/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230823.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, August 23, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 169
Headlines
1ST SOURCE BANK: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Montgomery Claims
2GO PRODUCTS LLC: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
3M CO: Baron & Budd Files PFAS Water Contamination Class Action
3M COMPANY: Buckner Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Deboer Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
3M COMPANY: Gilstrap Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Hamilton Water Sues Over Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: MCPWA Sues Over Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Roberts Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
527 LINCOLN: Dismissal of Count IV in Collins Modified in Part
ACCENTURE INC: Clark Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
ACCORD CARTON CO: Cortez Files Suit in Ill. Ct.
AETNA LIFE: Court Rejects Motion to Decertify Class Action
ALABAMA POWER COMPANY: Bullock Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ALBERTSON'S LLC: Sherman Suit Removed to C.D. California
ALDERSON BROADDUS: Fails to Warn Faculty Over School Closure
ALL ONE GOD FAITH: Miller Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Sends Unwanted Marketing Calls, Semans Says
AMAZON STUDIOS: Tehrani Suit Removed to C.D. California
AMERICAN PIZZA: Hubbard Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
AMERICAN SENIOR: Pittman Seeks Licensed Practical Nurses' Unpaid OT
AMERICAN TIN CEILING: Bullock Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ANSELL LIMITED: Faces Shareholder Class Action
APELLIS PHARMA: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 2
APELLIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Soderberg Sues Over Drop of Stock Price
APPLE INC: Ordered to Pay Up to $500 Million to Ex-Customers
APPLIED DIGITAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 11
ARIZONA: Must Face Birth Certificate Law Class Action
ARRIA NLG: Knight Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
ARX PATIENT: Kaminowitz Files Suit Over Data Breach
ASSIGNMENT AMERICA: Myers Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ASUKA BLUE: Fails to Properly Pay Servers, Karonka Suit Claims
AT&T INC: Pomerantz LLP Investigates Possible Securities Claims
ATLAS OLIVE OILS: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AUTOLIV INC: Anderson Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
AUTOZONE INC: Herrera ADA Suit Removed to D.N.J.
BANK OF AMERICA: Barrett Files Sues Over Credit Report Check
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces False Advertising Class Action
BANK OF AMERICA: Illegally Enrolled Customers, Jones Suit Claims
BEAUMONT JUICE: Muro Files Suit in S.D. New York
BEST WESTERN: Mendez Sues Over Illegal Collection of Personal Info
BF SLEEP LLC: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BLUE CROSS: Collins Sues Over COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate
BLUE CROSS: Glass Sues Over COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate
BOCA CENTER: Payne Seeks Stores' Equal Access to Disabled People
BOGDAN DELIVERY: Rodriguez-Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BOIL C & C: Fails to Properly Pay Restaurant Staff, Perez Claims
BOODY NORTH AMERICA: Morgan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BRYAN CAVE: Meyer Sues Over Unauthorized Access to Personal Info
BUCCANEERS LTD: Bid to Compel Cin-Q Deal Compliance Granted in Part
BUCK EATS LLC: Antonio Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BYLT PREMIUM BASICS: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
C&C GO CORPORATION: McKenzie Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Falagrady Suit Removed to C.D. California
CALENDLY: Faces Class Action in California Over Privacy Violations
CANADA: Discriminates Refugee Claimants, Class Suit Alleges
CANADA: Toronto Police Faces Class Action Over "Carding" Practice
CAPITAL ONE BANK: Savett Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
CARGILL INC: Judge Dismisses Cattle Ranchers' Antitrust Claims
CARVED LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CATSKILL BARBECUE: Perez-Bustamante Sues Over Underpaid Wages
CENTENE MGMT: Class Settlement in Foon Suit Wins Final Approval
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Morris Sues Over Unsolicited Robocalls
CMFG LIFE: Hundley Sues Over Disclosed Info to Unknown Parties
COBHAM ADVANCED: Langston Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
COMERICA INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
COOPERATIEVE RABOBANK: Laydon Files Appeal in U.S. Supreme Court
ELEVANCE HEALTH: Fails to Protect Private Info, Marshall Says
EXPRESS SERVICES: Faces Patrice Wage-and-Hour Suit in Florida
FEI LABS: $17.85MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 27
FIFTYONE MERCHANTS: $750K Class Deal in Antezana Suit Has Final OK
GARNET HEALTH: Illegally Transmits Personal Info to FB, Gay Says
GARRISON PROTECTIVE: Goss Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
GOLDMAN SACHS: 2nd Circuit Reverses Class Certification Ruling
GUAM: Court to Hear Oral Arguments in Double Pay Lawsuit
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Faces Class Action Over Wildfires
HCA HEALTHCARE: Glascock Sues Over Illegal Access of Health Info
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Minnesota AG Urges Court to Strengthen Settlement
IMAGINE360 LLC: McGee Sues Over Unprotected Health Information
INTELLIHARTX LLC: McDavitt Balks at Illegal Access of Personal Info
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD: Mullins Sues Over Unpaid Wages in Calif.
