/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230731.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, July 31, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 152
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Camden City Files Suit in D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: Carriere Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Carter Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Commonwealth of Kentucky Suit Removed to E.D. Kentucky
3M COMPANY: Cooper Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Lara Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Wilkes Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
ABT ELECTRONICS INC: Cody Suit Removed to C.D. California
ADVANCED CARE: Miclat Sues Over Unlawful Employment Scheme
ALI INDUSTRIES: Asks Court to Deny Class Certification in Smith
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Class Cert Bid Hearing Set for August 1
AMBROSIA LLC: Fact Discovery Must Be Completed by Nov. 6, 2024
AMERICAN GOLF: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Roberts Alleges
APT MARKETING: Class Cert Bid Filing Due March 5, 2024
BIO-MEDICAL APPLICATIONS: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Sarigu Says
CAPRI OF DOWNERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Knutson Alleges
CHEWY INC: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California
COMBE INCORPORATED: Merida Suit Removed to C.D. California
COMMEMORATIVE BRANDS: Illegally Collects Biometrics, Gaertner Says
CORTLAND, NY: Badger Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
CRAWLEY PETROLEUM: D & N Farms Suit Removed to E.D. Oklahoma
CSWW INC: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DECISIONONE CORPORATION: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Rios Alleges
ETSY INC: Faces Blackburn Suit Over Platform's Misleading Ads
FAHERTY BRAND: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
FLUENT INC: Loses Bid to Compel TCPA Class Action to Arbitration
FUENTES RESTAURANT: Garcia Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Servers
GKN DRIVELINE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ayers Suit Alleges
GKN DRIVELINE: Ferges Sues Over Technicians' Unpaid Overtime Wages
GOOGLE LLC: Wiretaps Online Tax Filing Websites, Smith Suit Claims
GREAT STAR: Class Cert Briefing Schedule Order Entered in Gair
GREEN STONE: Underpays Delivery Assistants, Velasquez Suit Says
GYPSY LEAF LLC: Vachnine Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HARVARD PILGRIM: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Suit Alleges
HCA HEALTHCARE INC: Crossman Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee
HCA HEALTHCARE: Silvers Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee
HEFFLER CONTRACTING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Altamirano Says
HOME DEPOT: Class Settlement in Almanzar Gets Initial Approval
HOMECRAFT BUILDERS: Class Cert Bid Due April 9, 2024
HP INC: Mobile Emergency Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
HP INC: Mobile Seeks to File Portions of Class Cert Bid Under Seal
HWS LLC: Must File Class Cert. Response Brief by Sept. 22
ICF TECHNOLOGY: Faces Tomasello Wage-and-Hour Suit in D.N.J.
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Acevedo Says
ILLUMINUS: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 18
JOSH STEIN: ACLU Files Second Amended Class Cert Bid
MARY BASSETT: Completion of Class Cert Briefing Due Feb. 16, 2024
MG BILLING: Vandiver Sues Over Bait & Switch Trial Membership Offer
MILLIMAN INC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due April 26, 2024
MINNCO CREDIT: Tischler Suit Alleges Consumer Loan Violations
NEW YORK, NY: Settles Class Suit Over Racial Injustice Protests
NORTHEAST POWER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rincon Alleges
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Poe Seeks to File Class Cert Reply Under Seal
PEGASO ENERGY: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Tool Pushers
PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER: Tate Sues Over Wrongful Loan Collections
PETIT POT: Paris Has Until Nov 16 to File Class Certification Bid
PINK GORILLA: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Sur-Reply
RAEL INC: Court Dismisses Blansette Class Suit
REMINGTON ARMS: Heflin Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Employees
RICKEYO CONSTRUCTION: Garcia Suit Seeks Painters' Unpaid Overtime
RITE AID CORP: Faces Consolidated Consumer Suit in CA Court
RITE AID CORP: Faces Holland Substance Regulatory Suit in PA Court
RITE AID CORP: Faces Page Price-Rigging Suit in PA Court
RITE AID CORP: Faces Price-Rigging Suit in PA Court
RRH–FLORIDA: Rygh Sues to Recover Unpaid Compensation
SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Fox Seeks Initial OK of Renewed Class Cert Bid
SIERRA TRADING POST: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SOUTHEAST FINANCIAL: Overcharges Overdraft Fees, Thomas Suit Claims
SUEZ WATER: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Nov. 17
SUMMER SOLES: Shuman Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Court OK's Settlement in Price Fixing Suit
TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Price Fixing Suit Ongoing in S.D. N.Y.
TAXACT INC: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 31, 2024
TAXACT INC: Transmits Tax Return Data to Tech Companies, Hartz Says
THOR MOTOR: Court Sets Scheduling Conference in Schlim Class Suit
THR PROPERTY: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Oct. 30, 2024
TMX FINANCE: Seeks More Time to Respond to Class Certification Bid
TOYOTA JIDOSHA: Faces Class Action in Australian Court
TRINITY HEALTH: Oberdorf Suit Removed to S.D. Iowa
TRUVISION HEALTH: Weight Loss Products "Unsafe," Garcia Claims
UBEO WEST LLC: Gomez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
UNION BANK AND TRUST: Bender Files Suit in D. Nebraska
UNITED PARCEL: Ct. Partly OK's Baker Class Certification Bid
VERTEX AEROSPACE: Tamakloe Suit Removed to E.D. California
WALMART INC: Court Narrows Claims in Kukorinis Lawsuit
WALMART INC: Irwin Sues Over Great Value Cereal Bars' False Labels
WEST PAK AVOCADO: Melendrez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
WESTERN REFINING: Barden Suit Removed to C.D. California
WINDSOR PROPERTY: Forget Sues Over Withholding of Security Deposits
WM. BOLTHOUSE FARMS: Tate Sues Over Falsely Labeled Products
WORKFORCE 7: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Ballast Suit
XTO ENERGY: Class Cert Expert Reports in Kriley Due Dec. 1
ZAGE GROUP: Plaintiffs Allowed Leave to Conduct Class Certification
ZUFFA LLC: Must Oppose Bloom Class Cert Bid by Oct. 30
[*] Gluckstein Attorney Discusses Abuse Class Actions in Canada
[*] U.S. Class Action Settlements in Various Complaints Discussed
*********
3M COMPANY: Camden City Files Suit in D. South Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company. The case
is styled as City of Camden, City of Brockton, City of Sioux Falls,
California Water Service Company, City of Delray Beach, Coraopolis
Water & Sewer Authority, Township of Verona, Dutchess County Water
and Wastewater Authority and Dalton Farms Water System, City of
South Shore, City of Freeport, Martinsburg Municipal Authority,
Seaman Cottages, Village of Bridgeport, City of Benwood, Niagara
County, City of Pineville, City of Iuka, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, Case No.
2:23-cv-03147-RMG (D.S.C., June 30, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Prop. Damage Prod. Liability.
3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational
conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety,
healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. London, Esq.
DOUGLAS AND LONDON PC
59 Maiden Lane, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10038
Phone: (212) 566-7500
Fax: (212) 566-7501
Email: mlondon@douglasandlondon.com
- and -
Paul J. Napoli, Esq.
NAPOLI SHKOLNIK
1302 Avenida Ponce de Leon
Santurce, Puerto Rico
Phone: (833) 271-4502
Email: pnapoli@napolilaw.com
- and -
Scott Summy, Esq.
BARON & BUDD PC
3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
Dallas, TX 75219
Phone: (214) 521-3605
Email: ssummy@baronbudd.com
3M COMPANY: Carriere Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Allen Douglas Carriere, 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-03176-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, and Hashimoto's disease as a result of exposure to
the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Carter Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Josephus D. 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-03179-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 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: Commonwealth of Kentucky Suit Removed to E.D. Kentucky
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Commonwealth of Kentucky, Energy and
Environment Cabinet, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY;
E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; CORTEVA, INC.;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, L.P.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; KIDDE PLC, INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION;
CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; CLARIANT
CORPORATION; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
AGC, INC.; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS
COMPANY; ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; AND JOHN
DOE 1-49, Case No. 23-CI-00517 was removed from the Circuit Court
of Franklin County, to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky on June 30, 2023, and assigned Case
No. 3:23-cv-00044-GFVT.
The Plaintiff, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Energy and Environment
Cabinet, seeks to hold Tyco and certain other Defendants liable
based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing,
marketing, and/or selling aqueous film-forming foam ("AFFF") that
Plaintiff alleges was used for firefighting activities, thereby
resulting in contamination. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants' AFFF contained per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
("PFAS"), including perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS"), and that the use of these
substances has caused contamination of Plaintiff's natural
resources and property. Plaintiff generally alleges that certain
Defendants have designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed,
and/or sold AFFF products, which contain PFAS. Tyco's "Ansul" brand
products, include AFFF. Plaintiff further alleges that the use
within the Commonwealth of AFFF designed, manufactured, marketed,
distributed, and/or sold by Defendants has caused contamination of
Plaintiff's natural resources and property with AFFF derived
PFAS.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Melissa Foster Bird, Esq.
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP
949 Third Ave, Suite 200
Huntington, WV 25701
Phone: (304) 526-3503
Email: melissa.fosterbird@nelsonmullins.com
3M COMPANY: Cooper Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Scot Cooper, 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-03180-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: Lara Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
----------------------------------------------------------
Jesse M. Lara, 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-03337-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: Wilkes Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Wilkes, 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-03341-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
ABT ELECTRONICS INC: Cody Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Annette Cody, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ABT Electronics, Inc., Case No.
23STCV06834 was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court,
Central District, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on June 30, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-05222-CAS-PVC to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
ABT Electronics -- http://www.abt.com/-- is an independent
family-owned retailer in the United States of consumer electronics,
major appliances, and furniture.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC
4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 706-6464
Fax: (949) 706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Richard Wayne Davis, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD W DAVIS
1901 Avenue of the Stars Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 551-4123
Fax: (323) 843-9291
Email: rdavis@richardwdavis.com
ADVANCED CARE: Miclat Sues Over Unlawful Employment Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------
CHERRY LYN MICLAT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADVANCED CARE STAFFING, LLC;
PRIORITY CARE STAFFING, LLC; and SAM KLEIN, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-05296 (E.D.N.Y., July 12, 2023) alleges that the Defendants
profit from the scheme of placing immigrant nurses into positions
that the nurses cannot freely leave.
According to the complaint, after enduring working conditions that
the Plaintiff believed threatened not only her health, but the
health of her patients and, as a result, her nursing license, the
Plaintiff decided her only option was to quit her job with the
Defendants, notwithstanding the huge debt which she feared she
might incur.
ADVANCED CARE STAFFING, LLC is a full service healthcare staffing
company, serving hospitals, nursing homes and other healthcare
facilities throughout the NY Metropolitan area and New York State.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hugh Baran, Esq.
Patricia Kakalec, Esq.
KAKALEC LAW PLLC
195 Montague Street, 14 th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (212) 705-8730
Email: Hugh@KakalecLaw.com
Patricia@KakalecLaw.com
- and -
Juno Turner, Esq.
David H. Seligman, Esq.
Valerie Collins, Esq.
TOWARDS JUSTICE
Towards Justice
P.O. Box 371689, PMB 44465
Denver, CO 80237-5680
Telephone: (720) 441-2236
Email: juno@towardsjustice.org
david@towardsjustice.org
valerie@towardsjustice.org
ALI INDUSTRIES: Asks Court to Deny Class Certification in Smith
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as James Smith, v. Ali
Industries, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-04133-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order denying certification of
the requested classes because the Plaintiff's theory of injury and
the record definitively establish that the requirements of Rule 23
cannot be met for multiple independently sufficient reasons,
including:
-- The Plaintiff's theory of injury is internally contradictory.
It
asserts both that "there is no way for a reasonable consumer
to
know these products expire," while simultaneously asserting
that
throughout the multi-year class period, putative class
members
were somehow forming the belief that the products expire (and
discarding the products before fully using them).
-- The Plaintiff's theory of injury asserts that each putative
class member, at different times throughout the multi-year
class
period, stopped using the products because they came to
believe they might be expired and unsafe.
-- The Plaintiff’s theory leads to the untenable conclusion
that
the same putative class member could have discarded the
products
due to concerns they were expired and then purchased the same
products while oblivious to the possibility that they
expire.
-- The Complaint "specifically exclude[s] from this class action
any damages, losses, or other relief of any kind arising from
the personal injuries suffered by those class members
personally
injured by the Defective Product."
-- The Plaintiff Smith's claims are not typical of the class
because they are based on a different legal theory involving
substantially different evidence.
Ali Industries manufactures and supplies abrasive products to
consumer retail marketplace
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 7, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3K51C8s at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth B McClain, Esq.
Paul D. Anderson, Esq.
Jonathan M. Soper, Esq.
Kevin D. Stanley, Esq.
HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON, & McCLAIN, P.C.,
221 W. Lexington, Suite 400
Independence, MO 64050
The Defendant is represented by:
IJay Palansky, Esq.
Alec P. Harris, Esq.
Kathleen Guilfoyle, Esq.
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
4643 S. Ulster Street, Suite 800
Denver, CO 80237
Telephone: (720) 200-0676
Facsimile: (720) 200-0679
E-mail: ipalansky@atllp.com
aharris@atllp.com
kguilfoyle@atllp.com
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Class Cert Bid Hearing Set for August 1
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANNON, et al., v.
ALLSTATE INSURNACE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00448-ADA-ML (W.D.
Tex.), the Hon. Judge Mark Lane entered an order setting the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification for an in-person hearing
on August 15, 2023.
Allstate Insurance offers auto, home life insurances policies.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44UrPPj at no extra charge.[CC]
AMBROSIA LLC: Fact Discovery Must Be Completed by Nov. 6, 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Omar Rodriguez,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Ambrosia, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03359-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Lewis J. Liman entered a case management plan and scheduling
order as follows:
-- Any motion to amend or to join additional Aug. 4, 2024
parties shall be filed no later than:
-- Initial disclosures pursuant to July 20, 2024
Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure shall be completed no
later than:
-- All fact discovery is to be completed Nov. 6, 2024
no later than:
-- Initial requests for production of Aug. 4, 2024
documents shall be served by:
-- Interrogatories pursuant to Rule Aug. 4, 2024
33.3(a) of the Local Rules of the
Southern District of New York shall
be served by:
-- Depositions shall be completed by: Nov. 6, 2023
A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XWMj7y at no extra charge.[CC]
AMERICAN GOLF: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Roberts Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
SELWYN ROBERTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN GOLF CORPORATION; and MICHAEL
GUTIERREZ (aka MICHAEL DOE), Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06000
(S.D.N.Y., July 12, 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 Roberts was employed by the Defendants as a mechanic.
American Golf Corporation was founded in 1973. The company's line
of business includes membership sports and recreation clubs. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clifford Tucker, Esq.
SACO & FILLAS, LLP
31-19 Newtown Ave., 7th Floor.
Astoria, NY 11102
Telephone: (718) 269-2243
Email: CTucker@SaccoFillas.com
APT MARKETING: Class Cert Bid Filing Due March 5, 2024
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRYSTAL WILCHER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. APT
MARKETING, LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-03087-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Hon.
Judge Beth Phillips entered a scheduling and trial order as
follows:
-- This case is scheduled for a jury trial on: Jan. 27,
2025
-- A teleconference is set on: Dec. 20,
2024
-- A final pretrial conference in this case will Jan. 17,
2025
be held on:
-- Any motion to amend the pleadings and/or Sept. 15,
2023
join additional parties shall be filed
on or before:
-- Affirmative class disclosures are due by: Jan. 30,
2024
-- The deadline to file the motion for class March 5,
2024
certification is:
-- Response to the Motion for Class March 26,
2024
Certification shall be due by:
-- Reply suggestions shall be due by: April 9,
2024
-- Affirmative expert witnesses intended May 7,
2024
to testify at trial shall be designated by:
-- Rebuttal expert witnesses to be called at May 28,
2024
trial shall be designated by:
-- All pretrial discovery authorized by the June 18,
2024
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall
be completed on or before:
-- All pretrial discovery authorized by the June 18,
2024
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall
be completed on or before:
A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46WNAPY at no extra charge.[CC]
BIO-MEDICAL APPLICATIONS: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Sarigu Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CRISTIANA RUGGERI SARIGU, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIO-MEDICAL APPLICATIONS OF
ILLINOIS, INC.; and FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a
FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE NORTH AMERICA, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-04508 (N.D. Ill., July 12, 2023) is an action against the
Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class minimum
wages, and overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week.
