But even she said the full scope of the Supreme Court
decision is too murky to recommend anything more than caution just
yet.
"Some people look at these legal questions like math problems and
look to lawyers to try to solve them, as if there's a clear
answer," she said. "There are no mechanical answers here. We've
entered a new realm where the answers are not clear."
Scholarships and Recruitment in the Crosshairs
The rulings have already begun to affect areas of higher education
beyond admissions policies. On June 29, the same day the decisions
came down, Missouri attorney general Andrew Bailey ordered all
higher education institutions in the state to end all financial aid
or scholarship programs that take race into account, with which the
University of Missouri system promptly complied.
But the underlying premise of Bailey's order, that the SFFA
decision can be applied to "race-based scholarships," is not a
legal certainty. Luiz Maldonado, vice president for government
relations at the American Association of State Colleges and
Universities, said that in his reading the decision deals expressly
with admissions and any attempts to conjecture about its further
reach are just that -- guesses.
Still, some universities have decided it's better to be safe than
sorry. Shortly after the court handed down its decision, University
of Kentucky president Eli Capilouto wrote in a statement to
students and faculty that "based on our initial understanding, it
appears that the Court has restricted the consideration of race
with respect to admissions and scholarships."
Jay Blanton, the university's director of public relations, told
Inside Higher Ed that Kentucky does not offer any race-exclusive
scholarships but does administer several "in which race is one
factor among many." He added that no action has been taken on the
scholarships yet, but that leadership is "continuing to analyze the
ruling and reviewing our policies and processes."
Others may soon have to deal with the same state-level political
pressures as Missouri. Ohio attorney general Dave Yost sent a
letter to the state's public colleges and universities informing
them of employees' individual liability in lawsuits alleging
violations of the affirmative action ban. And in Wisconsin, General
Assembly Speaker Robin Vos has promised to file legislation to
outlaw race-conscious grants and scholarships at the state's public
institutions.
There are potential workarounds to the scholarship conundrum. Both
Coleman and Franke mentioned a strategy called pooling and
matching, wherein an institution groups all the scholarship money
it administers and distributes it based on meritocratic,
race-neutral factors. Only afterward do they match students with
the source of their money, which in theory could satisfy both donor
stipulations and the new law of the land.
This tool is most commonly used to match female recipients to funds
meant specifically for women without violating Title IX. Coleman
said the same process could now be used to match students of color
with money intended for them.
"You're going to have a mix of racial diversity in the award
because of who you've admitted. But the totality of decision making
is race blind," Coleman said. "That has not been, to my knowledge,
tested in the courts. But it is a space where I think institutions
will be navigating and leading."
Another area of intrigue in the wake of the ban is recruitment and
outreach programs and strategies, which institutions sometimes gear
toward specific underrepresented groups, including racial groups.
Coleman said most of those are harder to tie to the Supreme Court
decision than scholarships and grants and should largely be safe
from the tremors.
"What distinguishes recruitment and outreach fundamentally from
admissions, financial aid and scholarships is you are not
conferring an individual benefit on a particular student based on
their race that benefits them and arguably not someone else," he
said.
But that distinction becomes murkier when dealing with initiatives
where selection is an element, like summer bridge programs for
Black or Latino high school students.
"If you've got this very distinct line of experience or avenue for
enrichment that is unique to a certain cohort, and racial status is
part of the selection, I think that's vulnerable," he said. "I'd
start to look at race-neutral criteria: first-generation,
socioeconomic, something associated with the experience of students
of color that's not about race per se."
A 'Litigative Haze' Approaches
Even if another high-profile class action suit like those brought
by Students for Fair Admissions isn't likely to come in front of a
federal court anytime soon, experts said institutions should
already be preparing for other challenges, whether from activist
law firms already recruiting plaintiffs or students filing
complaints to the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights.
Coleman said that the main obstacle in the near future will likely
be an onslaught of lawsuits from aggrieved students and empowered
firms that see an immediate opportunity for large settlements as
the dust continues to settle and institutions try to keep up.
"The litigative haze we're about to enter is unfathomable," he
said.
That storm of legal challenges has already started brewing. In
2021, a boutique conservative law firm called the Wisconsin
Institute for Liberty and Liability (WILL) sued the state's Higher
Education Aids Board over grants earmarked specifically for Black,
Hispanic, South Asian and Native American students. The case was
dismissed in 2022, but the firm appealed, adding that if the
Supreme Court struck down affirmative action, they believed that
would buoy their argument.
Rick Esenberg, WILL's president and general counsel, believes
that's precisely what's happened. While he declined to elaborate on
any further lawsuits his firm might file, he said institutions
"were already on thin ice" with race-based programs and
scholarships, and the Supreme Court's ruling completed the thaw.
"It's very difficult to see how the state wins that case now, or
how a scholarship program where certain people are excluded from
eligibility based on race can survive scrutiny now that the court
has made clear these cases cannot be trumped by concerns about
diversity," he said. "I understand there's a lot of opposition to
[the ruling] among college administrators, but they need to face
the fact that there's a new reality."
Franke said there may be institutions that choose to take a pointed
stand and continue offering race-conscious scholarships and
recruitment programs; they should just understand the risks.
"You have to assess the risk appetite of a given school, and that
will happen at the leadership level. Are you willing to explore the
boundaries, or is your goal to lie low and not get sued?" she said.
"Regardless, your institutional values need to underlie the legal
analysis and advice."
Esenberg said institutions that choose to see the court's decisions
as "narrowly defined" to admissions or that take provocative
stances on race-based programs and scholarships can expect to be
met with legal challenges from firms like his own.
"I understand there's a tremendous desire among universities to do
everything to get around the court's decision. I think Chief
Justice Roberts anticipated that and, at the end of his opinion,
warned them against it," he said. "But if universities want to
invite litigation, they'll get litigation." [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 20 States Challenge Bestwall’s Asbestos Shield
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Nani of Bloomberg Law reports that twenty states and the
District of Columbia have urged a federal appeals court to
reconsider a ruling granting industrial giant Georgia-Pacific LLC
protection from asbestos liability suits through a subsidiary's,
Bestwall LLC, bankruptcy.
The 2-1 decision last month by a panel of the US Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit was the first federal appellate court to
bless a "manipulation of the bankruptcy process," the 20 states
which largely lean Democratic and the District of Columbia said in
a court filing on July 12, 2023. The states and DC joined a
committee of cancer patients in asking the court to revisit the
ruling.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Sues Doctors Linking Talc Use to Cancer
------------------------------------------------------------
Dietrich Knauth, writing for Reuters.com, reports that Johnson &
Johnson has sued four doctors who published studies citing links
between talc-based personal care products and cancer, escalating an
attack on scientific studies that the company alleges are
inaccurate.
J&J's subsidiary LTL Management, which absorbed the company's talc
liability in a controversial 2021 spinoff, filed a lawsuit in New
Jersey federal court asking it to force three researchers to
"retract and/or issue a correction" of a study that said
asbestos-contaminated consumer talc products sometimes caused
patients to develop mesothelioma.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victims Asks 4th Circuit to Rehear Bestwall Ch. 11
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Wolf of Bloomberg Law reports that a committee of cancer
patients asked the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to
revisit whether Georgia-Pacific LLC is entitled to legal
protections stemming from the bankruptcy of its asbestos liability
holding subsidiary.
A three-judge panel for the Fourth Circuit erred last month when it
upheld a preliminary injunction blocking thousands of asbestos
exposure lawsuits against Georgia-Pacific, an official committee of
asbestos claimants said in a filing on July 5, 2023. The committee
urged the entire court to rehear the appeal.
*********
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 ***