JAGUAR LAND: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Battery Fires
JOSE I. LANDSCAPING: Mejia Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
K5 GLOBAL: Liable to Fraud, FTX Collapse, Rabbitte Suit Claims
KRAFT HEINZ: Drink Enhancers' Natural Label "False," Phillips Says
LINCARE INC: Faces Cowan Suit Over Agents' Unpaid Overtime
MANPOWER US: Faces Keopimpha Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
MDL 2873: AFFF Exposure Caused Cancer, Madore Says
MDL 2873: Caverly Suit Alleges Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
MDL 2873: Garner Says AFFF Exposure Caused Illness
MDL 2873: Gregg Sues Over Exposure to AFFF Products
MDL 2873: Neubauer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
MDL 2873: O'brien Suit Alleges Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
MDL 2873: Toxic Aqueous Foams Exposure Caused Illness, Chapman Says
MILLERKNOLL INC: Aids FB to Collect Personal Info, Marquez Says
MISSOURI: Court Orders Powell to File Signed Amended Complaint
MOREHART AIR: Mohr Seeks Over Installers' Unpaid Overtime Wages
NATASHA ACCESSORIES: Faces Kaur Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Race Discrimination Class Action
ORRICK HERRINGTON: Faces Class Action Over March 2023 Data Breach
PACIFICA OF THE VALLEY: Santos Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
PERFECT AUTO: Faces Mendez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
PERFORMANCE HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over MOVEit Cyberattack
POWERGRID PARTNERS: Underpays Wind Turbine Technicians, Moreno Says
PRECIGEN INC: $13MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 19
PRECIGEN INC: $13MM Class Settlement to be Heard on October 19
PROMPTCARE COMPANIES: Faces Schiller Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
RACK ROOM: Assists Facebook to Intercept Information, Marquez Says
ROLIMA GROUP: Misclassifies Metal Workers, Guerrero Claims
RUANE CUNNIFF: $124.62MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 23
SCULPTOR CAPITAL: Juan Monteverde Investigates Rithm Sale
SELECT REHABILITATION: Underpays Therapy Assistants, Hovorka Says
STANDARD FIRE: Bid to Remand Fronberg Case to State Court Granted
STATE FARM: Court Denies Renewed Bid to Dismiss Wiggins Class Suit
SYNAGRO WOONSOCKET: Faces Class Action Over Noxious Odors
TATA MOTORS: Shelor Sues Over Vehicles' Defective Outlet Pipes
TEACHERS INSURANCE: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Jentz Alleges
TRAVELEX INSURANCE: Haas Appeals Summary Judgment to 9th Circuit
TWININGS NORTH: Piotroski Sues Over Tea Products' Misrepresentation
TZUMI INNOVATIONS: Loses Coverage Bid in False Ads' Class Action
UBS GROUP: Legalpass Files Credit Suisse Shareholder Class Action
UJAMAA CONSTRUCTION: Jackson Seeks Maintenance Staff's Unpaid OT
ULTIMATE FIGHTING: Ex-Fighters' Antitrust Suit Gets Partial Cert.
ULTIMATE INTERNET: Fails to Properly Pay Laborers, Brokl Suit Says
UNITED STATES: Court Substitutes Decedent Casaretti Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES: Etchegoinberry Appeals Suit Dismissal to Fed. Cir.
UNITED STATES: Sheffield Sues Over Denied IVF for Same-Sex Veterans
US BANCORP: S.D. California Denies Gold's Bid for TRO in RICO Suit
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Meehan Sues Over Drop of Securities Price
VIRAGE CAPITAL: Sued Over Mismanaged Settlement Money in NFL Suit
WELLS FARGO: Patterson Sues Over Opening of Unauthorized Accounts
WELLS FARGO: Sued in California Over Fraudulent Bank Accounts
WEST VIRGINIA: Faces Class Action Over Poor Jail Conditions
YELLOW CORP: Keef Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Advance Notice
YZER LLC: Faces Jacinto Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
*********
1ST SOURCE BANK: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Montgomery Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE MONTGOMERY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 1ST SOURCE BANK, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-00715 (N.D. Ind., July 28, 2023) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiff against Defendant for its failure to properly
secure and safeguard personally identifiable information(PII)
including, but not limited to, Plaintiff's and roughly 450,000
Class Members' names, Social Security numbers, driver's license or
state identification card numbers, other government-issued
identification numbers, and/or dates of birth.
On June 1, 2023, the Defendant was informed of vulnerability in the
MOVEit file transfer program Defendant used to transfer to its
customers' PII, and that Plaintiff and roughly 450,000 Class
Members' Private Information may have been acquired by an
unauthorized cybercriminal organization known as the Clop
ransomware gang.
As a result of the data breach, Plaintiff and roughly 450,000
customers suffered ascertainable losses, including but not limited
to, a loss of privacy, the loss of the benefit of their bargain,
out-of-pocket monetary losses and expenses, the value of their time
reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the
attack, the diminished value of their private information, and the
substantial and imminent risk of identity theft. Given the theft of
information that is largely static -- like Social Security numbers
-- this risk will remain with Plaintiff and Class Members for the
rest of their lives, says the suit.
1st Source Bank is a commercial and consumer bank located in South
Bend, Indiana and is a wholly owned subsidiary of 1st Source
Corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
Kevin M. Cox, Esq.
THE LYON FIRM
2754 Erie Ave.
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Telephone: (513) 381-2333
Facsimile: (513) 766-9011
E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
2GO PRODUCTS LLC: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 2Go Products, LLC.
The case is styled as Shivan Bassaw, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. 2Go Products, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-06844 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
2Go Products -- https://www.2goproducts.com/ -- is a manufacturing
firm that focuses on the design and production of household items,
kitchenware, and accessories for home.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ian Piasecki, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (347) 745-0445
Email: ipiasecki@mizrahikroub.com
3M CO: Baron & Budd Files PFAS Water Contamination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jake Force, writing for WJFW, reports that on August 11, the law
firm Baron & Budd LLC. filed a class action lawsuit against 3M
Company and the Rhinelander Paper Mill. The suit alleges that the
mill -- under its former owner and current parent company,
Ahlstrom-Munksjo -- spread waste onto farmland in Oneida County,
causing extensive and severe PFAS contamination in private well
water.
PFAS, also known as "forever chemicals" have been used for decades
in the manufacturing of products such as clothing, nonstick
cookware cleaning products and more. While effective, their extreme
water solubility makes it difficult for them to break down. These
chemicals have been linked to major health problems.
The recommended federal standard for PFAS in drinking waters is 4
parts per trillion. However, in some wells in the small Oneida
County town of Stella, concentrations surpass 30,000 parts per
trillion. It's so bad, the Wisconsin DNR has been providing bottled
water to those affected.
3M Company, the multinational retail and manufacturing giant who
made the chemicals the paper mill is alleged to have improperly
disposed, agreed in June to pay at least $10 billion to settle
lawsuits over PFAS contamination.
Baron & Budd says affected Stella residents can participate in the
lawsuit, which aims to recoup the various hardships caused by the
contamination.