Plaintiff Sarigu was employed by the Defendants as a patient care
technician.
BIO-MEDICAL APPLICATIONS OF ILLINOIS, INC. offers health care
services. The Hospital provides outpatient kidney and renal
dialysis services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
msalas@flsalaw.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
CAPRI OF DOWNERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Knutson Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
MIA KNUTSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAPRI OF DOWNERS GROVE; and BRIAN GREEN,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-04506 (N.D. Ill., July 12, 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 Knutson was employed by the Defendants as a server.
CAPRI OF DOWNERS GROVE owns and operates a restaurant business.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Tel: (630) 575-8180
Fax: (630) 575-8188
Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
- and -
Chad W. Eisenback, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Tel: (331) 307-7632
Fax: (630) 575-8188
Email: ceisenback@sulaimanlaw.com
CHEWY INC: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Gabriela Hernandez, individually and on
behalf of all others similar situated v. CHEWY, INC., a Delaware
corporation d/b/a WWW.CHEWY.COM, Case No. 23STCV12748 was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on July 12, 2023, and assigned Case
No. 2:23-cv-05620.
The Complaint alleges that Chewy "discloses to third parties the
personally identifiable information (PII) of consumers derived from
their video viewing habits, along with the title of any videos
viewed by particular consumers."[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Megan A. Suehiro, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue
Twenty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
Phone: +1.213.612.2500
Fax: +1.213.612.2501
Email: megan.suehiro@morganlewis.com
- and -
Ezra D. Church, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
Phone: +1.215.963.5000
Fax: +1.215.963.500
Email: ezra.church@morganlewis.com
COMBE INCORPORATED: Merida Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Elsa Merida, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. COMBE INCORPORATED, Case No. CIV
SB 2310999 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of San Bernardino, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
July 12, 2023, and assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-01359.
The Complaint asserts, on behalf of Plaintiff and the putative
class of California consumers she purports to represent, claims for
violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False
Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law, as well as claims for
breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Dennis S. Ellis, Esq.
Katherine F. Murray, Esq.
Serli Polatoglu, Esq.
ELLIS GEORGE CIPOLLONE O'BRIEN ANNAGUEY LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, 30th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 274-7100
Facsimile: (310) 275-5697
Email: dellis@egcfirm.com
kmurray@egcfirm.com
spolatoglu@egcfirm.com
COMMEMORATIVE BRANDS: Illegally Collects Biometrics, Gaertner Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA GAERTNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COMMEMORATIVE BRANDS, INC. d/b/a Balfour &
Co.; COMMEMORATIVE BRANDS ILLINOIS LLC; and ICONIC GROUP INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-02452 (S.D. Ill., July 14, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' illegal collection and usage
of the Plaintiff's biometric identifiers and biometric information
without informed written consent. The Defendants collected
biometrics from the photographs of residents taken at
Illinois-located events. The Defendants also derived revenue or
profits from biometrics because they use biometrics to facilitate
their sale of photographs.
Commemorative Brands, Inc., doing business as Balfour & Co., is a
manufacturer and seller of commemorative jewelry and memorabilia,
with its place of business in Texas.
Commemorative Brands Illinois LLC is a manufacturer and seller of
commemorative jewelry and memorabilia based in Illinois.
Iconic Group Inc. is an international digital solutions company in
Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Driscoll, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, LLC
1311 Avenida Juan Ponce de Leon, 6th Floor
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (314) 222-2605
Facsimile: (314) 932-3233
E-mail: john@jjlegal.com
- and -
Matthew J. Limoli, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C.
301 Fayetteville Street, Ste. 1825
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: (919) 582-6516
Facsimile: (314) 932-3233
E-mail: matthew@thedriscollfirm.com
CORTLAND, NY: Badger Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------
James M. Badger, Marcus A. Benjamin, Sean P. Byrnes, Chelsie L.
Delperuto, Kristyn V. Drake, Jeffery M. Fitts, Penny L. Guerrera,
Christopher L. Hatfield, Savanna L. Hilker, Chadd T. Hines, Bradley
N. Laman, Kimberly A. Lawrence, Eric B. Perine, Seth D. Rowland,
Kevin J. Sciarrino, Melissa M. Taylor, Tyler G. Zacck, and all
others similarly situated v. CITY OF CORTLAND, Case No.
5:23-cv-00844-TJM-ATB (N.D.N.Y., July 13, 2023), is brought to
remedy the Defendant's willful and unlawful violations of federal
law because of Defendant's unlawful deprivation of Plaintiffs'
right to overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).
On June 21, 2022, the Cortland Police Benevolent Association and
Defendant negotiated and entered into a new Collective Bargaining
Agreement. The Collective Bargaining Agreement provides for a
retroactive pay increase of $2,500.00 for services rendered in
2021. The City paid these retroactive pay increases to Plaintiffs
and all others similarly situated in the form of a lump sum.
However, while Defendant paid the retroactive pay increases,
Defendant failed to use the retroactive pay increase to recalculate
Plaintiffs' regular rates of pay in the years to which the
retroactive pay increases applied. By failing to recalculate the
regular rate of pay using the retroactive pay increase, Defendant
failed to pay Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated the
proper overtime rate of one- and one-half times their regular rate
of pay, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are current and former employees of the Defendant
who work or have worked as police officers up to the rank of
Captain for the Cortland Police Department.
City of Cortland is, among other things, a juridical entity
amenable to suit under the FLSA in that it is, and was at all times
material hereto, a public agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarah Block, Esq.
Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
Rachel Lerner, Esq.
McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 833-8855
Email: smb@mselaborlaw.com
gkm@mselaborlaw.com
rbl@mselaborlaw.com
- and -
Steve Isaacs, Esq.
ISAACS DEVASIA CASTRO & WIEN LLP
80 Broad Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (917) 551-1300
Email: sisaacs@idcwlaw.com
CRAWLEY PETROLEUM: D & N Farms Suit Removed to E.D. Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as D & N Farms, LLC, D & R Minerals, LLC, for
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Crawley Petroleum
Corporation, Case No. CJ-23-00139 was removed from the Cherokee
County District Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Oklahoma on July 12, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:23-cv-00234-DES to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract
Dispute.
Crawley Petroleum Corporation -- http://www.crawleypetroleum.com/
-- is a privately-held oil and gas exploration and production
company that was formed in 1972.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chaille Walraven, Esq.
GRAFT & WALRAVEN, PLLC (OKC)
4801 Gaillardia Parkway, Ste 150
Oklahoma City, OK 73142
Phone: (405) 253-6444
Email: chaille@graftwalravenlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Patrick L. Stein, Esq.
MCAFEE & TAFT, PC (OKC)
211 N Robinson, 8th Flr
Oklahoma City, OK 73102-7103
Phone: (405) 552-2238
Fax: (405) 228-7438
Email: patrick.stein@mcafeetaft.com
CSWW INC: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CSWW, Inc. The case
is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. CSWW, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06002 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 12, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
CSWW INC., doing business as North 40 Outfitters --
https://north40.com/ -- retails consumer products online. The
Company offers apparel, farm and ranch products, home and garden
equipment, automotive components, and tools.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
DECISIONONE CORPORATION: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Rios Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
OMAR RIOS COLON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DECISIONONE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-05346 (E.D.N.Y., July 13, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendant for failure to timely pay wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a field service
technician in New York from in or around May 2018 through in or
around May 2022.
DecisionOne Corporation is a support services company,
headquartered in Wayne, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
Garrett Kaske, Esq.
Benjamin A. Goldstein, Esq.
KESSLER MATURA P.C.
534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 499-9100
Facsimile: (631) 499-9120
E-mail: tkessler@kesslermatura.com
gkaske@kesslermatura.com
bgoldstein@kesslermatura.com
ETSY INC: Faces Blackburn Suit Over Platform's Misleading Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
AMELIA BLACKBURN; and TAYLOR BLACKBURN individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ETSY, INC., Case
No. 2:23-cv-05711 (C.D. Cal., July 14, 2023) is a class action
lawsuit, brought on behalf of a putative nationwide class, or
alternatively a putative class of California residents, of users of
the Defendant's e-commerce platform, against the Defendant for
grossly misrepresenting the total environmental impact of its
business operations in its advertisements, corporate announcements,
and promotional materials.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's operation of an
e-commerce platform causes significant net carbon dioxide ("CO2")
to be released into the atmosphere. Accordingly, any claim of "100
percent offsetting" emissions from shipping is false and
misleading; it is not carbon neutral to ship goods sold on the
Defendant's e-commerce platform, and consumers would not have
purchased goods on the Defendant's e-commerce platform, or would
have paid substantially less for them, had they known the claim of
100% offsetting emissions from shipping was false.
The Plaintiffs would not have utilized Defendant's e-commerce
platform, or at the very least would have paid substantially less
for their purchases or sales on the platform, if they understood at
the time of purchase that Defendant's carbon offsetting
representations were false, says the suit.
ETSY, INC. provides e-commerce services. The Company offers
handmade and vintage items, art, and supplies, as well as regular
items such as clothing, housewares, paper goods, candles, bags and
purses, music, and wood working items. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan Haderlein, Esq.
Krikor Kouyoumdjian, Esq.
HADERLEIN AND KOUYOUMDJIAN LLP
19849 Nordhoff St.
Northridge, California 91324
Telephone: (818) 304-34345
Email: jhaderlein@handklaw.com
kkouyoumdjian@handklaw.com
- and -
L. David Russell, Esq.
RUSSELL LAW, PC
1500 Rosecrans Ave, Suite 500
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Telephone: (323) 638-7551
Email: david@russelllawpc.com
FAHERTY BRAND: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Faherty Brand, LLC.
The case is styled as Randy Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Faherty Brand, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-05321-LDH-VMS (E.D.N.Y., July 12, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Faherty Brand -- http://www.fahertybrand.com/-- is an American
clothing company, founded by twin brothers Alex and Mike Faherty.
Its aesthetic was described as "surf hippie" by The New York
Times.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
FLUENT INC: Loses Bid to Compel TCPA Class Action to Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman, Esq., of TCPAWorld, disclosed that repeat TCPA
litigators Terri Pepper and Julius Bryant just defeated an effort
by Fluent to compel their TCPA class action to arbitration, and the
ruling sheds further light on just how difficult it can be to
enforce online webform submissions in an anonymous digital
ecosystem.
In Pepper v. Fluent, 2023 WL 4561798 (S.D. N.Y. July 17, 2023)
Fluent moved to compel arbitration of TCPA class claims brought by
two Plaintiffs–Terri Pepper and Julius Bryant. And, as we shall
see, Fluent lost BOTH bids and that's a real problem for folks
relying on webform submissions in TCPA class cases.
Finding that there was a dispute of fact at the motion stage the
Court ordered a mini-trial on the issue of arbitration and heard
testimony from the Plaintiffs and from witnesses from Fluent.
The Fluent witnesses were able to reconstruct the website that was
allegedly visited at the time that both of the plaintiffs allegedly
visited each website. And they were able to provide data related to
the type of device used to access the websites and the rough
location of the device at the time of the visit along with data
submitted by the individuals–and all of these details matched
with the facts.
Nonetheless, despite this seemingly credible evidence the Court
denied arbitration.
As to Ms. Pepper the Court found she "credibly" testified that she
had been retired for years and had no interest in rejoining the
labor market–hence Fluent's claim that she visited an employment
website fell flat. The Court also found that Pepper's story that
she was at the dentist several miles from her home at the time of
the alleged lead form submission to be credible and cast doubt on
Fluent's version of events:
Thus, it would be unreasonable to find that Ms. Pepper visited
FindDreamJobs.com on October 30, 2017, because Ms. Pepper simply
had no reason to visit such a website after her retirement five
months earlier, and she testified credibly that she never did so.
Ms. Pepper's testimony that she was occupied with other tasks at
the purported registration time likewise undercuts any conclusion
that she visited the website as alleged.
Further, the Court found fraud was a more likely explanation than
Ms. Pepper forgetting she visited the website:
[I]t is possible that Ms. Pepper's device was hacked, or that a
third party purchased or acquired her data elsewhere and entered
some of that data into the website at issue. Those explanations are
at least as credible, if not more credible, than the defendants'
argument that Ms. Pepper -- who flatly denied visiting
FindDreamJobs.com and who supported that denial with specific,
credible testimony -- simply has a "faulty recollection" as to
whether she visited the website.
Really important for people to understand that just because a
webform submission took place -- even with a jornaya or trustedform
certificate -- that does not mean the case is over. if the
plaintiff is willing to testify under oath that the webform was not
submitted by them, they can still defeat arbitration–even if, as
here, the device used to submit the form is similar to a device
owned by the Plaintiff.
Now I don't know how hard Fluent pushed on her story here. For
instance, did they subpoena the dentist's records to determine
whether she was really there that day or not? (I would have). Did
they talk to anyone to determine whether Plaintiff had a habit of
taking her iPad with her while running erands? (She denied doing
so, but an iPad could certainly have helped her pass the time as
she waited for her dentist appointment.) I think there was probably
more here that could have been done ahead of the mini-trial to
disprove her testimony -- and that could have made a big
difference. But the point remains -- if a plaintiff is willing to
testify that they did not submit the form, merely relying on
business records of the webform submission alone will not be enough
to win–more is needed!
Don't believe me?
Let's see what happened with the second Plaintiff–Bryant.
Mr. Bryant's lead form include an accurate name and email address,
but his physical address did not match. Plus the lead contained an
inaccurate birthdate and identified him as a female, when he is a
male.
The Court viewed these "discrepancies" as undermining the argument
Bryant submitted the form himself–although, rather obviously,
people provide incorrect details in submitting online forms all the
time. And the court was unmoved by evidence the disclosure was
submitted using devices similar to the plaintiffs-non-specific
information regarding a browser or operating system is just not
enough to overcome credible testimony to the contrary.
So in the end, Fluent must face a TCPA class action brought by two
individuals who allegedly provided consent and agreed to arbitrate
their claims. It will be VERY interesting to see whether the case
is certified, however. In order to certify the case the Court would
have to determine that the wrong doer that input Pepper and
Bryant's information did so repeatedly and in a manner that can be
tracked. This seems unlikely.
Accordingly, although Fluent lost the battle here they may have
actually won the war. The sort of fact-specific inquiry needed to
prove or disprove consent here underscores the difficulties to be
faced by the Plaintiff in proving classwide absence of consent --
which is the plaintiff's burden at certification.
We'll keep a close eye on this. [GN]
FUENTES RESTAURANT: Garcia Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Servers
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAYANA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FUENTES RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.
d/b/a Gloria's Restaurant; GLORIA'S RESTAURANT LAS COLINAS LLC
d/b/a Gloria's Restaurant; NANCY FUENTES FAIRVIEW INC. d/b/a
Gloria's Restaurant; and JOSE FUENTES, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-01585-K (N.D. Tex., July 14, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages and
unlawful kickbacks in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Ms. Garcia was employed by the Defendants as a server at their
Gloria's Restaurant locations in Las Colinas, Texas and
Colleyville, Texas from approximately September of 2022 until
sometime in April of 2023.
Fuentes Restaurant Management Services, Inc., doing business as
Gloria's Restaurant, is a restaurant operator in Texas.