A spokesperson from Ahlstrom responded to the lawsuit with this
statement: "It is Ahlstrom's policy not to comment in detail on
open litigation. While we are still reviewing the complaint, it
appears to focus on activities that are alleged to have occurred
prior to Ahlstrom's acquisition of the Mill in 2018." [GN]
3M COMPANY: Buckner Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Buckner, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-03867-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 4, 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, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
leukemia cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Deboer Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
-----------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Dick Deboer, et al. v. 3M Company, et al.,
Case No. 01-CV-2023-902333.00 was removed from the Circuit Court
for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama, to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
on Aug. 14, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01059-ACA.
The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other the Defendants
liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing,
and/or selling aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and/or
firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used
in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to the
Plaintiffs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
Email: gregc@elglaw.com
gary@elglaw.com
kmckie@elglaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
M. Christian King, Esq.
Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq.
W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq.
Wesley B. Gilchrist, Esq.
LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C.
The Clark Building
400 North 20th Street
Birmingham, AL 35203-3200
Phone: (205) 581-0700
Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com
hprater@lightfootlaw.com
lradney@lightfootlaw.com
wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com
3M COMPANY: Gilstrap Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Gilstrap, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-03866-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 4, 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, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Hamilton Water Sues Over Toxic Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------
Hamilton Water and Wastewater Department, 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.; BASF CORPORATION BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.;
CHEMGCARD, 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 DCmDUPONT INC.); DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-03852-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 4, 2023), is brought seeking to
recover the costs of remediating the contamination, restoring its
contaminated drinking water systems that have been, and continue to
be, contaminated by PFOS and PFOA related to the manufacture and
use of AFFF, and the costs of treating the water produced by the
subject wells to remove the PFOS and PFOA.
The Hamilton Water and Wastewater Department, ("HWWD" or
"Department") is a division of the City of Hamilton, Alabama. The
Department provides an industrial water system and sewer system to
approximately 10,500 customers in the City of Hamilton in Marion
County, Alabama. HWWD oversees 195 miles of piping and one water
treatment plant. The Plaintiff brings this action in order to
address contamination of its water system caused by fluorinated
Class B firefighting foam that is manufactured with the synthetic
per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
In this complaint, the term ("PFAS") refers to a family of
synthetic man-made chemicals and surfactants including but not
limited to: Perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA"),
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS"), Perfluorohexanoic acid
("PFHxA"), Perfluoropentanoic acid ("PFPA"), Perfluoroheptanoic
acid ("PFHpA"), Pentafluorobenzoic acid ("PFBA"),
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid ("PFBS"), Perfluorononanoic acid
("PFNA"), Perfluorodecacanoic acid ("PFDA") and Perfluorohexane
Sulfonic Acid ("PFHS").
In this complaint, the term Aqueous Film-Forming Foam ("AFFF")
refers to any fluorinated firefighting foams that contains PFOS
and/or PFOA (including any of their salt, ionic or acid forms and
their precursors or degradation products) manufactured, sold or
distributed by the Defendants for civilian, military and training
applications worldwide.
PFOS and PFOA are synthetic fluorinated compounds that are
particularly useful for controlling and extinguishing aviation,
marine, fuel, and other Class B fires because fluorine atoms have
extremely persistent and stable physio-chemical properties. PFOS
and PFOA are soluble in water, not easily biodegradable, and
persistent in the environment. Both are known to be harmful to
human health. When AFFF containing PFOS or PFOA is released into
the environment; both compounds, their precursors and degradation
products, can migrate into soil and groundwater. It has been shown
that the bioconcentration and bioaccumulation of perfluorinated
acids is directly related to fluorination.
AFFF is a specialized manufactured foam designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training exercises and
live-fire responses. PFOA and PFOS are extremely toxic, not easily
biodegradable, persistent in the environment and pose a significant
risk to animal and human health. Fire Departments have provided
fire protection and response in Hamilton and the surrounding areas
for decades. Fire departments have used AFFF containing PFOS and
PFOA in fire suppression and training activities for many years.
During these activities, AFFF was used as directed by the
manufacturer, which allowed PFOS and PFOA to enter the environment.
When sprayed onto outdoor surfaces as intended, the compounds
migrated through the soil and into the groundwater, thereby
contaminating the water pumped into Plaintiff's water supply.
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,
defendant 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, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is the City of Hamilton Water and Wastewater
Department, a department and water provider within an Alabama
municipal corporation.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: MCPWA Sues Over Toxic Chemicals
-------------------------------------------
Marion County Public Water Authoirty, 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.; BASF CORPORATION BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.;
CHEMGCARD, 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 DCmDUPONT INC.); DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-03854-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 4, 2023), is brought seeking to
recover the costs of remediating the contamination, restoring its
contaminated drinking water systems that have been, and continue to
be, contaminated by PFOS and PFOA related to the manufacture and
use of AFFF, and the costs of treating the water produced by the
subject wells to remove the PFOS and PFOA.
The Marion County Public Water Authority, ("MCPWA" or "Authority")
provides an industrial water system and sewer system to
approximately 3,609 customers in Marion County, Alabama. Plaintiff
brings this action in order to address contamination of its water
system caused by fluorinated Class B firefighting foam that is
manufactured with the synthetic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
("PFAS").
In this complaint, the term ("PFAS") refers to a family of
synthetic man-made chemicals and surfactants including but not
limited to: Perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA"),
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS"), Perfluorohexanoic acid
("PFHxA"), Perfluoropentanoic acid ("PFPA"), Perfluoroheptanoic
acid ("PFHpA"), Pentafluorobenzoic acid ("PFBA"),
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid ("PFBS"), Perfluorononanoic acid
("PFNA"), Perfluorodecacanoic acid ("PFDA") and Perfluorohexane
Sulfonic Acid ("PFHS").
In this complaint, the term Aqueous Film-Forming Foam ("AFFF")
refers to any fluorinated firefighting foams that contains PFOS
and/or PFOA (including any of their salt, ionic or acid forms and
their precursors or degradation products) manufactured, sold or
distributed by the Defendants for civilian, military and training
applications worldwide.
PFOS and PFOA are synthetic fluorinated compounds that are
particularly useful for controlling and extinguishing aviation,
marine, fuel, and other Class B fires because fluorine atoms have
extremely persistent and stable physio-chemical properties. PFOS
and PFOA are soluble in water, not easily biodegradable, and
persistent in the environment. Both are known to be harmful to
human health. When AFFF containing PFOS or PFOA is released into
the environment; both compounds, their precursors and degradation
products, can migrate into soil and groundwater. It has been shown
that the bioconcentration and bioaccumulation of perfluorinated
acids is directly related to fluorination.
AFFF is a specialized manufactured foam designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training exercises and
live-fire responses. PFOA and PFOS are extremely toxic, not easily
biodegradable, persistent in the environment and pose a significant
risk to animal and human health. Fire Departments have provided
fire protection and response in Hamilton and the surrounding areas
for decades. Fire departments have used AFFF containing PFOS and
PFOA in fire suppression and training activities for many years.
During these activities, AFFF was used as directed by the
manufacturer, which allowed PFOS and PFOA to enter the environment.
When sprayed onto outdoor surfaces as intended, the compounds
migrated through the soil and into the groundwater, thereby
contaminating the water pumped into Plaintiff's water supply.
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,
defendant 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, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is the Marion County Public Water Authority, a public
county water provider.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Roberts Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jeremi Roberts, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY; AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS, INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC., ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CORTEVA,
INC; CHEMGUARD, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION;
E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; FIRE-DEX,
LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA, INC.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; LION GROUP,
INC.; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCE COMPANY LLC; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; STEDFAST USA,
INC.; TEN CATE PROTECTIVE FABRICS USA D/B/A SOUTHERN MILLS INC.;
THE CHEMOURS COMPANY LLC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, L.P.; W.L. GORE &
ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 13-2023-CA-014744 was removed from the
Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for
Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on Aug. 3, 2023, and assigned Case
No. 1:23-cv-22895-XXXX.
The Complaint seeks to hold Defendants liable based on their
alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or selling aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF"). According to the Complaint, "Class B
foam is one of the primary tools used by firefighters for
suppression of fires," and "the most common Class B foam is" AFFF,
which contain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
("PFAS"),—including perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jonathan S. Klein, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
1999 K St. NW
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 263-3327
Email: jklein@mayerbrown.com
- and -
Michael D. Sloan, Esq.
Casey Hardy McGowan, Esq.
CARLTON FIELDS, P.A.
CityPlace Tower
525 Okeechobee Blvd., Ste. 1200
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: (561) 822-2979
Facsimile: (561) 659-7368
Email: msloan@carltonfields.com
chardymcgowan@carltonfields.com
527 LINCOLN: Dismissal of Count IV in Collins Modified in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SIMONE COLLINS, ETC., ET AL., Appellants v. 527
LINCOLN PLACE, LLC, Respondent, 2020-05786, Index No. 508400/19
(N.Y. App. Div.), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of
New York, Second Department, modifies in part and affirms in part
the order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, granting the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the fourth cause of action and
staying all proceedings.
In a putative class action, inter alia, to recover damages for rent
overcharges, the Plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme
Court, Kings County (Kathy J. King, J.), dated July 20, 2020. The
order granted those branches of the Defendant's motion which were
pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the fourth cause of action,
to refer the matter to the New York State Division of Housing and
Community Renewal to determine the legal regulated rent for all
units of the residential premises at issue, and pursuant to CPLR
2201 to stay all proceedings.
The order is modified, on the law and in the exercise of
discretion, by deleting the provision thereof granting those
branches of the Defendant's motion which were to refer the matter
to the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal to
determine the legal regulated rent for all units in the residential
premises at issue and to stay all proceedings, and substituting
therefor a provision denying those branches of the motion; as so
modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the Plaintiffs.
In 2019, the Plaintiffs, seven current and former tenants of a
24-unit residential building in Brooklyn (the premises), commenced
the putative class action against the Defendant 527 Lincoln Place,
LLC, the owner of the premises, inter alia, for a judgment
declaring that the Plaintiffs' units in the premises are subject to
the rent stabilization laws and the amount of legal regulated rent
the Defendant may charge for each unit in the premises, to recover
damages for rent overcharges, and to recover damages for violations
of General Business Law Section 349 and New York City
Administrative Code Section 20-700.
The Defendant moved, among other things, pursuant to CPLR
3211(a)(7) to dismiss the fourth cause of action, alleging
violations of General Business Law Section 349 and Admin. Code
Section 20-700, for failure to state a cause of action, to refer
the matter to the New York State Division of Housing and Community
Renewal (DHCR) to determine the legal regulated rent for all units
in the premises, and pursuant to CPLR 2201 to stay all proceedings
in the action. In an order dated July 20, 2020, the Supreme Court
granted those branches of the Defendant's motion. The Plaintiffs
appeal.
The Supreme Court should have denied those branches of the
defendant's motion which were to refer the action to the DHCR and
to stay all proceedings. The Housing Stability and Tenant
Protection Act of 2019 provides that the courts and the DHCR have
concurrent jurisdiction, subject to the tenant's choice of forum.
In the case, the Plaintiffs selected the court as the forum of
their choice. Thus, the court improperly granted that branch of the
Defendant's motion which was to refer the matter to the DHCR and
improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of
the Defendant's motion which was to stay all proceedings.
However, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the
Defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss
the fourth cause of action, alleging violations of General Business
Law Section 349 and Admin. Code Section 20-700, for failure to
state a cause of action. The allegations were bare and conclusory
and, thus, failed to state a cause of action under either General
Business Law Section 349 or Admin. Code Section 20-700.
In light of this determination, the Appellate Division need not
reach the parties' remaining contentions.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 26, 2023 Decision & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/26fncmnx from Leagle.com.
Grimble & Loguidice, LLP, New York, NY (Robert Grimble --
RG@GRIMBLELAW.COM -- of counsel), for the Appellants.
Kucker Marino Winiarsky & Bittens, LLP, New York NY (Nativ
Winiarsky -- nwiniarsky@kuckermarino.com -- of counsel), for the
Respondent.
ACCENTURE INC: Clark Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Natesha Clark and Sharonda Molbrough, individually, and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. ACCENTURE INC., Case No.