Gloria's Restaurant Las Colinas LLC, doing business as Gloria's
Restaurant, is a restaurant operator in Texas.
Nancy Fuentes Fairview Inc., doing business as Gloria's Restaurant,
is a restaurant operator in Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Telephone: (817) 479-9229
Facsimile: (817) 840-5102
E-mail: pamela@herrmannlaw.com
drew@herrmannlaw.com
GKN DRIVELINE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ayers Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES AYERS; DOYLE CAWTHON, JR.; DEUAL STARR; and DARRON GRAY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-00581 (M.D.N.C., July 14, 2023) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as machine
operators.
GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC. manufactures automotive parts.
The Company offers light vehicles, agricultural and construction
equipment, aircraft, and aero engines, as well as other solutions.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
Hannah B. Simmons, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A.
HERNANDEZ, PLLC
1020 Southhill Drive, Ste. 130
Cary, NC 27513
Telephone: (919) 741-8693
Facsimile: (919) 869-1853
Email: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
hsimmons@gildahernandezlaw.com
GKN DRIVELINE: Ferges Sues Over Technicians' Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
TAMEKA FERGES and DARRICK PAYLOR, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH
AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00585 (M.D.N.C., July
14, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.
Plaintiff Ferges worked for the Defendant in its GKN Roxboro
location as a non-exempt, hourly paid line feeder, and later senior
assembly technician from approximately November 26, 2012 until May
2022.
Plaintiff Paylor worked for the Defendant in its GKN Roxboro
location as a non-exempt, hourly paid senior assembly technician,
and later, as a maintenance technician, from approximately 2000 to
May 29, 2019.
GKN Driveline North America, Inc. is a global engineering and
manufacturing company, with its principal place of business at 2220
North Opdyke Road, Auburn Hills, Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
Hannah B. Simmons, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC
1020 Southhill Drive, Ste. 130
Cary, NC 27513
Telephone: (919) 741-8693
Facsimile: (919) 869-1853
E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
hsimmons@gildahernandezlaw.com
GOOGLE LLC: Wiretaps Online Tax Filing Websites, Smith Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mary L. Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOOGLE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:23-cv-03527-SVK (N.D. Cal., July 14, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the California Invasion of
Privacy Act and the Federal Wiretap Act, invasion of privacy, and
intrusion upon seclusion.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of
wiretapping electronic communications on major on-line tax filing
websites offered by online tax preparation providers H&R Block,
TaxAct, and TaxSlayer, among others. The Defendant made the
wiretapping possible through Google Analytics' tracking pixel,
which is embedded in the JavaScript of online tax preparation
websites. These tax preparation companies sent private tax return
information to Google through Google Analytics. As a result of this
wiretapping, U.S. consumers have been transmitting their sensitive
financial information to Google when they file their taxes online,
says the suit.
Google, LLC is a technology company with its headquarters in
Mountain View, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: jsmith@bursor.com
- and -
Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC
102 Half Moon Bay Drive
Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
Telephone: (917) 983-9321
E-mail: lfeldman@4-justice.com
eservice@4-justice.com
- and -
Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: rapeterson@locklaw.com
rkshelquist@locklaw.com
kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
- and -
Marshal J. Hoda, Esq.
THE HODA LAW FIRM, PLLC
12333 Sowden Road, Suite B, PMB 51811
Houston, TX 77080
Telephone: (832) 848-0036
E-mail: marshal@thehodalawfirm.com
- and -
Patrick Yarborough, Esq.
FOSTER YARBOROUGH PLLC
917 Franklin Street, Suite 220
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 331-5254
E-mail: patrick@fosteryarborough.com
GREAT STAR: Class Cert Briefing Schedule Order Entered in Gair
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CANDICE GAIR, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. GREAT STAR TOOLS USA,
INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00976-MWB (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Matthew
W. Brann entered a briefing schedule order for the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification:
1. The Defendant may file a brief in opposition to the motion
for
class certification on or before Thursday, July 20, 2023.
2. The Plaintiff may file a reply brief on or before Thursday,
August 3, 2023.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44Odkfz at no extra charge.[CC]
GREEN STONE: Underpays Delivery Assistants, Velasquez Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
KATHERINE VELASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREEN STONE GROUP, INC. d/b/a GO
GREEN ORGANIC CLEANERS, and ZAKHAR KOGAN a/k/a ZAK KOGAN,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-03755 (D.N.J., July 13, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum
wages and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.
The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery assistant by Green Stone
from May 2022 until June 21, 2023.
Green Stone Group, Inc., doing business as Go Green Organic
Cleaners, is a provider of laundry and dry-cleaning services in New
York and New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell Schley, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SCHLEY, LLC
197 Route 18 South
South Tower, Suite 3000
East Brunswick, NJ 08816
Telephone: (732) 325-0318
E-mail: mschley@schleylaw.com
GYPSY LEAF LLC: Vachnine Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gypsy Leaf, LLC. The
case is styled as Ness-Lee Vachnine, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Gypsy Leaf, LLC doing business as:
Coming Soon, Case No. 1:23-cv-05970 (S.D.N.Y., July 12, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Gypsy Leaf Counseling, LLC -- https://www.gypsyleafcounseling.com/
--offers individual counseling sessions for adults ages 18 and
over, using evidenced based treatment modalities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: (516) 287-3458
Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com
HARVARD PILGRIM: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HARVARD PILGRIM HEALTH CARE, INC. and
POINT32HEALTH, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-11597-NMG (D.
Mass., July 14, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, negligence per se, gross negligence, breach of express
contract, breach of implied contract, breach of implied duty of
good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, declaratory
judgment, and violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection
Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the protected health information and personally
identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
customers stored within their network systems following a data
breach between March 28, 2023, and April 17, 2023. The Defendants
also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals about the data breach. As a result, the PII and PHI of
the Plaintiff and Class members were compromised and damaged
through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third
parties, says the suit.
Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc., is a provider of health plans
and services, with its principal place of business located at 1
Wellness Way, Canton, Massachusetts.
Point32Health, Inc. is a healthcare provider based in Canton,
Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gemma Seidita, Esq.
Sabita Soneji, Esq.
Anna Haac, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: gseidita@tzlegal.com
ssoneji@tzlegal.com
ahaac@tzlegal.com
- and -
Jennifer Czeisler, Esq.
JKC LAW, LLC
269 Altessa Blvd.
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (516) 457-9571
E-mail: jennifer@jkclawllc.com
HCA HEALTHCARE INC: Crossman Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HCA Healthcare, Inc.
The case is styled as Gregory Crossman, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. HCA Healthcare, Inc., Case No.
3:23-cv-00688 (M.D. Tenn., July 12, 2023).
The nature if suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
HCA Healthcare -- http://www.hcahealthcare.com/-- is an American
for-profit operator of health care facilities that was founded in
1968.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
James A. Ulwick, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street
Eleventh Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 214-7900
Email: alevitt@dlcfirm.com
julwick@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Amy E. Keller, Esq.
WEXLER WALLACE LLP
55 W Monroe, Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 346-2222
Fax: (312) 346-0022
Email: akeller@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
James Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue
Freedom Building, Ste. 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 254-8801
Fax: (615) 250-3937
Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
HCA HEALTHCARE: Silvers Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HCA Healthcare, Inc.
The case is styled as Gary Silvers, Richard Marous, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. HCA Healthcare,
Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00684 (M.D. Tenn., July 12, 2023).
The nature if suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
HCA Healthcare -- http://www.hcahealthcare.com/-- is an American
for-profit operator of health care facilities that was founded in
1968.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
Steven Sukert, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 525-4100
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
cardoso@kolawyers.com
sukert@kolawyers.com
HEFFLER CONTRACTING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Altamirano Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOEY ALTAMIRANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HEFFLER CONTRACTING GROUP; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive; Defendants, Case No. 23CV418909 (Cal.
Super., Santa Clara Cty., July 14, 2023) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a staff.
HEFFLER CONTRACTING GROUP in engaged in the general construction
business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
Lawrence W. Beall, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101
Pasadena, CA 91103
Telephone: (818) 230-7502
Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
HOME DEPOT: Class Settlement in Almanzar Gets Initial Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORGE ALMANZAR, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A.,
INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00699-KJN (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Kendall J. Newman entered an order granting the plaintiff's motion
for preliminary approval of settlement.
a. The court conditionally certifies and approves, for
settlement
purposes only, the following settlement class:
"All current and former non-exempt, hourly Night Team
Merchandising Execution Associates who worked for Home Depot
in
California between April 3, 2016, and November 1, 2021."
b. The Markham Law Firm is appointed as class counsel.
c. Jorge Almanzar is appointed as the class representative.
d. For purposes of the settlement, plaintiff is ordered to file
the
second amended complaint attached to the settlement agreement
at
ECF No. 28-2 at 125-148, but subject to the modification set
forth in Section III.D of this order.
e. The court appoints the CPT Group, Inc. as the settlement
administrator.
f. The court approves, as to form and content, the notice to
class
members in substantially the form attached to the settlement
agreement, ECF No. 28-2 at 102.
g. The court approves the procedure for settlement class members
to
request exclusion from the settlement as set forth in the
notice
to class members.
h. The court approves the procedure for settlement class members
to
object to the settlement as set forth in the class notice to
class members.
i. The court directs the mailing of the notice to class members
by
U.S. first class mail to the settlement class members in
accordance with the implementation schedule set forth in the
table below.
j. The court finds that the dates selected for the mailing and
distribution of the notice to class members, as set forth in
the
implementation schedule, meet the requirements of due process
and provide the best notice practicable under the
circumstances
and shall constitute due and sufficient notice to all persons
entitled thereto.
k. The court orders that pursuant to the California Private
Attorneys General Act, Labor Code sections 2698, et seq.
(PAGA),
statutory notice of this Settlement has been and will
continue
to be given to the Labor & Workforce Development Agency.
The court orders the following implementation schedule for further
proceedings:
Preliminary Approval July 6
Deadline for the Plaintiff to File SAC 2 court days from
Preliminary Approval
(by
July 10, 2023)
Deadline for the Defendant to Provide 7 business days from
Class Information to Settlement Preliminary Approval
(by
Administrator. July 17, 2023)
Deadline to Mail Notice to Class 30 calendar days from
Members Preliminary Approval
(by
August 5, 2023)
Deadline for Class Members to Postmark 45 calendar days from
and/or Fax Any Request for Exclusion mailing of Notice
Deadline for Class Counsel to file By November 28, 2023
Motion for Final Approval of Class
Settlement
Final Approval Hearing Jan. 2, 2024
Home Depot operates home improvement retail stores.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44NpDJc at no extra charge.[CC]
HOMECRAFT BUILDERS: Class Cert Bid Due April 9, 2024
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH CASEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
HOMECRAFT BUILDERS, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00512-MMH-LLL (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Marcia Morales Howard entered an order a case
management and scheduling order:
Deadline for providing mandatory initial July 6, 2023
disclosures.
Deadline for moving to join a party or amend Sept. 22, 2023
the pleadings.
Deadline for disclosing expert reports
regarding class certification.
the Plaintiff: Feb. 13, 2024
the Defendant: Mar. 5, 2024
Discovery deadline for class certification. Apr. 2, 2024
Deadline for moving for class certification. Apr. 9, 2024
Deadline for responding to motion for class Apr. 30, 2024
certification.
Deadline for replying to motion for class May 14, 2024
certification.
Deadline for disclosing expert reports.
the Plaintiff: July 16, 2024
the Defendant: Aug. 6, 2024
Rebuttal: Aug. 27, 2024
Deadline for completing discovery and filing Sept. 17, 2024
motions to compel.
Deadline for filing dispositive and Daubert Sept. 24, 2024
Motions:
Mediation Deadline: May 3, 2024
Deadline for filing the joint final pretrial Feb. 10, 2025
statement.
Date and time of the final pretrial conference. Feb. 18, 2025
Trial Term Begins Mar. 3, 2025
Homecraft is a 2nd generation, family-owned remodeler specializing
in decks, roofing, siding, windows, and finished basement.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43pE5Gc at no extra charge.[CC]
HP INC: Mobile Emergency Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOBILE EMERGENCY HOUSING
CORP., and TRACK RAT ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a PERFORMANCE AUTOMOTIVE
& TIRE CENTER, and DAVID JUSTIN LYNCH, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. HP INC. d/b/a/ HP COMPUTING
AND PRINTING INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
5:20-cv-09157-SVK (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court,
pursuant to Rule 23(a), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (c)(4), for an order
certifying three classes:
-- Device Owner Class
"All persons and entities in the United States who own a Class
Printer;"
-- Damages Subclass
"All persons and entities in the United States who own a Class
Printer that displayed a diagnostic error: "Cartridge
Problem,"
"Supply Problem," "Non-HP Chip," or “Non-HP Chip Detected”
error
code, as a result of HP’s transmission of a firmware
update;" and
-- State Consumer Subclass
"All person and entities residing in California, and States
with
a similar consumer protection statute to Cal. Civ. Code
1770(a)(15), who own a Class Printer that displayed a
diagnostic
error "Cartridge Problem," "Supply Problem," "Non-HP Chip," or
"Non-HP Chip Detected" error code as a result of HP's
transmission of a firmware update.
The Plaintiffs will also move the Court to appoint them as class
representatives and to appoint the law firms of Zimmerman Law
Offices, P.C. and Javitch Law Office as class counsel.
The Plaintiffs provide classwide evidence that HP knowingly
accessed and without permission altered, damaged, deleted,
destroyed, and otherwise used data and computers to execute a
scheme to defraud, deceive, and extort, and wrongfully obtain money
and data from Class members through HP's firmware update scheme.
HP is a seller of home, office, and enterprise printers in the
United States and sells associated supply cartridges for its
printers.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Oi4Yrm at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 440-0020
E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
jeff@attorneyzim.com
- and -
Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
JAVITCH LAW OFFICE
480 S. Ellsworth Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94401
Telephone: (650) 781-8000
E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com
HP INC: Mobile Seeks to File Portions of Class Cert Bid Under Seal
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOBILE EMERGENCY HOUSING
CORP., and TRACK RAT ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a PERFORMANCE AUTOMOTIVE
& TIRE CENTER, and DAVID JUSTIN LYNCH, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. HP INC. d/b/a/ HP COMPUTING
AND PRINTING INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
5:20-cv-09157-SVK (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting leave to file portions of their Motion for
Class Certification under seal which have been designated by the
designating party HP, Inc. as confidential pursuant to the
Stipulated Protective Order entered in the Action.
The Plaintiff seeks to seal the highlighted portions of the Motion
for Class Certification, the Plaintiffs' Exhibits, excerpts of
depositions of HP's witnesses, HP Customer Support Logs, and HP's
discovery responses, because they contain documents and information
designated by the Defendant HP, Inc. as confidential.
The Plaintiffs' request is narrowly tailored to only those portions
of the Plaintiffs' motion that relate to material designated by HP
as confidential and, thus, merit sealing for provisional purposes,
under the Stipulated Protective Order.
HP is a seller of home, office, and enterprise printers in the
United States and sells associated supply cartridges for its
printers.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated July 6, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Q3ENWC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 440-0020
E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
jeff@attorneyzim.com
- and -
Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
JAVITCH LAW OFFICE
480 S. Ellsworth Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94401
Telephone: (650) 781-8000
E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com
HWS LLC: Must File Class Cert. Response Brief by Sept. 22
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARNESE HALL, et al., On
Her Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
HWS, LLC t/a HENRY'S WRECKER SERVICE (Individually), et al., Case
No. 8:22-cv-00996-PJM (D. Md.), the Parties have agreed to the
following modified schedule:
-- The Plaintiffs' opening class certification July 21,
2023
Brief re: certification of the Plaintiff
Class (the Plaintiffs may file an Amended
Complaint at the time):
-- The Defendants' Response Brief Sept. 22,
2023
-- The Plaintiffs' Reply: Oct. 27,
2023
-- Hearing re: certification of the TBD
Plaintiff Class:
HWS provides individualized treatment to individuals who have
diagnoses such as depression, and anxiety.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated July 6, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OkQpDh at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Richard S. Gordon, Esq.
GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY, CHTD.
11350 McCormick Road
Executive Plaza 1, Suite 1000
Hunt Valley, MD 21031
Telephone: (410) 825-2300
Facsimile:(410) 825-0066
E-mail: rgordon@GWCfirm.com
ICF TECHNOLOGY: Faces Tomasello Wage-and-Hour Suit in D.N.J.
------------------------------------------------------------
MIA TOMASELLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ICF TECHNOLOGY, INC. and ACCRETIVE
TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-03759 (D.N.J.,
July 13, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for failure
to pay minimum wages and unlawful wage deductions in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and
the New Jersey Wage Payment Law.
The Plaintiff has been a performer for ICF's adult streaming
website from 2016 until the present.
ICF Technology, Inc. is an operator of online social media
platforms, with a principal place of business at 800 Stewart
Street, Seattle, Washington.
Accretive Technology Group, Inc. is a web company, with a principal
place of business at 800 Stewart Street, Seattle, Washington. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
Matthew A. Luber, Esq.
William L. Carr, Esq.
Tyler J. Burrell, Esq.
McOMBER McOMBER & LUBER, P.C.
39 East Main Street
Marlton, NJ 08053
Telephone: (856) 985-9800
E-mail: cjk@njlegal.com
mal@njlegal.com
wlc@njlegal.com
tjb@njlegal.com
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Acevedo Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ACEVEDO JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF INNOVATION
AND TECHNOLOGY; and PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION a/k/a PROGRESS,
Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-03225-CRL-KLM (C.D. Ill., July 14,
2023) is a class action arising from the Defendants' negligent
failure to implement and maintain reasonable cybersecurity
procedures that resulted in a data breach, which was discovered in
May or June 2023.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants failed
to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members'
protected personally identifiable information, including without
limitation, full names, dates of birth, and Social Security
numbers. The personal information exposed by the Defendants as a
result of its inadequate data security is highly valuable on the
black market to phishers, hackers, identity thieves, and
cybercriminals. Despite knowing the prevalence of data breaches,
the Defendants failed to prioritize data security by adopting
reasonable data security measures to prevent and detect
unauthorized access to its highly sensitive systems and databases,
says the Plaintiff.
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY guides technology
solution delivery and support for the agencies in the executive
branch of state government. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
Steven Sukert, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW
FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
cardoso@kolawyers.com
sukert@kolawyers.com
- and -
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
L LIPS GROSSMAN LLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
ILLUMINUS: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 18
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER DEUEL, On behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ILLUMINUS and ST.
ELIZABETH MANOR, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-01504-WED (E.D. Wis.), the
Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered a scheduling order as
follows:
1. The parties may join other parties and amend the pleadings
without leave of court no later than August 2, 2023.
2. The parties shall make their initial disclosures to the
opposing
party in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) no later than
August 2, 2023.
3. The Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification and
class
certification is due no later than October 18, 2023.
4. The plaintiff shall disclose expert witnesses in accordance
with
Civil L.R. 26(b) no later than March 1, 2024.
5. The Plaintiff's motion for Rule 23 class certification is due
no
later than March 13, 2024.
6. The Defendants' motion for decertification of a conditional
Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) class is due no later than March
13,
2024. Briefing to comply with Civil l. R. 7.
7. The defendants shall disclose expert witnesses in accordance
with Civil L.R. 26(b) no later than May 1, 2024.
8. All discovery is to be completed by August 21, 2024. Pursuant
to
Civil Local Rule 26(c), depositions to preserve testimony for
trial, so‐called "trial depositions," are to be completed
by this
date.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43pWgvu at no extra charge.[CC]
JOSH STEIN: ACLU Files Second Amended Class Cert Bid
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION OF NORTH CAROLINA, v. JOSH STEIN, et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-00302-LCB-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying the Defendant District Attorney Class and
appointing Ms. O'Brien and Mr. Finarelli as class counsel.
-- "All district attorneys in North Carolina elected or
appointed
to serve in a prosecutorial district in the state in
accordance
with N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. section 7A-60."
The Plaintiff filed this case on April 10, 2023, asserting that
N.C. Gen. Stat. section 14-288.2, as recently amended and expanded
by House Bill 40, North Carolina Session Law 2023-6, violates the
First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
and article I, sections 12, 14, and 19 of the North Carolina
Constitution.
The Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against
Attorney General Joshua Stein and a class of North Carolina
district attorneys represented by District Attorneys Satana
Deberry, Avery Crump, and Lorrin Freeman, in their official
capacities.
The Plaintiff contends that Certification is appropriate under Rule
23(a)(1) because joinder is impracticable.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 6, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DhWQRp at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristi L. Graunke
Samuel J. Davis
Michele Delgado
ACLU OF NORTH CAROLINA
LEGAL FOUNDATION
Raleigh, NC 27611
Telephone: (919) 354-5071
E-mail: kgraunke@acluofnc.org
sdavis@acluofnc.org
mdelgado@acluofnc.org
MARY BASSETT: Completion of Class Cert Briefing Due Feb. 16, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.K. et al v. Mary T.
Bassett, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01791 (E.D.N.Y., Filed March 31,
2022), the Hon. Judge Brian M. Cogan entered an order adopting the
schedule set forth in Judge Wicks' Memorandum and Order:
-- Class Certification Briefing Complete by: Feb. 16,
2024
-- Discovery to end: March 8,
2024
The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Other Civil Rights --
Tort Negligence.[CC]
MG BILLING: Vandiver Sues Over Bait & Switch Trial Membership Offer
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES VANDIVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MG BILLING LIMITED, Defendant, Case No.
2023LA000728 (Ill. Cir. Ct., 18th Jud. Cir., Dupage Cty., July 13,
2023) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of
contract, including breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing; unjust enrichment; and violations of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Illinois Unfair
and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in deceptive
and fraudulent billing practices which lure consumers into
providing their credit card information based on the promise of a
cheap $2 trial membership to an adult entertainment website. The
Defendant represents that users who cancel the trial within 48
hours will incur no further charges. In reality, the Defendant
exploits the trial offer to sneak other expensive monthly
subscription charges onto users' credit cards. As a result of the
Defendant's bait and switch scheme, the Plaintiff and similarly
situated consumers were assessed monthly fees for a trial that they
cancelled almost immediately after they signed up, the suit
asserts.
MG Billing Limited is a provider of e-commerce billing services
headquartered in Cyprus. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amanda J. Rosenberg, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: arosenberg@kalielgold.com
jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
sgold@kalielgold.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Daniel Tropin, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
tropin@kolawyers.com
MILLIMAN INC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due April 26, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON MORRIS and LARS F.
BRAUER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. MILLIMAN, INC., d/b/a INTELLISCRIPT, Case No.
2:23-cv-00446-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Ravi Subramania
entered an order granting the parties' request for case management
schedule:
Event Date
Deadline for fact discovery Jan. 12, 2024
The Plaintiff's expert report(s) served on Feb. 9, 2024
defendant
The Defendant's expert report(s) served on Mar. 8, 2024
plaintiff
The Plaintiff's rebuttal report(s) served Apr. 5, 2024
on defendant
The Plaintiff's motion for class Apr. 26, 2024
certification
The Defendant's response to motion for May 24, 2024
class certification
The Plaintiff's reply in support of class June 7, 2024
certification
Milliman is an international actuarial and consulting firm based in
Seattle, Washington.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44OFW8x at no extra charge.[CC]
MINNCO CREDIT: Tischler Suit Alleges Consumer Loan Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL TISCHLER and SAMANTHA TISCHLER, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MINNCO CREDIT UNION,
Defendant, Case No. 0:23-cv-02121-WMW-LIB (D. Minn., July 13, 2023)
is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Truth
in Lending Act, the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act, the Minnesota
Mortgage Originator and Servicer Licensing Act, and the Private
Attorney General Statute.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to provide required
disclosures and misrepresentations related to the material terms
and nature of the Plaintiffs' consumer loan. Michael Tischler
applied for a loan from MinnCo to buy out others' interest in a
property. Subsequent to Michael Tischler's application for the
loan, MinnCo failed to disclose any of the requisite disclosures
pursuant to the law. Moreover, the Plaintiffs bring claims under
Minnesota law for unreasonable delay in the closing their mortgage
loan, says the suit.
MinnCo Credit Union is a credit union based in Cambridge,
Minnesota. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Carl E. Christensen, Esq.
Chris Wilcox, Esq.
CHRISTENSEN LAW OFFICE PLLC
305 North Fifth Avenue, Suite 375
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 473-1200
E-mail: carl@clawoffice.com
chris@clawoffice.com
- and -
Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq.
Carter B. Lyons, Esq.
CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER, P.A.
367 Commerce Court
Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
Telephone: (651) 770-9707
Facsimile: (651) 704-0907
E-mail: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com
carter@consumerjusticecenter.com
NEW YORK, NY: Settles Class Suit Over Racial Injustice Protests
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cheyanne M. Daniels of The Hill reports that New York City will pay
more than $13 million to more than 1,300 people who were arrested
or beaten during protests against racial injustice in summer 2020.
The agreement comes after a civil rights lawsuit accused leaders of
the city's police department of violating protesters' First
Amendment rights with "coordinated" brutality and unlawful
arrests.
The arrests came as thousands poured into the city's streets,
protesting the murder of George Floyd that May. Floyd, a Black man,
died after a white police officer in Minneapolis kneeled on his
neck for more than nine minutes.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit recounted being confronted by New York
police officers who charged, corralled and detained demonstrators
for hours.
The lawsuit, brought by the National Lawyers Guild, focused on 18
of the protests that took place throughout New York City in the
week following Floyd's murder.
The settlement must still be approved by a judge, but it would
allow New York City to avoid an expensive and politically charged
trial.
It's not the first protest-related lawsuit the city has settled
this year.
In March, New York City agreed to pay more than $21,000 to some 300
people who were corralled and beaten with batons by police in the
Bronx during racial justice protests in 2020.
The newest settlement would be even more expensive, with lawyers
saying it will be one of largest payouts ever awarded in a mass
arrest lawsuit.
New York isn't the only city to be considering settlements
following summer 2020.
After Floyd's murder, more than 26 million people flooded the
streets around the nation, protesting police brutality and racial
injustice.
Thousands were corralled into tight spaces by law enforcement,
attacked with batons and tear-gassed before they were arrested.
Police departments around the country, including attorneys for New
York, defended law enforcement tactics, citing demonstrations that
turned into riots, the burning of police cars and looting of
stores.
In the current case, New York City invoked qualified immunity,
which protects police officers from having individual lawsuits
brought against them for actions they took in the line of duty.
But the lawyers guild argued the 2020 arrests were the latest
string of "systemic violations" by the NYPD. The attorneys cited
demonstrations during the 2004 Republican National Convention,
which saw hundreds of protestors -- including journalists --
detained. The city agreed to pay $18 million in that settlement in
2014.
Most of the protests for racial justice in 2020 were peaceful. As a
result, 19 cities, including New York, this year announced they
would pay more than $80 million to demonstrators who suffered
injuries at the hands of law enforcement during these protests.
Other cities are still facing lawsuits for their tactics to subdue
protesters in 2020, but in New York, plaintiffs in the most recent
settlement will be eligible for $9,950 each. [GN]
NORTHEAST POWER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rincon Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
JOHN RINCON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHEAST POWER DRY, INC.; DAVID DEFREITAS;
and PETER PHILIP, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-03724-GC-RLS
(D.N.Y., July 12, 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 Rincon was employed by the Defendants as a laborer.
Northeast Power Dry provides 24/7 emergency water damage
restoration for homes and commercial properties in Bridgewater,
Bound Brook, Edison, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yongjin Bae, Esq.
HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
Flushing, NY 11354
Tel: (718) 353-8588
Fax: (718) 353-6288
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Poe Seeks to File Class Cert Reply Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERI POE, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. THE NORTHWESTERN
MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 8:21-cv-02065-SPG-E (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
permission to file under seal portions of the following documents:
1. Reply Memorandum in Support of the Plaintiff’s Motion for
Class
Certification (Class Cert Reply).
2. Exhibit 19 attached to the Declaration of Christopher R.
Pitoun
in Support of the Plaintiff's Reply in Support of the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification (Class Cert
Exhibit
19).
3. Exhibit 20 attached to the Declaration of Christopher R.
Pitoun
in Support of the Plaintiff's Reply in Support of the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification (Class Cert
Exhibit
2).
4. Reply in Support of the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment
(MSJ Reply).
The Class Cert Reply includes a number of references to documents
that this Court has previously ordered be filed under seal in the
following
orders:
-- Order Granting the Plaintiff’s Application to File Motion
for
Class Certification and Certain Supporting Documents Under
Seal;
-- Order Granting the Plaintiff's Application to File Exhibits 2,
3
and 10 in Support of Motion for Class Certification Under
Seal;
and
-- Order Granting the Defendant's Unopposed Application for Leave
to
File Under Seal.
Northwestern Mutual is a provider of life insurance and investment
products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 5, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pKZtbj at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
Abigail D. Pershing, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (213) 330-7150
E-mail: christopherp@hbsslaw.com
abigailp@hbsslaw.com
- and -
David S. Klevatt, Esq.
KLEVATT & ASSOCIATES, LLC
77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4500
Chicago, IL 60601-1604
Telephone: (312) 782-9090
E-mail: dklevatt@insurancelawyer.com
- and -
Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
John P. Bjork, Esq.
SPERLING & SLATER, LLC
55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 224-1500
E-mail: jvanek@sperling-law.com
jbjork@sperling-law.com
PEGASO ENERGY: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Tool Pushers
----------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN LEE GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEGASO ENERGY SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00790 (W.D. Tex., July 14, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Mr. Garcia worked for the Defendant as a tool pusher from
approximately July 17, 2022 until May 8, 2023.
Pegaso Energy Services, LLC is an oil and gas service company, with
its principal place of business at 1311 N. Ridge Dr., Midland,
Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Yezierski, Esq.
Gabriel A. Assaad, Esq.
McDONALD WORLEY, P.C.
1770 St. James St., Suite 100
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 523-5500
Facsimile: (713) 523-5501
E-mail: matt@mcdonaldworley.com
gassaad@mcdonaldworley.com
PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER: Tate Sues Over Wrongful Loan Collections
-------------------------------------------------------------
LABARRON TATE, BRANDON HOOD, JULIANA JUAREZ DUFRANE, SCOTT DUFRANE,
RYAN LANCASTER, TARRYN TYLER, and MATTHEW MAHER, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AGENCY; DISCOVER BANK;
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; DEUTSCHE
BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY; DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS;
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, N.A.; THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
TRUST COMPANY, N.A.; UMB BANK, N.A.; WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A.;
WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY, N.A.; NELNET SERVICING, LLC; NELNET,
INC.; NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC; NAVIENT CORPORATION; and NAVIENT
CREDIT FINANCE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06050
(S.D.N.Y., July 13, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants
for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and equitable relief.
The class action arises from the Defendants' wrongful collections
on several hundred thousand private student loans after these loans
were discharged in bankruptcy cases pursuant to Sections 727(b) or
1328(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The aggregate amount of the
Defendants' wrongful collections on discharged loans substantially
exceeds $1 billion. The Defendants have wrongfully collected
billions of dollars on these discharged Loans based on the myth
that these loans are not discharged in bankruptcy and that no legal
action is required for the Defendants to collect on these debts.
The Plaintiff and the Class seek declaratory relief from the
Defendants' alleged wrongful collections, injunctive relief to
enforce and carry out the bankruptcy discharge, and equitable
relief to return the wrongfully collected funds.
Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency is an agency
created for the purpose of providing scholarship grants and loans
to citizens in Pennsylvania.