1:23-cv-05451 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 14, 2023), is brought arising from
the Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and for common law claims of breach of contract or (in the
alternative) unjust enrichment as a result of unpaid overtime
compensation.
The Defendant offers call center services to a variety of
companies, which Defendant refers to as its clients. In offering
these services to its clients, Defendant enlists Contact Center
Support Agents (CCSAs) that are responsible for providing general
customer support services to its client-companies. Defendant
classifies these CCSAs as independent contractors, when, in fact,
they are employees under the relevant state and federal wage and
hour laws.
The Defendant obtains its CCSAs through a "Contractor Exchange"
program. The gist of the Contractor Exchange program is that
Defendant contracts with staffing companies throughout the country
to supply them with CCSAs to fulfil their business needs. They
refer to these staffing companies as "preferred suppliers."
The Plaintiffs seek to represent in this action all current and
former CCSAs who are similarly situated to each other in terms of
their positions, job duties, pay structure and Defendant's
violations of federal and state law. Defendant knew or should have
known how long it takes CCSAs to complete their off-the-clock work,
and Defendant could have properly compensated Plaintiffs and the
putative Collective and Class for this work, but did not. Defendant
knew or should have known that CCSAs, including Plaintiffs, worked
overtime hours for which they were not compensated.
The Plaintiffs seek a declaration that their rights, and the rights
of the putative Collective and Class, were violated, an award of
unpaid wages, an award of liquidated damages, injunctive and
declaratory relief, attendant penalties and an award of attorneys'
fees and costs to make them, the Collective and Class whole for
damages they suffered, and to ensure that they and future workers
will not be subjected by Defendant to such illegal conduct in the
future, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs worked for Defendant as a remote CCSA.
Accenture is a professional services company that specializes in
information technology services and consulting.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Oscar Rodriguez, Esq.
HOOPER HATHAWAY, P.C.
126 S. Main St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Phone: (734) 662-4426
Fax: (734) 662-9559
Email: orod@hooperhathaway.com
- and -
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
55 E. Monroe St., Suite 3800
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (954) WORKERS
Fax: (954) 327-3013
Email: AFrisch@forthepeople.com
- and -
Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
ASH LAW, PLLC
402 W. Liberty St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Phone: (734) 234-5583
Email: cash@nationalwagelaw.com
ACCORD CARTON CO: Cortez Files Suit in Ill. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Accord Carton Co. The
case is styled as Reyes Cortez, individually and on behalf of other
persons similarly situated v. Accord Carton Co., Case No.
2023LA000860 (Ill. Ct., DuPage Cty., Aug. 15, 2023).
Accord Carton -- https://www.accordcarton.com/ -- is a
third-generation, family-owned company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William H. Beaumont, Esq.
BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
107 W. Van Buren, Suite 209
Chicago, IL 60605
Phone: (773) 831-8000
Email: whb@beaumontcostales.com
AETNA LIFE: Court Rejects Motion to Decertify Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Holly, Esq., of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, in an article for
JDSupra, disclosed that in Wit v. United Behavioral Health, the
Ninth Circuit recently rejected a lower court's order certifying a
class of participants in a dispute over behavioral health
guidelines used to process claims for benefits. A California
district court recently rejected Aetna's motion to decertify an
existing class based on that decision.
In Hendricks v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, plaintiffs alleged
that Aetna's policy of denying coverage for lumbar artificial disc
replacement surgery (L-ADR) as "experimental or investigational"
was inconsistent with the terms of their health plans and the
existing medical standards. The court originally certified a class
of participants in ERISA plans administered by Aetna, whose
requests for L-ADR surgery were, or will be, denied based upon
Aetna's classification of the treatment as experimental.
Following Wit, Aetna asked the court to reevaluate its decision.
The court declined the invitation. It rejected Aetna's argument
that the named plaintiffs' failure to exhaust contractually
required administrative remedies precluded them from representing
the class. Aetna had categorically concluded that L-ADR surgery was
experimental, and thus exhausting administrative remedies was
futile. That was true both under ERISA itself, as well as general
contract law -- by refusing to even consider whether L-ADR might be
appropriate in any case, Aetna effectively repudiated any
contractual right it might have to require exhaustion. The court
also rejected Aetna's argument that after Wit there were no common
questions and that the class could not be certified under any of
the subdivisions of 23(b). Although Wit had rejected an argument
that a class of disparate participants allegedly affected by
allegedly improper medical guidelines could uniformly have their
claims reprocess, here the court held that was not dispositive. The
court held that the question of whether Aetna's determination that
L-ADR treatments were uniformly experimental was one that could be
made on a class-wide basis. [GN]
ALABAMA POWER COMPANY: Bullock Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alabama Power
Company. The case is styled as Justin Bullock, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Alabama Power Company, Case
No. 1:23-cv-06867 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 4, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Alabama Power -- https://www.alabamapower.com/ -- is an electric
utility serving 1.5 million customers with reliable and affordable
electric service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
ALBERTSON'S LLC: Sherman Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Christopher Sherman, Peter Ruiz, Richard
Ancheta, and Michael Raziano on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Albertson's LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV14563
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on Aug. 4, 2023, and assigned Case No.
2:23-cv-06377.
In the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege eight claims for relief:
Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; Failure to Provide Accurate
Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Timely Pay Wages Due During
Employment; Failure to Timely Pay Wages Due Upon Separation of
Employment; Violation of the Unfair Competition Law; Invasion of
Privacy; Failure to Pay Minimum Wage; and Failure to Provide Meal
and Rest Periods.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Ray E. Boggess, Esq.
Jonathan A. Arjonilla, Esq.
PAYNE & FEARS LLP
4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
Irvine, CA 92614
Phone: (949) 851-1100
Facsimile: (949) 851-1212
Email: jkb@paynefears.com
reb@paynefears.com
jaa@paynefears.com
ALDERSON BROADDUS: Fails to Warn Faculty Over School Closure
------------------------------------------------------------
John Blashke, writing for WDTV, reports that the situation at
Alderson Broaddus University isn't getting much better.
Two class action lawsuits are being filed against the university. A
civil suit is being filed on behalf of the students as well as a
separate civil suit for faculty and staff working for the school.
The key element of these lawsuits allege the university did not
give sufficient warning the school would be dissolving.
Both lawsuits site a November 2022 letter signed by former
university president, James Barry.
The letter was directed to faculty and staff and says 90 days
notice would be given if university operations were ever
discontinued. It further says arrangements will be made for
students to complete their degrees.
The lawsuit says this letter is legally binding and was breached
when the school announced it would be dissolving with no prior
notice.
The lawsuit further says the university encouraged employees to
continue recruiting students' despite being aware of the serious
possibility the school could soon lose accreditation.
The lawsuits list a combined 22 counts against the school including
fraud, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duties, unjust
enrichment, and duress.
A.B. declined to make any further statements and has affirmed the
school will award degrees to seniors graduating this fall
semester.
The class lead for the employee lawsuit has since revoked
involvement and the prosecutors plan to name a new lead.
The lawsuit for students is only open to students enrolled for the
fall 2023 semester.
A.B. is asking all students to pick up remaining personal items
from the school between now and August 25th. [GN]
ALL ONE GOD FAITH: Miller Files ADA Suit in W.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against All One God Faith,
Inc. The case is styled as Kimberly Miller, on behalf of herself
and all other persons similarly situated v. All One God Faith,
Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00838 (W.D.N.Y., Aug. 15, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
All One God Faith, Inc. was founded in 1973. The Company's line of
business includes the manufacturing of soap and other
detergents.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
- and -
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTFRIED & GOTTFRIED, LLP
122 East 42nd. St., Suite 620
New York, NY 10168
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Sends Unwanted Marketing Calls, Semans Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SEMANS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-05084 (N.D. Ill., August 2, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Allstate engaged in a widescale
telemarketing operation in an attempt to promote its insurance
products and services. Allstate placed telemarketing calls to
consumers without having first obtained their express written
consent to place such calls. Allstate knew or should have known its
calls were unwanted as the Plaintiff had registered his number on
the National Do Not Call Registry (DNC List) yet continued calling
the Plaintiff to sell its insurance products and services, says the
suit.
The Allstate Corporation is an insurance company, with its
principal place of business in Northbrook, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James X. Bormes, Esq.
Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 201-0575
Facsimile: (312) 332-0600
E-mail: bormeslaw@sbcglobal.net
cpsons@bormeslaw.com
- and -
Christopher E. Roberts, Esq.
David T. Butsch, Esq.
BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC
231 S. Bemiston Avenue, Suite 260
Clayton, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 863-5700
Facsimile: (314) 863-5711
E-mail: CRoberts@butschroberts.com
DButsch@butschroberts.com
- and -
Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq.
KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C.
30 East Butler Ave.
Ambler, PA 19002
Telephone: (215) 540-8888
Facsimile: (877) 788-2864
E-mail: jginsburg@creditlaw.com
AMAZON STUDIOS: Tehrani Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Josephine Tehrani, individually and on behalf of
other persons similarly situated v. AMAZON STUDIOS, LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 23STCV09947 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Aug.
4, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-06385.
On July 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC")
in the State Court Action. The Plaintiff's FAC alleges the
following causes of action against Defendant: Failure to Pay All
Premium Wages; Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay
All Wages Due and Owing on Separation; Failure to Provide Accurate
Wage Statements; Unfair Business Practices; and Penalties Pursuant
to Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Camilo Echavarria, Esq.
Stephen Franz, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 24th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566
Phone: (213) 633-6800
Fax: (213) 633-6899
Email: camiloechavarria@dwt.com
stephenfranz@dwt.com
AMERICAN PIZZA: Hubbard Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Elijah Hubbard, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. AMERICAN PIZZA PARTNERS, L.P., AMERICAN RESTAURANT
PARTNERS, L.P., and RMC AMERICAN MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No.
6:23-cv-00599-ADA-DTG (W.D. Tex., Aug. 15, 2023), is brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid minimum
wages owed to Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers
employed by Defendants at its Pizza Hut stores.
The Defendants employ and/or employed delivery drivers who use
their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to
Defendants' customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery
drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of
their vehicles, the Defendants used a flawed method to determine
reimbursement rates that neither reimburse the drivers for their
actual expenses, nor at the IRS business mileage rate which is
legally required and a reasonable approximation of those expenses.
This under-reimbursement causes their wages to fall below the
applicable minimum wage during some or all workweeks, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff worked as delivery drivers for the Defendants
delivering pizza and other food items to the Defendant's
customers.
The Defendants operate approximately 130 or more Pizza Hut
franchise stores throughout the United States, including in Texas,
Louisiana, Montana, Wyoming, Oklahoma, and Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-352-1100
Fax: 713-352-3300
Email: adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
Jolie N. Pavlos, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
P.O. Box 4979
Orlando, FL 32802-4979
Phone: (407) 420-1414
Fax: (407) 245-3401
Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com
JPavlos@forthepeople.com
AMERICAN SENIOR: Pittman Seeks Licensed Practical Nurses' Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH PITTMAN JONES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN SENIOR COMMUNITIES, LLC
and EAGLECARE, LLC d/b/a AMERICAN SENIOR COMMUNITIES, Defendants,
Case No. 1:23-cv-01365-JPH-MJD (S.D. Ind., August 4, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of Fair Labor Standards Act and failure to pay
all earned wages under the Indiana Wage Payment Law.
Ms. Jones has been employed as a licensed practical nurse at the
Defendant's Fairway Village facility in Indianapolis, Indiana since
approximately July 2017.
American Senior Communities, LLC is a company that provides
independent living apartments, assisted living, memory care,
long-term care, and rehabilitation services, with its headquarters
in Indianapolis, Indiana.