Discover Bank is a national bank based in New Castle, Delaware.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a national banking association based in
California.
U.S. Bank, National Association is a retail banking company based
in Minnesota.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company is a financial services
provider based in New York, New York.
Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas is a financial services
provider based in New York, New York.
The Bank of New York Mellon, N.A. is a nationally chartered bank
based in New York, New York.
The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. is a financial
services provider based in New York, New York.
UMB Bank, N.A. is a financial services provider based in New York,
New York.
Wilmington Trust, N.A. is a financial services provider based in
Buffalo, New York.
Wilmington Trust Company, N.A. is a financial services provider
based in Buffalo, New York.
Nelnet Servicing, LLC is a student loan servicing company based in
Nebraska.
Nelnet, Inc. is a financial services provider based in Nebraska.
Navient Solutions, LLC is a financial services provider based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Navient Corporation is a financial services provider based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Navient Credit Finance Corporation is an American student loan
servicer based in Wilmington, Delaware. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael B. Wolk, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL B. WOLK, P.C.
155 East 55th Street, Suite 300B
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (917) 238-0576
E-mail: michael.wolk@wolkgroup.com
- and -
Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 West University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
pm@millerlawpc.com
dal@millerlawpc.com
- and -
Steven Rhodes, Esq.
STEVEN RHODES CONSULTING, LLC
1610 Arborview Blvd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Telephone: (734) 646-7406
E-mail: rhodessw@comcast.net
- and -
Brian A. Sullivan, Esq.
WERB & SULLIVAN
Legal Arts Building
1225 N. King Street, Suite 600
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 652-1100
E-mail: bsullivan@werbsullivan.com
PETIT POT: Paris Has Until Nov 16 to File Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID FARIS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PETIT POT INC.,
Case No. 2:23-cv-01955-JFW-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John F.
Walter entered an order granting plaintiff's application to extend
class certification deadline July 14, 2023, to November 16, 2023.
Petit Pot brings renowned French dessert traditions to the Bay
Area. The company's services mainly focus on offering organic and
gluten free rice pudding.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46SV5rm at no extra charge.[CC]
PINK GORILLA: Rhone Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pink Gorilla, LLC.
The case is styled as Tonimarie Rhone, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Pink Gorilla, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-06001 (S.D.N.Y., July 12, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Pink Gorilla, LLC -- https://pinkgorillagames.com/ -- is a retro
and imported video game retailer with three locations in Seattle,
Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor H. Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Sur-Reply
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEDDRICK BROWN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:21-cv-00175-TCB
(N.D. Ga.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting
them leave to file a sur-reply in opposition to the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.
On June 9, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their
motion for class certification. Although neither the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure nor the Court's Local Rules expressly provide
for sur-replies, the Court has discretion to "allow surreplies"
"where a valid reason for such additional briefing exists, "
including "where the movant raises new arguments in its reply
brief."
In addition, for the first time in their Reply, the Plaintiffs
argue that it is "illegal" for insurers to use NADA to value total
loss vehicles in Georgia, such that a jury could not consider
evidence from NADA regarding the value of putative class members'
loss vehicles.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 6, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OksZ0Q at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq.
Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq.
J. Matthew Brigman, Esq.
Allison Hill White, Esq.
Erin M. Munger, Esq.
Julia C. Barrett, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
1180 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 572-4600
E-mail: jcashdan@kslaw.com
zmcentyre@kslaw.com
mbrigman@kslaw.com
awhite@kslaw.com
emunger@kslaw.com
jbarrett@kslaw.com
RAEL INC: Court Dismisses Blansette Class Suit
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH BLANSETTE,
individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. RAEL,
INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-00006-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order dismissing in its entirety
the case with each Party to bear their own attorneys' fees and
costs.
-- The Plaintiff's individual claims are dismissed with prejudice
and the Plaintiff's putative class claims are dismissed
without
prejudice.
On January 3, 2023, the Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a
Complaint captioned Sarah Blansette, individually, and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. Rael, Inc., Case No.
4:23-cv-00006-HSG.
The Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on April 10, 2023.
The Plaintiff alleged claims on an individual and putative class
basis for
(1) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Business &
Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.,
(2) violation of California's False Advertising Law, Business &
Professions Code sections 17500, et seq.,
(3) violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil
Code sections 1750, et. seq., and
(4) unjust enrichment.
Rael is a manufacturer of organic feminine care products intended
to offer natural and effective items for everyday personal care
needs.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3K3WJwG at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher T. Aumais, Esq.
Christopher B. Good, Esq.
J. Ryan Gustafson, Esq.
GOOD | GUSTAFSON | AUMAIS LLP
2330 Westwood Boulevard, Suite 103
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Telephone: (310) 274-4463
E-mail: cta@ggallp.com
cbg@ggallp.com
jrg@ggallp.com
- and -
Steffan T. Keeton, Esq.
THE KEETON FIRM, LLC
100 South Commons, Suite 102
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Telephone: (888) 412-5291
E-mail: stkeeton@keetonfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael D. Adams, Esq.
Lucas K. Hori, Esq.
Talya Goldfinger, Esq.
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
18575 Jamboree Road, 9th Floor
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: 714-641-5100
Facsimile: 714-546-9035
E-mail: madams@rutan.com
lhori@rutan.com
tgoldfinger@rutan.com
REMINGTON ARMS: Heflin Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN HEFLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY, LLC and VISTA
OUTDOOR INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00650-JM (E.D. Ark.,
July 14, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.
Mr. Heflin was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid
employee.
Remington Arms Company, LLC is a manufacturer of firearms and
ammunition doing business in Delaware.
Vista Outdoor Inc. is a manufacturer of firearms and ammunition
doing business in Utah. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris Burks, Esq.
Lindsey Noe, Esq.
WHLAW
1 Riverfront Place, Suite 745
North Little Rock, AR 72114
Telephone: (501) 888-4357
E-mail: chris@wh.law
lindsey@wh.law
RICKEYO CONSTRUCTION: Garcia Suit Seeks Painters' Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS ESPINOZA GARCIA, RICARDO ORTIZ GARCIA, RAUL CRUZ JINEZ, and
JAIRO URIEL CRUZ PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RICKEYO CONSTRUCTION, LLC,
RICHARD OZMENT, and BENJAMIN WARD, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-02426 (W.D. Tenn., July 13, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as painters at any time
between 2011 and 2021.
RickeyO Construction, LLC is a construction firm based in
Mississippi. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alan G. Crone, Esq.
Philip Oliphant, Esq.
THE CRONE LAW FIRM, PLC
88 Union Avenue, 14th Floor
Memphis, TN 38103
Telephone: (901) 737-7740
Facsimile: (901) 474-7926
E-mail: acrone@cronelawfirmplc.com
poliphant@cronelawfirmplc.com
RITE AID CORP: Faces Consolidated Consumer Suit in CA Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 3, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 11, 2023, that the company is a defendant in a
putative consumer class action lawsuit in the United States
District court for the Southern District of California captioned
"Byron Stafford v. Rite Aid Corp."
A separate lawsuit, Robert Josten v. Rite Aid Corp., was
consolidated with this lawsuit for pre-trial purposes. The lawsuit
contains allegations that (i) the company was obligated to charge
the plaintiffs' insurance companies its usual and customary prices
for their prescription drugs, and (ii) the company failed to do so
because the prices it reported were not equal to or adjusted to
account for the prices that Rite Aid offered to uninsured and
underinsured customers through its "Rx Savings Program."
Rite Aid Corporation is a healthcare company with a retail
footprint based in Pennsylvania.
RITE AID CORP: Faces Holland Substance Regulatory Suit in PA Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 3, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 11, 2023, that the company is also defending a
putative shareholder class action currently captioned "Holland v.
Rite Aid Corporation et al.," filed in the United States District
court for the Northern District of Ohio.
The matter names Rite Aid Corporation and certain former and
current executives individually as defendants and raises claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 related to the DOJ's Complaint and alleged misstatements and
omissions concerning the company's risk for regulatory action and
litigation pertaining to controlled substances practices.
Rite Aid Corporation is a healthcare company with a retail
footprint based in Pennsylvania.
RITE AID CORP: Faces Page Price-Rigging Suit in PA Court
--------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 3, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 11, 2023, that the company is defending a
putative shareholder class action currently captioned "Page v. Rite
Aid Corporation et al.," filed in the United States District court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The matter names Rite Aid Corporation and certain executives
individually as defendants and raises claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related to alleged
misstatements and omissions.
Rite Aid Corporation is a healthcare company with a retail
footprint based in Pennsylvania.
RITE AID CORP: Faces Price-Rigging Suit in PA Court
---------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended June 3, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 11, 2023, that the company is defending itself
against pricing allegations filed in the United States District
court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
It has appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit the denial of a motion to compel arbitration as to one of
the named plaintiffs.
Rite Aid Corporation is a healthcare company with a retail
footprint based in Pennsylvania.
RRH–FLORIDA: Rygh Sues to Recover Unpaid Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------
Sherrie Lynne Rygh, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. RRH–FLORIDA, LLC, Case No. 9:23-cv-81030-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., July 13, 2023), is brought Defendant to recover unpaid wages,
compensation and damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
("FLSA").
Plaintiff regularly worked time each shift that was not part of a
tipped occupation, including side work, cleaning, rolling
silverware, and other work that did not produce tips nor support
work that produced tips. The Plaintiff regularly worked time each
shift and each week on activities that were not part of a tipped
occupation exceeding (1) 20 percent of hours worked of that part of
the workweek in which Plaintiff was engaged in a tipped occupation;
and/or (2) a continuous period of 30 minutes.
The Defendant did not properly inform Plaintiff and other servers
about taking a "tip credit" before Defendant deducted the tip
credit from all work hours. The Defendant required servers,
including Plaintiff, to work off the clock. The Defendant required
servers, including Plaintiff, to pay for walk-outs (when customers
walked out without paying their bill), which resulted in their
wages falling below the minimum wage.
The Defendant devised the scheme of having servers, including
Plaintiff, work under the identity of another person in order to
deprive the server of their hourly wage. The Plaintiff was paid at
a rate of the Florida minimum wage for tipped employees (plus tips)
for all hours that she worked on the clock. The Plaintiff was paid
no hourly wage at all, only tips, for all hours that she worked off
the clock. Plaintiff was entitled to be paid at least the minimum
wage. During one or more workweeks, Defendant did not pay Plaintiff
the full minimum wage in violation of the FLSA. Defendant knew or
showed reckless disregard of the unpaid and/or underpaid hours
worked, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a server.
RRH–FLORIDA, LLC's operated a Denny's restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd W. Shulby, Esq.
TODD W. SHULBY, P.A.
1792 Bell Tower Lane
Weston, FL 33326
Phone: (954) 530-2236
Facsimile: (954) 530-6628
Email: tshulby@shulbylaw.com
SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Fox Seeks Initial OK of Renewed Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS A. FOX, for himself
and all those similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF SAGINAW, et al.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-11887-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order clarifying the previously certified class
remains certified, or else preliminary grant renewed class
certification, in order to ensure continued tolling for absent
class members.
The Michigan Supreme Court unanimously found that the Defendants'
conduct was a state-law taking. Rafaeli, LLC v. Oakland Cnty., 505
Mich. 429, 484-85; 952 N.W.2d 434 (2020). The Sixth Circuit
likewise found a federal taking. Hall v.Meisner, 51 F.4th 185, 196
(6th Cir. 2022). And the United States Supreme Court unanimously
confirmed that such practices were a federal taking, reasoning that
a "taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but no more."
Tyler v. Hennepin Cnty., Minn., 143 S. Ct. 1369, 1376, 1380 (2023),
the Plaintiff contends.
The Plaintiff has addressed the Sixth Circuit's new rule rejecting
the juridical link doctrine through his motion for the appointment
of county-specific class representatives.
Despite – or, perhaps, because of – their clear liability and
the apparent wisdom of class adjudication, the Defendants have
fought tooth and nail to retain their illegally seized property.
They have shown that they will take every opportunity to press
every argument they can.
Saginaw County contains three cities, 27 townships and five
incorporated villages.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated July 5, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/43vWxwI at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
Christopher D. Kaye, Esq.
Gregory A. Mitchell, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 W University Drive, Ste 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
ssa@millerlawpc.com
cdk@millerlawpc.com
gam@millerlawpc.com
- and -
Philip L. Ellison, Esq.
OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL, PLC
Hemlock, MI 48626
Telephone: (989) 642-0055
E-mail: pellison@olcplc.com
- and -
Matthew E. Gronda, Esq.
St. Charles, MI 48655
Telephone: (989) 249-0350
E-mail: matt@matthewgronda.com
SIERRA TRADING POST: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sierra Trading Post,
Inc. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Sierra Trading Post, Inc., Case
No. 1:23-cv-06003-PGG-BCM (S.D.N.Y., July 12, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sierra Trading Post, Inc., doing business as Sierra --
https://www.sierra.com/ -- is an online and brick-and-mortar
retailer of off-price merchandise operated by the TJX
Companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
SOUTHEAST FINANCIAL: Overcharges Overdraft Fees, Thomas Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MIRANDA THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHEAST FINANCIAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant,
Case No. 23C1633 (Tenn. Cir. Ct., Davidson Cty., July 13, 2023) is
a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract and
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust
enrichment, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection
Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's practice of assessing
overdraft fees on transactions that did not actually overdraw
checking accounts and charging multiple fees on an item. As a
result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and similarly
situated account holders have suffered damages.
Southeast Financial Credit Union is a provider of retail banking
services in Tennessee. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Christopher Gilreath, Esq.
GILREATH & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
200 Jefferson Ave., Suite 711
Memphis, TN 38103
Telephone: (901) 527-0511
E-mail: chrisgil@sidgilreath.com
- and -
Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq.
Winston S. Hudson, Esq.
JOHNSON FIRM
610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 372-1300
E-mail: chris@yourattorney.com
tyler@yourattorney.com
winston@yourattorney.com
SUEZ WATER: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Nov. 17
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLLS, et al., v. Suez
Water Environmental Services, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-30034 (D.
Mass., Filed March 25, 2022), the Hon. Judge Mark G. Mastroianni
entered an order granting joint motion for extension of time to
complete discovery:
-- All fact discovery for Phase 1 shall Sept. 22, 2023
be completed by:
-- Dispositive motions, if any, shall Nov. 17, 2023
be filed by:
-- Oppositions shall be filed by: Dec. 15, 2023
-- Replies, if any, shall be filed by: Dec. 28, 2023
-- The Plaintiffs shall file any motion Nov. 17, 2023
for class certification by:
-- The Defendants' opposition shall Dec. 15, 2023
be filed by:
-- The Plaintiffs' reply brief, if Dec. 28, 2023
any, shall be filed by:
-- A hearing on any filed dispositive Jan. 10, 2024
motions and/or motion for class
certification will be held on:
The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract.[CC]
SUMMER SOLES: Shuman Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Summer Soles, LLC.
The case is styled as Mohammad Shuman, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Summer Soles, LLC, Case No.
CACE23015634 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., July 12, 2023).
Summer Soles, LLC -- https://summersoles.com/ -- is a foot care
innovator, offering "Summer Soles" – chic, one-of-a-kind fabric
insoles uniquely designed for use in sandals and other open shoes
to put an end to the general "slippery discomfort" often
experienced with summer footwear.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Fax: (866) 893-0416
Phone: (202) 709-5744
Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Court OK's Settlement in Price Fixing Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. disclosed in its Form 20-F for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 29, 2023, that the company, its
subsidiaries, and, with respect to a complaint brought by U.S.
State Attorneys General (AG) and a complaint brought by putative
classes of indirect reseller plaintiffs (IRPs), a former member of
Taro U.S.A.'s commercial team, have been named as defendants in
numerous putative class action lawsuits and additional lawsuits
brought by and/or on behalf of purchasers and payors of several
generic pharmaceutical products in the U.S. and Canada.