EagleCare, LLC, doing business as American Senior Communities, is a
provider of long-term care and rehabilitation services for seniors,
headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
E-mail: sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.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
E-mail: 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
E-mail: 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
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
AMERICAN TIN CEILING: Bullock Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Tin Ceiling
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Justin Bullock, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. American Tin Ceiling
Company, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06873-VEC (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 4, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
American Tin Ceilings -- https://www.americantinceilings.com/ --
provides an excellent selection of tin panels for ceilings, wall
panels, retail accents and back splashes for residential and
commercial customers supported by high quality product, pattern and
finish variety, competitive pricing, quick shipping, accessible
experts and personalized service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
ANSELL LIMITED: Faces Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Lauren Croft, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that a class
action has been filed in the Victorian Supreme Court against
medical gloves and protective suit manufacturer Ansell Limited on
behalf of shareholders who alleged misleading and deceptive
conduct.
The class action was filed by Slater & Gordon on behalf of
investors who bought shares over a five-month period.
The action alleges shareholders incurred financial losses after
acquiring Ansell (ANN.AX) shares between 24 August 2021 and 28
January 2022 -- and that Ansell engaged in misleading or deceptive
conduct and contravened its continuous disclosure obligations.
Ansell advised the ASX on 24 August 2021 that the company was well
positioned and forecast its earnings per share (EPS) for the
financial year 2022 in the range of US$1.75 to US$1.95.
Then, in November of the same year, Ansell announced that although
the impact of COVID-19 remained a dominant influence on the
business and that the market conditions were more challenging than
originally anticipated, the EPS guidance would be maintained.
But on 31 January 2022, the company published a corrective FY22
downgrade statement on the ASX, announcing it now expected its FY22
EPS to be in the range of US$1.25 to $1.45, a downgrade of 25 to 28
per cent.
The statement cited pandemic-related operational challenges and
softer demand for single-use gloves among its reasons for the
downgrade. The FY22 downgrade resulted in Ansell's share price
falling 17 per cent ($5.37) between 31 January and 3 February
2022.
Slater & Gordon class actions senior associate Tom O'Bryan said the
claim alleges that Ansell had no reasonable basis to provide the
FY22 EPS guidance.
"Ansell knew or ought to have been aware that its FY22 EPS guidance
was unreasonably optimistic, and there was a material risk it would
not be met. It is alleged that the company should have communicated
deficiencies in its forecast earnings much earlier than it did," he
said.
"Investors are entitled to assume that when they purchase shares in
a listed company, all of the material information relevant to that
company's financial position has been disclosed. The downgrades by
Ansell in January 2022 revealed that was not actually the case. Had
the true situation been revealed to the ASX, group members would
have acquired shares at a lower price, or they would not have
acquired shares at all." [GN]
APELLIS PHARMA: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 2
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith on Aug. 14 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Apellis" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
APLS) common stock between January 29, 2021 and July 28, 2023,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Apellis investors have until
October 2, 2023 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their Apellis investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
On July 15, 2023, the American Society of Retina Specialists
("ASRS") published a letter regarding its concerns with Apellis's
geographic atrophy treatment, SYFOVRE, highlighting physician
reports of cases of eye inflammation in patients, including six
instances of occlusive retinal vasculitis, which potentially
results in blindness. On this news, Apellis's stock price fell
$32.04, or 37.9%, to close at $54.46 per share on July 17, 2023,
thereby injuring investors.
On July 17, 2023, after the market closed, Apellis issued a
statement addressing the concerns and acknowledging that "[t]he
Company is continuing to conduct a thorough investigation of each
of the events, working closely with the [ASRS] and several external
specialists." On this news, Apellis's stock price fell $12.46, or
23.6%, to close at $40.00 per share on July 18, 2023.
On July 20, 2023, Wedbush downgraded Apellis's price target by more
than 50%, from $86.00 per share to $40.00 per share. On this news,
Apellis's stock price fell $6.25, or 15.4%, to close at $34.24 per
share on July 20, 2023.
Then, on July 29, 2023, Apellis disclosed a seventh occurrence of
retinal vasculitis caused by its SYFOVRE treatment, and further
stated that it was evaluating a potential eighth reported event of
retinal vasculitis. On this news, Apellis's stock price fell $6.27,
or 19.6%, to close at $25.75 per share on July 31, 2023, thereby
injuring investors further.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) the design of SYFOVRE's clinical trials was insufficient
to identify incidents of retinal vasculitis in patients receiving
SYFOVRE injections; (2) as a result, the commercial adoption of
SYFOVRE was subject to significant, unknown risk factors; and (3)
as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased Apellis common stock, have information or would
like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire,
of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847,
toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]
APELLIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Soderberg Sues Over Drop of Stock Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUDITH M. SODERBERG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APELLIS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
CEDRIC FRANCOIS, FEDERICO GROSSI, and TIMOTHY SULLIVAN, Defendants,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00834-UNA (D. Del., August 2, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding Apellis's business, and
operations in order to trade Apellis securities at artificially
inflated prices between January 28, 2021, and July 28, 2023.
Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) the
design of clinical trials of SYFOVRE, Apellis's therapeutic
treatments, was insufficient to identify incidents of retinal
vasculitis in patients receiving SYFOVRE injections; (2) as a
result, the commercial adoption of SYFOVRE was subject to
significant, unknown risk factors; and (3) therefore, the
Defendants' statements about the company's business, operations,
and prospects lacked a reasonable basis.
When the truth emerged, the price of Apellis common stock declined
$6.27 per share, or approximately 19.6 percent, from a close of
$32.02 per share on July 28, 2023, to close at $25.75 per share on
July 31, 2023, says the suit.
Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a commercial-stage
biopharmaceutical company, with principal executive offices at 100
Fifth Avenue, Waltham, Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
Andrew Blumberg, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 364-3600
E-mail: greg.varallo@blbglaw.com
andrew.blumberg@blbglaw.com
- and -
Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
Ryan T. Degnan, Esq.
Jonathan Z. Naji, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
E-mail: namjed@ktmc.com
rdegnan@ktmc.com
jnaji@ktmc.com
APPLE INC: Ordered to Pay Up to $500 Million to Ex-Customers
------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Caldwell, writing for EnergyPorta.eu, reports that owners of
certain older iPhone models are set to receive approximately $65
each as part of a settlement in a class-action lawsuit against
Apple. The lawsuit accused the Cupertino-based company of secretly
slowing down the performance of select iPhone models without the
knowledge or consent of users.