In November 4, 2021, a settlement was reached with the putative
Direct Purchaser Plaintiff class (DPP), a putative class generally
comprised of wholesalers and distributors that purchased generic
drug products from manufacturers. The court approved the settlement
on March 10, 2023, pursuant to which Taro U.S.A. paid $67.6
million, which was reduced by $7.96 million as a result of the
threshold percentage of class members that opted out of the
settlement.
The lawsuits allege that the company, its subsidiaries, and the
concerned individual in the AG and IRP complaints, have conspired
with competitors to fix prices, rig bids, or allocate customers
with respect to certain products, and also allege an industry-wide
conspiracy as to nearly all generic pharmaceutical products. Each
of the cases that were filed in U.S. federal court has been
transferred to the U.S. District court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania for coordinated pre-trial proceedings under the
caption "In re: Generic Drug Pricing Antitrust Litigation," MDL No.
2724.
The court initially sequenced the lawsuits into separate groups for
purposes of briefing motions to dismiss. Defendants filed motions
to dismiss complaints in the first group. On October 16, 2018, the
court denied the motions with respect to the federal law claims. On
February 15, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part the
motions with respect to the state law claims.
The court designated certain complaints naming Taro U.S.A. as
"bellwether" cases to begin the sequencing of proceedings, and
which are now proceeding in discovery. In October 2022 the court
issued an order revising prior deadlines and setting certain
bellwether schedules across 2023 and 2024, including those related
to discovery and motions practice.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss directed to the bellwether
complaints; the court denied one such motion to dismiss on May 10,
2022, and granted in part and denied in part other such motions on
June 7, 2022, and February 27, 2023.
Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is a science-based
pharmaceutical company based in Israel.
TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Price Fixing Suit Ongoing in S.D. N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. disclosed in its Form 20-F for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 29, 2023, that the company and two of
its former officers are named as defendants in a putative
shareholder class action entitled "Speakes v. Taro Pharmaceutical
Industries, Ltd.," filed October 25, 2016, which is now pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and
which asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
against all defendants and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against the individual defendants.
It generally alleges that the defendants made material
misstatements and omissions in connection with an alleged
conspiracy to fix drug prices. On September 24, 2018, the court
granted in part and denied in part the company's motion to dismiss.
Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is a science-based
pharmaceutical company based in Israel.
TAXACT INC: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 31, 2024
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS C.
SMITH-WASHINGTON, JOYCE MAHONEY, JONATHAN AMES, and JENNY LEWIS on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TAXACT,
INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00830-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince
Chhabria entered an order granting joint stipulation on case
timeline:
Event Deadline
Initial Disclosures Oct. 13, 2023
Deadline for the Plaintiffs to File Class Jan. 31, 2024
Certification Motion
Deadline for the Defendant to file opposition Feb. 16, 2024
to the Plaintiffs' class certification motion
Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file reply in Feb. 29, 2024
support of motion for class certification
Hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class March 14, 2024
certification (set by the Court)
Further scheduling conference April 5, 2024
TaxAct provides software products and services. The Company
develops and markets tax preparation software services for
individuals, and business owners.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46Rk9il at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Julian Hammond, Esq.
Christina V. Tusan, Esq.
Adrian Barnes, Esq.
Polina Brandler, Esq.
Ari Cherniak, Esq.
HAMMONDLAW, P.C.
1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 600
Tacoma, WA 98402
Telephone (310) 601-6766
Facsimile (310) 295-2385
E-mail: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com
ctusan@hammondlawpc.com
abarnes@hammondlawpc.com
pbrandler@hammondlawpc.com
acherniak@hammondlawpc.com
- and -
Jason Seth Harrow, Esq.
Emily Gerrick, Esq.
GERSTEIN HARROW, LLP
3243B S. La Cienega Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90016
Telephone: (323) 744-5293
E-mail: jason@gerstein-harrow.com
emily@gerstein-harrow.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Sheila A.G. Armbrust, Esq.
James W. Ducayet, Esq.
Michele L. Aronson, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
555 California Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 772 1200
Facsimile: (415) 772 7400
E-mail: sarmbrust@sidley.com
jducayet@sidley.com
maronson@sidley.com
TAXACT INC: Transmits Tax Return Data to Tech Companies, Hartz Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW HARTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TAXACT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-04591 (N.D. Ill., July 15, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendant for violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, breach of implied contract, and
unjust enrichment.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has been transmitting
sensitive financial information to Facebook and Google for several
years. By affixing invisible tracking codes from Facebook and
Google on the Defendant's website, millions of Americans who used
TaxAct to file their required annual tax returns had their private
tax return information (TRI) and other sensitive personal
identifying information (PII) unlawfully shared with these
technology companies, says the suit.
TaxAct, Inc. is an operator of an online tax filing service, with a
principal place of business in Iowa. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 412
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
THOR MOTOR: Court Sets Scheduling Conference in Schlim Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Michael Schlim, v.
Thor Motor Coach, Inc., et al, Case No. 2:23-cv-03244-HDV-AGR (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hernán D. Vera entered an order setting
scheduling
Conference:
1. Service of Pleadings
If plaintiff has not already served the operative complaint
on
all defendants, plaintiff shall do so promptly and shall file
proofs of service of the summons and complaint within three
days
thereafter.
2. Order Applies to Pro Se Litigants
"Counsel," as used in this Order, includes parties who have
elected to appear without counsel and are representing
themselves in this litigation. Pro Se Litigants must comply
with
this Order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the
Local
Rules. See L.R. 1-3, 83-2.2.3.
3. Notice to be Provided by Counsel. the Plaintiff's counsel or,
if
plaintiff is a Pro Se Litigant, defendant’s counsel, shall
provide this Order to all known parties who have not yet
appeared or who appear after the date of this Order.
4. Compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.
The scheduling conference will be held pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ.
P. Rule 16(b). The parties are reminded of their obligations
to
make initial disclosures "without awaiting a discovery
request."
5. Participation of Lead Trial Counsel and Unrepresented
Parties
Lead trial counsel and any unrepresented parties must attend
the
scheduling conference, unless excused by the Court for good
cause prior to the conference.
6. Continuance
A request to continue the scheduling conference will be
granted
only for good cause. The parties should plan to file the
Joint
Rule 26(f) Report on the original due date even if a
continuance
is granted.
7. Vacating the Conference
The Court may vacate the scheduling conference and issue a
case
management order based on the Joint Rule 26(f) Report.
8. Parties must prepare and file a joint rule 26(f) report
The Joint Rule 26(f) Report must be filed not later than 14
days before the scheduling conference.
9. Schedule of pretrial and trial dates worksheet worksheet
Counsel are to complete the Schedule of Pretrial and Trial
Dates
Worksheet attached below.
Thor Motor builds a variety of unique styles, sizes and floor plans
that feel custom-made.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O5JqwW at no extra charge.[CC]
THR PROPERTY: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Oct. 30, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL CORLEY, v. THR
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT L.P., et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00146-FLA-KK
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha entered an
order granting joint Stipulation to modify case scheduling order as
follows:
1. The completion for pre-class certification document discovery
will be completed by June 3, 2024.
2. The completion for pre-class certification depositions will
be
completed by August 1, 2024.
3. The completion for pre-class certification expert discovery
will
be completed by October 1, 2024.
4. The Plaintiff shall file their Motion for Class Certification
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 by October 30,
2024.
5. The last date to hear motions to Amend Pleadings or Add
Parties
shall be September 27, 2024.
6. The last day to hear a Motion for Class Certification shall
be
January 3, 2025.
THR Property operates as a home leasing company. The Company offers
renting, buying, selling, and appraising real estate.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44LC5Jt at no extra charge.[CC]
TMX FINANCE: Seeks More Time to Respond to Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAVANNAH KOLSTEDT, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. TMX FINANCE
CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-00076-RSB-CLR (S.D.
Ga.), TMX moves the Court to enter an order for a 60-day extension
of time to respond to the Plaintiff Kolstedt's Preemptive Motion
for Class Certification and Memorandum of Law.
The Plaintiff filed her Complaint on March 31, 2023. On May 17,
2023, the Plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time
to Suspend or Stay Deadline for Filing Motion for Class
Certification and Memorandum of Law, requesting the Court to
suspend or toll the deadline for filing a motion for class
certification, stating the Plaintiff's need for "additional time to
propound, receive, and review discovery responses and documents
from the Defendants, conduct depositions, and prepare motions and
memoranda, including expert reports" to "properly advance a motion
for class certification and comply with the legal requirements of
Rule 23."
On July 3, 2023, the Plaintiff filed her Preemptive Motion for
Class Certification, "out of an abundance of caution."
On June 30, 2023, the Court issued an order setting a Status
Conference for July 25, 2023, during which "the Court will address
the Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate and the Defendant's Motion to
Stay."
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 5, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3K40guR at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Kristine M. Brown, Esq.
Donald M. Houser, Esq.
Gavin Reinke, Esq.
M. Ashley Miller, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
1201 West Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
Telephone: (404) 881-7000
Facsimile: (404) 881-7777
E-mail: kristy.brown@alston.com
donald.houser@alston.com
gavin.reinke@alston.com
ashley.miller@alston.com
TOYOTA JIDOSHA: Faces Class Action in Australian Court
------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha disclosed in its Form 20-F for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 30, 2023, that the company is named as
a defendant in an economic loss class action lawsuit in Australia
in which damages are claimed on the basis that diesel particulate
filters in certain vehicle models are defective.
On April 7, 2022, and March 27, 2023, Toyota received judgments in
the court of First Instance and the Federal court of Australia,
respectively. The judgments included a finding that there was a
perceived reduction in the vehicle value of certain vehicle models.
Toyota filed a final appeal. Other claims of economic loss in this
class action lawsuit continue to be litigated at the court of first
instance.
Toyota conducts business in the automotive industry based in
Japan.
TRINITY HEALTH: Oberdorf Suit Removed to S.D. Iowa
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Rebecca Oberdorf and Michael Prins, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. TRINITY HEALTH
CORPORATION, MERCY HEALTH NETWORK, INC. and MERCY MEDICAL CENTER
– CLINTON, INC., Case No. CVCV065663 was removed from the Iowa
District Court for Polk County, to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa on July 12, 2023, and assigned
Case No. 4:23-cv-00235-SHL-HCA.
The Plaintiffs' alleged claims involve and arise from federal
statutes, including HIPAA and the Federal Trade Commission
Act.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Barton Goplerud
Brian O. Marty
SHINDLE ANDERSON GOPLERUD & WEESE PC.
5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
West Des Moines, IA 50265
Phone: 515-223-4567
Fax: 515-223-8887
Email: goplerud@sagwlaw.com
marty@sagwlaw.com
- and -
Mason A. Barney
Tyler J. Bean
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Phone: 212-532-1091
Email: mbarney@sirillp.com
tbean@sirillp.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Scott Schmookler, Esq.
Thomas J. Joenson, Esq.
Jenna M. Miller, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI
One North Franklin, Suite 800
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 565-1400
Email: sschmookler@grsm.com
tjoensen@grsm.com
jmmiller@grsm.com
TRUVISION HEALTH: Weight Loss Products "Unsafe," Garcia Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH GARCIA and TONYA MUNDY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TRUVISION HEALTH, LLC,
d/b/a TRUVY; DAVID BROWN; DERRICK RAYNES; MATTHEW DEAN PETERSEN;
and SCOTT LAMB, Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-03501-SVK (N.D. Cal.,
July 13, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for unjust
enrichment, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violations of the
California Business and Professions Code and the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
its weight loss products. Truvy represents its products as "safe,
effective, affordable, and backed by science." In fact, some of its
products were recalled for containing unapproved and potentially
dangerous ingredients, including hordenine and/or
octodrine/1,5-dimelthylhexylamine (DMHA). The U.S. Food & Drug
Administration issued a notice of this recall and a warning about
adverse health effects associated with these products on April 27,
2023. The Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have known
the products contained unapproved ingredients with potentially
harmful side effects, and continued to knowingly market and sell
these products. Had the Plaintiffs and Class members been aware of
the presence of unapproved ingredients in the products, they would
not have purchased them, says the suit.
TruVision Health, LLC, doing business as Truvy, is a company that
develops, manufactures, and sells nutritional supplements based in
Draper, Utah. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tracy E. Hughes, Esq.
Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
Kevin F. Calcagnie, Esq.
ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
19 Corporate Plaza Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 720-1288
Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
E-mail: thughes@robinsonfirm.com
mrobinson@robinsonfirm.com
UBEO WEST LLC: Gomez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ubeo West, LLC. The
case is styled as Miguel Angel Gomez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Ubeo West, LLC, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2023-0007154 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., July
12, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
UBEO Business Services -- https://www.ubeo.com/ -- is an end-to-end
provider of business technology solutions and services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
Phone: 213-232-3128
Fax: 213-232-3125
Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
UNION BANK AND TRUST: Bender Files Suit in D. Nebraska
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Union Bank and Trust
Company. The case is styled as Paul F. Bender, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Union Bank and Trust
Company, Case No. 8:23-cv-00298 (D. Neb., July 12, 2023).
The nature if suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Union Bank & Trust Company -- http://www.ubt.com/-- is a privately
owned, state chartered commercial bank headquartered in Lincoln,
Nebraska.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Almeida, Esq.
Elena Belov, Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW FIRM
849 W. Webster Avenue
Chicago, IL 60614
Phone: (312) 576-3024
- and -
Eric D Barton, Esq.
Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
WAGSTAFF, CARTMELL LAW FIRM
4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Phone: (816) 701-1100
Fax: (816) 531-2372
Email: ebarton@wcllp.com
thudson@wcllp.com
UNITED PARCEL: Ct. Partly OK's Baker Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN BAKER, v. UNITED
PARCEL SERVICE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and UNITED PARCEL
SERVICE, INC., an Ohio Corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-00114-TOR
(E.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Thomas O. Rice entered an order
granting in part class certification.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), the Court hereby certifies
the
following Class in this case:
"All current and former full-time employees of UPS subject to
the
Joint Council Rider No. 28 who worked in the State of
Washington
from October 10, 2004, through the date of judgment and, during
their employment with UPS, took one or more short-term military
leaves of 14 or fewer consecutive days and did not receive the
regular pay that they would have earned had they continued to
work their ordinary work schedules."
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(B), the Court hereby certifies
the following claims, including all damages related thereto:
The pay differential that was not paid by UPS for the short-term
military leaves of 14 or fewer consecutive days.
Excluded from the Class are persons who previously reached
settlements with or judgments against the Defendants resolving
or
releasing any claims arising during the Class periods under
USERRA
related to any of the claims in this lawsuit.
Also excluded from the Class are persons who are managers and
fulltime supervisors who received a salary when taking military
leave lasting less than one week.
The Plaintiff Justin Baker is appointed as the Class Representative
for the certified Class.
Michael J. Scimone of Outten & Golden, LLP and R. Joseph Barton of
Barton & Downes, LLP are appointed as Co-Lead Class Counsel for the
Class. Ryan Cowdin, Thomas G. Jarrard of the Law Office of Thomas
G. Jarrard, PLLC, Matthew Z. Crotty of Riverside Law Group, PLLC,
Peter Romer-Friedman of Peter Romer-Friedman Law, PLLC, and Robert
D. Friedman of Gupta Wessler, PLLC are appointed as additional
Class Counsel for the Class.
The case concerns the Defendants' employment policies regarding
military leave and their compliance with the Uniformed Services
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). The Court must
accept as true the substantive allegations of the class claim. See
Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F.2d 891, 901 n.17 (9th Cir. 1975).
The Plaintiff has been employed as a full-time package driver by
the Defendants since June 18, 2007. The Plaintiff also serves in
the Army Reserve and has done so since 2014. The Plaintiff has
routinely taken short-term leave during his employment to engage in
military service as required by his obligations to the Army
Reserve, although the precise dates are unclear.
United Parcel is an American multinational shipping & receiving and
supply chain management company founded in 1907.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rsBFJv at no extra charge.[CC]
VERTEX AEROSPACE: Tamakloe Suit Removed to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Larry Tamakloe, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. VERTEX AEROSPACE, LLC, a
limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. BCV-23-101674 was removed from the Kern County Superior Court,
to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California on July 12, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-at-00587.
The Plaintiff brings claims against Vertex for: failure to pay
minimum wage; failure to pay overtime; failure to provide meal
periods; failure to provide rest periods; unreimbursed business
expenses; failure to timely pay wages at termination; failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements; and unfair business
practices.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michele Haydel Gehrke, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
101 Second Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94105-3659
Phone: +1 415 543 8700
Facsimile: +1 415 391 8269
Email: mgehrke@reedsmith.com
- and -
Brian K. Morris, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
2850 N. Harwood Street, Suite 1500
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: +1 469 680 4200
Facsimile: +1 469 680 4299
Email: BMorris@reedsmith.com
WALMART INC: Court Narrows Claims in Kukorinis Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VASSILIOS KUKORINIS, v.
WALMART, INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-02402-VMC-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington entered an order granting in
part and denying in part Walmart's motion to dismiss the class
action complaint.
-- Count III is dismissed without prejudice.
-- Count IV is dismissed with prejudice.
-- The Plaintiff Vassilios Kukorinis may file an amended
complaint as to Count III within 14 days from the date of the
Order.
The Court said, "The allegedly unjust nature of Walmart’s
acceptance and retention of payment for Mr. Kukorinis' purchases
stems directly from its pricing system, which Mr. Kukorinis alleges
violates the FDUPTA. Accordingly, Mr. Kukorinis has failed to
allege that Walmart was enriched independently of its allegedly
deceptive pricing system.
The case arises out of the allegedly deceptive pricing scheme used
by Walmart. Walmart advertises the price of its groceries using a
price tag or sticker that is displayed on or near the product,
usually affixed to the store shelf where the product is presented
for sale. However, Walmart employs four business practices that
result in customers being charged for and paying more than a
product’s lowest advertised per pound/ounce price.
Indeed, the settlement document defines the settlement class as:
"all persons who purchased Weighted Goods from Walmart in the
United States from February 13, 2015 to the date of publication
of
notice of settlement whose Weighted Goods' unit sale price was
not
accurately reflected in the final sale price."
Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3XUORTL at no extra charge.[CC]
WALMART INC: Irwin Sues Over Great Value Cereal Bars' False Labels
------------------------------------------------------------------
MACKENZIE IRWIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART INC., Defendant, Case No.
8:23-cv-01582 (M.D. Fla., July 16, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendant for violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act, breaches of express warranty, implied warranty
of merchantability/fitness for a particular purpose and Magnuson
Moss Warranty Act, false and misleading adverting, fraud, and
unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading labeling, advertising, and marketing of its fruit and
grain cereal bars with fruit flavors like mixed berry, cherry,
apple and cinnamon, strawberry, and blueberry under its Great Value
brand. The labeling is misleading because it represents and omits
that the taste of the characterizing fruit filling ingredients is
only from those fruit ingredients and/or natural flavoring
ingredients and does not include artificial flavoring ingredients
which partially provide their cherry and apple taste. The Plaintiff
was unaware the products contained artificial flavoring ingredients
to provide their cherry and apple taste because this was not
disclosed to her on the front label, which is where she would have
expected to see this information. As a result of the false and
misleading representations, the products are sold at a premium
price, says the suit.
Walmart Inc. is a multinational retail corporation, with a
principal place of business in Bentonville, Arkansas, Benton
County. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Wright, Esq.
THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A.
515 N. Flagler Dr., Ste. P300
West Palm Beach FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 514-0904
E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com
- and -
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 412
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
WEST PAK AVOCADO: Melendrez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against West Pak Avocado,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Martin Melendrez, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. West Pak Avocado,
Inc., WPA Production, Inc., Case No. CVRI2303570 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Riverside Cty., July 13, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
West Pak Avocado, Inc. -- https://www.westpakavocado.com/ -- is as
a grower and shipper of California avocados.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101
Pasadena, CA 91103
Phone: (818) 230-7502
Fax: (818) 230-7259
Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
WESTERN REFINING: Barden Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Steve Barden, on behalf of himself and others
similarly, situated v. WESTERN REFINING RETAIL, LLC; and DOES 1 to
100, inclusive, Case No. CIV SB 2306885 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on July 12, 2023, and assigned Case No.
5:23-cv-01360.
The Plaintiff's Complaint purports to bring his claims on behalf of
himself and several classes based on alleged violations of the
California Labor Code, seeking to recover among other claims,
unpaid wages, including minimum wages; overtime wages; lawful meal
and/or rest periods; accurate wage statements; and timely payment
of wages.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Alex W. Simon, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
1075 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2500
Atlanta, GA 30309-3958
Phone: (404) 885-1500
Facsimile: (404) 892-7056
Email: asimon@seyfarth.com
- and -
Julie R. Trotter, Esq.
Mireya A.R. Llaurado, Esq.
CALL & JENSEN, APC
610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 717-3000
Email: jtrotter@calljensen.com
mllaurado@calljensen.com
WINDSOR PROPERTY: Forget Sues Over Withholding of Security Deposits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM FORGET and MELISSA MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WINDSOR PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT COMPANY d/b/a WINDSOR 335 and COLUMBIA DEBT RECOVERY,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. CACE-23-015737 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud.
Cir., Broward Cty., July 16, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have routinely and
systematically attempted to collect payment from unsuspecting
Florida consumers by improperly withholding residents' security
deposits in contravention of Florida law. Moreover, the Defendants
sent improper bills to the Plaintiffs and similarly situated
consumers in the state.
Windsor Property Management Company, doing business as Windsor 335,
is a property management firm based in New York.
Columbia Debt Recovery, LLC is a debt collection firm in
Washington. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jordan A. Shaw, Esq.
Zachary D. Ludens, Esq.
Lauren N. Palen, Esq.
ZEBERSKY PAYNE SHAW LEWENZ, LLP
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 2900
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 989-6333
Facsimile: (954) 989-7781
E-mail: jshaw@zpllp.com
zludens@zpllp.com
- and -
J. Dennis Card, Jr., Esq.
CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
721 US Highway 1, Suite 201
North Beach, FL 33408
Telephone: (561) 822-3446
Facsimile: (305) 574-0132
E-mail: dennis@cloorg.com
WM. BOLTHOUSE FARMS: Tate Sues Over Falsely Labeled Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Lakema Tate and Richard Ortiz, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WM. BOLTHOUSE FARMS, INC., Case No.
1:23-at-00581 (E.D. Cal., July 12, 2023), is brought on behalf of
similarly situated consumers ("Class Members") who purchased for
personal, family, or household use, Defendant's Bolthouse
Farms-branded Green Goodness Fruit Juice Smoothie, Amazing Mango
Fruit Juice Smoothie, Blue Goddess Fruit Juice Smoothie, C-Boost
Fruit Juice Smoothie, and Berry Superfood Boost (the "Products"),
which is prominently labeled and marketed as a nutritious, healthy
"100% Fruit Juice Smoothie," when, in fact, Plaintiffs' testing has
revealed that the Products contain per- and polyfluoralkyl
substances ("PFAS"), a category of synthetic chemicals that are, by
definition, artificial.
PFAS are a group of synthetic, man-made, chemicals known to be
harmful to both humans and the environment. Because PFAS persist
and accumulate over time, they are harmful even at very low levels.
Indeed, "PFAS have been shown to have a number of toxicological
effects in laboratory studies and have been associated with thyroid
disorders, immunotoxicity effects, and various cancers in
epidemiology studies." In fact, scientists are studying—and are
extremely concerned about—how PFAS affect human health.
Consequently, the CDC outlined "a host of health effects associated
with PFAS exposure, including cancer, liver damage, decreased
fertility, and increased risk of asthma and thyroid disease."
The Defendant formulates, manufactures, markets, and sells the
Products, which they uniformly represent as a nutritious "100%
Fruit Juice Smoothie," with "no added sugar" and "2 3/4, 3 1/4, or
3 3/4 servings of fruits. The Defendant has engaged in pervasive
marketing efforts to convince consumers that the Product is a
healthy, natural fruit juice beverage. As one of the leading
players in the premium chilled beverages market, Defendant knows
the importance of marketing and labeling, including the value of
the label representations they carefully choose for placement on
the Products. Accordingly, Defendant's representations are designed
to set its Products apart from the litany of competitors in this
space.
However, despite Defendant's consistent and pervasive marketing
representations to consumers that their Products are a healthy
"100% Fruit Juice Smoothie" that is free from any artificial
ingredients, Plaintiffs' independent testing has determined that
the Product actually contains PFAS--a category of man-made
chemicals with a toxic, persistent, and bioaccumulative nature
which are associated with numerous health concerns. The presence of
PFAS is entirely inconsistent with Defendant's uniform
representations.
As a result of Defendant's misconduct, Plaintiffs and putative
Class Members have suffered injury in fact, including economic
damages. Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this suit to halt
Defendant's dissemination of false and misleading representations
and to correct the false and misleading perceptions that
Defendant's representations have created in the minds of reasonable
consumers. The Plaintiffs seek damages, injunctive relief, and
other equitable remedies for themselves and for the proposed
classes, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs and Class Members all paid money for the Products.
Bolthouse Farms was first founded in 1915 and gained its reputation
as the leading producer and supplier of carrots before eventually
expanding its business to include, among other things, Bolthouse
Farms-branded super-premium juices and smoothies.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
402 West Broadway St., Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 810-7047
Email: tkashima@milberg.com
WORKFORCE 7: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Ballast Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR BALLAST, LUIS
SIMONE and MARQUIS RICHARDSON, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, v. WORKFORCE 7 INC., CONSOLIDATED EDISON
COMPANY of NEW YORK, INC., VALI INDUSTRIES, INC. and RONALD HILTON,
Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:20-cv-03812-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Edgardo Ramos entered a civil case discovery plan and
scheduling order:
a. Non-expert depositions shall be Sept. 28, 2023
completed by:
b. The Plaintiffs shall take the first Nov. 9, 2023
step in class certification motion
practice by:
c. Expert reports shall be served Dec. 14, 2023
no later than:
d. Rebuttal expert reports shall be Jan. 11, 2024
served no later than:
e. Expert witness depositions shall Feb. 8, 2024
be completed by:
Workforce7 provides professional flagging services.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Dnx9yA at no extra charge.[CC]
XTO ENERGY: Class Cert Expert Reports in Kriley Due Dec. 1
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUGLAS KRILEY and TINA
KRILEY, THOMAS A. MICHEL and CAROL L. MICHEL, GERALDINE C.
WIEFLING, and CHARLES E. WADDINGHAM II and CAROL G. WADDINGHAM, v.
XTO ENERGY INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00416-CRE (W.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy entered a sixth amended case management
order as follows:
1. The parties shall complete fact discovery related to class
certification by October 20, 2023. All interrogatories,
depositions and requests for admissions and/or production of
documents shall be served within sufficient time to allow
responses to be completed prior to the close of fact
discovery
related to class certification. An additional period of
merits
discovery will be established after the decision on the
motion
for class certification.
2. The Plaintiff's Expert Reports related to class certification
are due on or before December 1, 2023.
3. The Defendant's Expert Reports related to class certification
are due on or before January 5, 2024.
4. The parties shall complete the ADR process they selected by
March 29, 2024.
5. The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class
certification,
memorandum in support and all supporting evidence on or
before
April 12, 2024.
XTO Energy is an American energy company and subsidiary of
ExxonMobil principally operating in North America.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rxF2PF at no extra charge.[CC]
ZAGE GROUP: Plaintiffs Allowed Leave to Conduct Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL ANTHONY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ZAGE GROUP, LLC; DOUGLAS R. GOODMAN; and DORIS GOODMAN, Case No.
8:23-cv-00788-WFJ-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Sean P. Flynn
entered an order that:
1. The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to conduct class
certification
and damages related discovery is granted.
2. The Plaintiff shall have 90 days from the date of this Order
to
complete discovery on the issues of class certification and
damages.
3. The Plaintiff shall file a motion for class certification, if
warranted, within 21 days after the Plaintiff's completion of
class certification and damages discovery.
4. The Plaintiff shall move for a final default judgment against
the Defendant within 14 days of the Court's ruling on the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification, or within 21 days
after the completion of class certification and damages
discovery if the Plaintiff does not seek class
certification.
The Plaintiff brings this class action against Zage Group for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants conduct "a wide scale
telemarketing campaign that features unsolicited and unwanted
pre-recorded cold calls to consumers' personal residential cellular
numbers without prior express consent."
The Plaintiff further alleges that, in making these calls, the
Defendants used an automatic telephone dialing system done with
software that "has the capacity to store, produce, and dial random
or sequential numbers en masse, in an automated fashion, and is
knowingly placing calls to U.S. consumers on the [Do Not Call]
Registry."
The Plaintiff's complaint details three putative classes -- the Do
Not Call Registry Class, the Internal DNC Class, and the Robocall
class --each consisting of members who were unlawfully targeted by
the Defendants' marketing calls.
Zage operates as a financial company.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 5, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44QUNzd at no extra charge.[CC]
ZUFFA LLC: Must Oppose Bloom Class Cert Bid by Oct. 30
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EVERETT BLOOM, JACK
GRAHAM, AND DAVE LINDHOLM, on behalf of themselves, and those
similarly situated, v. ZUFFA, LLC; ENDEAVOR STREAMING, LLC; and
ENDEAVOR GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00412-RFB-BNW (D.
Nev.), the Hon. Judge Richard F. Boulware, II entered an order
granting joint stipulation to extend motion for class certification
briefing schedule:
-- The Defendants' Opposition to the Oct. 30, 2023
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification and Disclosure of
Expert(s) and Expert Report(s)
Relating to Class Certification
will be due by:
-- The Plaintiffs' Reply Brief in Jan. 11, 2024
Support of Class Certification
and Rebuttal Expert Report(s) in
Support of Class Certification
will be due by:
On May 25, 2022, the Court set a briefing schedule for the
Plaintiff Bloom's Motion for Class Certification, which set
deadlines of January 4, 2023, for the Plaintiff's Motion, March 3,
2023 for Zuffa's Opposition, and May 2, 2023 for the Plaintiff's
Reply.
On June 2, 2023, shortly after the Plaintiffs Graham and Lindholm
were added as parties to this action, Zuffa served its First Set of
Requests for Production and Interrogatories on the Plaintiffs
Graham and Lindholm.
On June 16, 2023, the Plaintiff Bloom and Meta reached an agreement
that will resolve the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel regarding the
Meta Subpoena, pursuant to which Meta has agreed to produce certain
Pixel event data relating to the Plaintiffs within the next several
weeks at a minimum, which the Parties anticipate will be relevant
to class certification issues.
On June 23, 2023, after numerous meet and confers between the
Parties,
Zuffa filed a Motion to Compel the Plaintiff Bloom to Produce
Additional Documents and Interrogatory Responses.
Zuffa is an American sports promotion company specializing in mixed
martial arts.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 6, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NXakXI at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David Markman, Esq.
MARKMAN LAW
4484 S. Pecos Rd., Suite #130
Las Vegas, NV 89121
Telephone: (702) 843-5899
Facsimile: (702) 843-6010
E-mail: David@Markmanlawfirm.com
- and -
Seth A. Safier, Esq.
Marie A. Mccrary, Esq.
Hayley Reynolds, Esq.
Anthony J. Patek, Esq.
Kali Backer, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 336-6545
Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
marie@gutridesafier.com
hayley@gutridesafier.com
anthony@gutridesafier.com
kali@gutridesafier.com
The Defendants are represented by:
J. Colby Williams, Esq.
CAMPBELL & WILLIAMS
710 South Seventh Street, Suite A
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Telephone: (702) 382-5222
Facsimile: (702) 382-0540
E-mail: jcw@cwlawlv.com
- and -
Susan k. Leader, Esq.
Ali R. Rabbani, Esq.
Stephanie V. Balitzer, Esq.
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, 27th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 620-5700
Facsimile: (310) 620-5899
E-mail: susanleader@paulhastings.com
alirabbani@paulhastings.com
stephaniebalitzer@paulhastings.com
[*] Gluckstein Attorney Discusses Abuse Class Actions in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Simona Jellinek, Esq. of Gluckstein Personal Injury Lawyers,
disclosed that when something is described pejoratively as being
"the tip of the iceberg", we understand that what we've just
learned is a small portion of something much bigger that is still
hidden from view. Institutional sexual abuse is like an iceberg -
what we see is only a small part of the problem. The first reported
cases are just a small part of the overall abuse and the damage it
causes.
Recent reports of sexual abuse connected to a youth detention
centre in Nova Scotia, dating back almost 30 years demonstrate just
how truly apt this metaphor is. What began as one man approaching a
lawyer about the abuse that he experienced (abuse that was
apparently an open secret among other boys in the facility),
snowballed into an announcement by the RCMP that more than 70 men
have provided statements about related abuse to date.
All told, the police force suspects more than 200 people may have
suffered abuse while at this facility. A lawyer involved in the
case has suggested that the actual extent of the abuse may be even
greater -- more than double that number.
Unfortunately, as a result of a decision to file a class action on
behalf of some of the first men to come forward, other persons who
suffered abuse at the facility during this period who wish to take
individual legal action against the perpetrator(s) of this abuse,
and against any entity who facilitated the conditions that
permitted this abuse to occur, may have lost that right.
All those with claims are now bound by certified class proceedings
because the period to opt out of the class has passed. It is of
important note that the opt out period for this claim ended in
2020, which is over 3 years ago, this incident only appears to be
public now.
In this blog post, I discuss why class proceedings may not be
appropriate for certain civil damage claims. This is particularly
true for cases involving sexual abuse. I outline why individual
claims (whether litigated separately or as part of a mass tort) are
generally a better means for sexual abuse survivors to seek justice
in a way that is sensitive to their particular needs and
circumstances. Finally, I explain how the law leaves room for
extending the opt-out period under certain circumstances.
A Long History of Sexual Abuse
In 2019, a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of three men
who allege that they were sexually abused by a swim instructor at
the Nova Scotia Youth Centre colloquially known as "Waterville".
The men, who were between the ages of 16 and 18 at the time of the
abuse, claim that they were sexually assaulted, experienced
unwanted and sexual touching, and were improperly watched as they
undressed in changing rooms.
The allegations in the statement of claim, which date from the time
the youth correctional facility opened in 1988, prompted residents
to make multiple independent reports of sexual abuse, sexual
violence and misconduct. However, the suit alleges no effective
action was taken. It claims that the province was negligent, and
breached its fiduciary duty of care that was owed to the facility's
residents, by failing to protect their physical safety and
emotional well-being.
In its statement of defence, the Attorney General of Nova Scotia
denies most of the allegations that are set forth in the statement
of claim. The defence, however, identifies the swim instructor at
the centre of the suit's allegations as being employed at the
facility from 1988 to 2017.
Since the class action was certified, many more men (and so far
only men) have come forward with reports of abuse. The RCMP's
investigation, known as Operation Headwind, has taken more than 70
statements from survivors, and more are anticipated.
It is of important note that the opt out period for this claim
ended in 2020, which is over 3 years ago, and yet this incident
only appears to be public now.
RCMP Sgt. Brian Fitzpatrick called the investigation the biggest
he's been involved with in his nineteen years of service on the
force. He said that the "sheer size, the amount of information we
need to process and eventually disclose, and the amount of survivor
witnesses who we have to deploy investigators to interview across
Canada", makes the investigation especially challenging.
Many of the survivors have a complicated history with correctional
services, and a large number had been in and out of prison since
they were residents of the facility. These survivors are often
reluctant to trust police because of past interactions.
One-Size Does Not Always Fit All
There is no such thing as "minor" sexual abuse, as any violation of
personal autonomy can create trauma and result in far-reaching and
varied consequences. Indeed, individual members involved in this
class action undoubtedly experienced incidents that ranged in
frequency, duration, intensity and severity. Nevertheless, all
members of the class are treated the same for certain purposes in
the proceeding.
First, in jurisdictions such as Nova Scotia and Ontario, potential
members of the class must "opt out" by a certain date once the
class action is certified by the court. If they do not opt out,
they will be considered to be members of the class and will be
bound by the outcome of the trial or any settlement that is
negotiated, whether or not they agree with how the case was
prosecuted.
A deadline, including an "opt out" requirement compelling survivors
to do anything related to sexual abuse or assault, is NOT
trauma-informed. Every survivor should have the ability to freely
decide whether, when, and how they wish to pursue legal action
against the individual perpetrator or against any entity involved
in permitting or facilitating the abuse to take place.
Forcing a survivor to make that decision by an arbitrary deadline
imposes unnecessary procedural hurdles. It denies survivors the
right to take control over their lives and healing process
according to their own timeline.
Secondly, the individual merits of a survivor's own case and
circumstances are not considered by the court in assessing damages
for the class as a whole.
The court may decide to award class members a share of the amount
awarded to the class, or may look at each class member's claim
individually when apportioning damages; however, the claims of the
representative plaintiff(s) become the measure of damages
generally.
If a particular member of the survivor class has a stronger
'individual' case, that survivor might have been able to persuade a
defendant or judge/jury to offer or award a settlement or damages,
as the case may be, in an amount significantly higher than that
which would have based upon the proportional assessment based on
the claims of the representative plaintiff(s).
Finally, each survivor may be looking for something different in
the legal process. Monetary damages, while important, are not
necessarily the sole or sometimes even primary reason that
survivors may want to take action against the defendant.
As I noted in a blog post about the Sixties Scoop, a class action
seeking damages for cultural losses related to that shameful
chapter in Canadian history, was not what some of the participants
needed. Indeed, some expressed that their experience participating
in the class action did not give them an opportunity to feel fully
heard. Many others said that there was inadequate communication
about their legal rights and options.
What Can Be Done?
If you're reading this blog post at a time when you or a loved one
are deciding whether to participate in a class action of any kind
-- but especially one involving institutional abuse -- you should
consider seeking independent legal advice about whether your
interests will be adequately served by taking part in a class
proceeding.
You may come to learn that it would be advantageous to join the
class. However, if you discover that your interests might be better
served by advancing an individual claim concurrently or at some
point in the future, you will be glad that you are able to make a
better-informed decision -- one that is right for you.
If you know or believe yourself to be a member of the class
identified by the lawsuit in Nova Scotia, and you feel your
interests may be best served by advancing an 'individual' claim,
you may still have legal recourse to separate yourself from that
class proceeding.
Section 19 of Nova Scotia's Class Proceedings Act, SNS 2007, c 28
provides that "a person who is a member of a class involved in a
class proceeding may opt out of the class proceeding in the manner
and within the time specified in the certification order; or with
leave of the court and on the terms or conditions the court
considers appropriate".
Since the time specified in the certification order has passed,
seeking "leave of the court" is the only possibility. While such a
leave application does not seem to have ever been brought in Nova
Scotia (at least based on any case law I've been able to identify
as of this writing), it is still important to consider.
In Ontario, the Court of Appeal has set out the test for granting
an extension of the "opt out" period in Johnson v. Ontario, 2022
ONCA 725. If a Nova Scotia court was asked to consider granting
leave, it would likely adopt a similar test, or at least consider
similar factors. The test articulated by the Ontario Court of
Appeal requires a showing by the party seeking to opt out late
that: (1) their neglect in complying with the court-imposed
deadline to opt out is excusable; and (2) the extension would not
result in prejudice to the class, the defendant, or the
administration of justice.
Whether a request for leave from a potential class member in this
or any other action involving sexual abuse would be granted, is of
course uncertain. However, Canadian courts in many jurisdictions
have become sensitive to the way in which traumatic events can
impact a survivor's actions and choices. There may come a time when
a court will be asked to respect a survivor's right to seek justice
on their own terms and according to their own timetable --
especially since there is no longer a statute of limitations on
claims involving sexual abuse and sexual assault for this very
reason.
Empowering Survivors of Sexual Assault
Sexual abuse and sexual assault are acts that deny a person's right
to autonomy over their own body. Survivors should be supported as
they take actions to regain a sense of control over their bodies
and their lives.
Class action proceedings can be a useful litigation tool for some
matters -- but they are not generally a good fit for abuse cases.
There are better, trauma-informed actions that can help survivors
access justice in a way that meets and respects their unique needs.
[GN]
[*] U.S. Class Action Settlements in Various Complaints Discussed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kroll issued The Kroll Lens: Monitoring Class Action Settlements -
2023, Volume IV wherein it examines recent court decisions in class
action settlements in the Northern District of California, Eastern
District of California, District Court of Maryland and the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals.
In Re: MacBook Keyboard Litigation
No. 5:18-CV-02813-EJD, 2023 WL 3688452 (N.D. Cal. May 25, 2023)
(Davila, J.)
A multi-state class of computer purchasers brought consumer
protection and warranty claims against Apple, alleging a defect in
certain MacBook keyboards and a failure to provide adequate
repairs. The Court granted final approval over several objections.
The Court noted that notice had been adequately provided, reaching
more than 97% of all purchasers identified in the company's records
by means of both email and postal mail, and that less than 1% of
class members did not receive any form of notice.
Looking first at whether the settlement was reached by arm's length
negotiation, the Court noted that because the agreement was reached
after certification, a heightened review of the 9th Circuit's
Bluetooth factors need not apply. Nonetheless, the Court found that
there was no evidence of collusion, counsel was well-experienced,
and no reversionary interest had been included.
Applying the 9th Circuit's Churchill factors for reasonableness,
the Court found that significant discovery and motion practice had
been conducted, and that the risk in continuing litigation weighed
in favor of the settlement. The Court also found that the amount
sought was well-balanced among the different tiers of class members
and was comparable with similar cases, and that a low number of
objections or opt-outs were received.
The Court then addressed the objections. Some objectors had sought
a higher-class member award amount, or modification of the class
definition to account for their circumstances in failing to seek
repairs. The Court found such requests were not a sufficient basis
for objection. Another objector asserted that the settlement should
contemplate a pro rata distribution of any remainder funds, but the
Court found this issue was not a basis for denying approval and
would be better determined once the existence or absence of
remainder funds had been determined. The Court also found that four
of the foregoing objectors had not proven they were class members.
For these reasons, the Court overruled all objections.
Aldapa v. Fowler Packing Co. Inc.
No. 1:15-CV-00420-ADA-SAB, 2023 WL 3853482 (E.D. Cal. Jun. 6,
2023)
Migrant workers brought employment claims against a farming
company, alleging violations of state and federal law. After the
parties reached a settlement, the Court granted final approval.
In terms of the requested attorney fees, the Court found that the
notice of the amount sought was adequate and that the counsel had
asserted the right to fees and costs under the common fund
doctrine, which was sufficiently supported. Despite the requested
fees being higher than the 25% benchmark, the Court found the
amount to be reasonable given the time and skill employed by the
counsel and the class award size attained. The Court also noted
this was comparable with similar contingent fee cases. Applying a
lodestar cross-check, the Court determined that the fee award was
lower than what had been merited by the time spent and billing
rates. As such, the Court found the request reasonable, in addition
to the costs incurred.
Turning to the incentive award, the Court deemed the Plaintiffs'
request for $10,000 appropriate in light of the fact that the
Plaintiffs had expended significant effort and hardship in
participating in the litigation and suffered loss of reputation and
employment opportunities. The Court also found that these were
comparatively low amounts based on the percentage of the class
award, and that the Plaintiffs' declarations were sufficient to
support their request as reasonable.
Looking also at administrator costs, the Court noted that while the
parties had agreed to set aside $120,000, this was higher than the
initially estimated amount of $90,000. Regardless, pointing out
that any remainder of that amount unused by the administrator would
be redistributed to the class, the Court deemed the request
reasonable and granted it.
Boger v. Citrix Systems, Inc.
No. 19-CV-01234-LKG, 2023 WL 3763974 (D. Md. Jun. 1, 2023)
(Griggsby, J.)
After litigation involving claims for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and similar state laws settled, the
Plaintiff sought final approval of the settlement.
The Court granted the request, reasoning in support of its decision
first that certification was appropriate under Rule 23. For
numerosity, the Court found a class size of 543,000 sufficient. For
commonality and typicality, the Court found that all class members
shared common issues and had suffered the same injury in receiving
unsolicited calls, regardless of whether the Do Not Call Registry
or withdrawal of consent were also factors for each individual
member. The Court also found adequacy satisfied by virtue of the
counsel's experience and a lack of conflict of interest.
In terms of Rule 23(b)(3), the Court found predominance met without
a need for individualized proof, and that superiority was satisfied
by the low amount of individual recovery otherwise. Thus, the Court
found certification warranted.
Looking next at the settlement under Rule 23(e) and 4th Circuit
factors, the Court first reviewed for fairness and found that the
litigation had been sufficiently advanced with arm's-length
negotiation by experienced counsel, and a reasonable class relief
distribution procedure.
For adequacy of the settlement, the Court looked at other 4th
Circuit factors and found the strength of the Plaintiff's case,
likely difficulties that might arise at trial, the anticipated
expense of litigation, the solvency of the Defendant and the lack
of opposition to the settlement all weighed in favor of approval.
Specifically, the Court noted that the ongoing appellate litigation
involving TCPA auto-dialer cases could result in a change of law
that would undermine the class claims. Additionally, the Court
found the proposed payment of $44.14 to each class member to exceed
the typical value of claims and expected TCPA statutory damages
amounts in similar cases. Finally, the Court found the $10,000
service award requested to be comparable with other cases and
reasonable given the Plaintiff's participation in the matter.
Lowery v. Rhapsody Int'l., Inc.
No. 4:16-cv-01135-JSW (9th Cir. Jun. 7, 2023) (Lee, J.)
A class of composers brought copyright claims against a music
streaming company, which ended in a monetary recovery for the class
members and an attorney fee award approved by the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California. Upon
review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed and
remanded, holding that the lower court should consider the specific
value of the class award, and that a cross-check analysis should
have been done to ensure proportionality. Here, the Court noted
that in determining the value of a claims-made settlement, courts
should consider the actual or anticipated value to the class rather
than the maximum amount that could hypothetically be paid to the
class.
In support of its decision, the Court analyzed the underlying fee
award for abuse of discretion and the factual findings for clear
errors. Ultimately, the Court found the fee award inappropriate,
considering the benefit paid to the class, citing the 9th Circuit's
Bluetooth factors. The Court found that the district court failed
to consider the actual value of the award, and that calculating the
award by following the Supreme Court precedent in Boeing Co. v. Van
Gemert was not appropriate because the settlement agreement in the
instant case had made class claims contingent upon the actual value
claimed, a factor absent from Boeing.
The Court further reasoned that the Bluetooth factors encourage a
cross-check method to avoid an unreasonable result and found that
had the District Court applied a cross-check in the instant case it
would have resulted in a different outcome. The Court took note of
the fact that while counsel had spent considerable time on the
case, this alone did not justify the requested fee award.
The Court also considered whether the case could be distinguishable
by awarding fees under Copyright Act fee provisions. Here, the
Court noted that the Supreme Court had already rejected this
analysis under similar circumstances and therefore declined to
apply such an analysis in the instant case. Although the Court
acknowledged that the fee award in a Copyright Act case might
justifiably exceed the class award in hypothetical terms under
different sets of facts, under the present facts, that was not the
case. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***