Apple agreed to pay up to $500 million in 2020 to settle the
lawsuit, which alleged that the company engaged in "one of the
largest consumer frauds in history." The allegations claimed that
the slowdown in performance was an attempt to address issues
related to batteries and processors. Reports of unexpected iPhone
shutdowns started emerging in 2015 and became more prevalent in the
fall of 2016, with users reporting their phones shutting off even
when the battery level was above 30%.
The lawsuit argued that the shutdowns were caused by a mismatch
between the hardware components of the phones, such as batteries
and processors, and the demands of constantly updating operating
systems. Apple attempted to resolve the problem with a software
update, but it was claimed that the update simply throttled device
performance to reduce the number of shutdowns.
Apple defended its actions in a court filing in 2019, stating that
the effectiveness of lithium-ion batteries deteriorates over time
and with usage. The company acknowledged that software updates
entail trade-offs, as adding more features or speed may impact
hardware lifespan and introduce complexity.
In addition to the class-action lawsuit, Apple faced a separate
lawsuit from the State of California and Alameda and Los Angeles
counties. The lawsuit, which alleged similar grievances over the
shutdowns and throttling, was settled by Apple for $113 million,
without admitting any wrongdoing.
Approximately 3 million claims were received from affected
consumers. Two iPhone owners who had objected to the settlement
recently lost their appeal, clearing the way for the distribution
of the settlement funds. The eligible devices for the settlement
are iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, SE, 7, and 7 Plus, running
certain operating systems before December 21, 2017. [GN]
APPLIED DIGITAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Oct. 11
----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Aug. 15
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of securities of Applied Digital Corporation (NASDAQ:
APLD) between April 13, 2022 and July 26, 2023, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already
been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move
the Court no later than October 11, 2023.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Applied Digital securities during the
Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of
any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee
arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Applied Digital class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=17336 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 11, 2023.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Applied Digital had overstated
the profitability of its datacenter hosting business and its
ability to successfully transition into a low-cost AI Cloud
services provider; (2) Applied Digital's Board of Directors was not
independent within the meaning of NASDAQ listing rules; (3)
accordingly, Applied Digital had overstated the efficacy of its
business model and failed to maintain proper corporate governance
standards; (4) the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to subject
the Company to significant financial and/or reputational harm; and
(5) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
To join the Applied Digital class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=17336 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
ARIZONA: Must Face Birth Certificate Law Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Howard Fischer, writing for Eastern Arizona Courier, reports that a
federal judge will allow several children to sue on behalf of all
transgender people born in Arizona to force the state to change the
gender on their birth certificates.
In a new order, Judge James Soto said that the individuals who
filed suit in 2020, all minors, want to permanently bar the Arizona
Department of Health Services from enforcing a provision of state
law that says the agency will not amend a birth certificate based
solely on the person's claim argument they have "gender dysphoria"
and do not identify with the gender they were assigned at birth.
Instead, the agency will act only after the person has undergone a
sex change operation or has a chromosomal count that establishes
the sex of the person differs from what is on the birth
certificate. And either of those requires a verified statement from
a physician.
Soto has yet to rule on the claim. But he said it makes sense to
have this handled as a class-action lawsuit, meaning that any
ruling he would issue would affect not just the individuals who
filed suit but anyone else who is transgender and wants an Arizona
birth certificate altered.
"Such an injunction in this matter would protect all proposed class
members' due process and equal protection rights, and otherwise
make it less burdensome for transgender individuals to amend the
gender marker on their birth certificates in Arizona through a
private administrative process," the judge wrote.
There was no immediate response to the order from the health
department which already has asked Soto to dismiss the case. Among
the agency's legal arguments is that any injuries that the
plaintiffs claim were not caused by the state and that the court
cannot rewrite the challenged law.
But Rachel Berg, an attorney with the National Center for Lesbian
Rights, applauded the decision.
"The class action motion is important here because it will allow a
ruling in this case to apply to all transgender people born in
Arizona," she told Capitol Media Services.
Soto noted that NCLR has submitted demographic studies reflecting
that there are likely over 30,000 transgender individuals in
Arizona.
"And there are likely thousands of transgender individuals who
would amend their Arizona birth certificates through a private
administrative process if it was available in Arizona," he said.
The outcome of this lawsuit could have ripple effects.
If Soto blocks the state from enforcing its current requirement for
sex-change surgery before a birth certificate can be altered, it
would allow others who are transgender to seek to have a new
designation of their sex on those certificates.
That would mean that the official state record would show
transgender girls enrolled in schools as girls. And that would
undermine efforts by state schools chief Tom Horne and key
Republican lawmakers in a separate federal court lawsuit to defend
a 2022 law that bars transgender girls -- who they argue really are
biological boys -- from participating in girls' sports.
And it also could affect perennial legislative efforts to force
transgender individuals to use a restroom that corresponds to their
sex assigned at birth -- the one currently on their birth
certificates.
The case, first filed in 2020, is on behalf of three transgender
boys whose Arizona birth certificates list them as female and a
transgender girl identified as male. There is a fifth transgender
girl in the lawsuit, the original plaintiff, who managed to get her
birth certificate changed after Soto in November 2022, ordered that
her birth certificate be amended in what Berg said was an agreement
with the state.
Central to the lawsuit is the argument that some individuals have
"gender dysphoria," a disconnect between the person's identity and
the assigned sex.
Attorneys for the children say one of the treatments is to align
the person's life with his or her gender identity. And while that
could include hormone-replacement therapy and surgery, they said it
starts with "social transition," changing their names, using
different pronouns, adopting clothing and grooming habits
associated with their peers of the same gender identity.
"Having identity documents that reflect a transgender person's
assigned sex rather than their gender identity increases the
likelihood that a person's transgender status will be disclosed to
others, exposes them to a significant risk of mistreatment, and
undermines the health benefits of their social transition," the
lawsuit states.
"Depriving transgender young people of birth certificates that
accurately reflect who they are forces them to disclose their
transgender status -- information that is private and sensitive --
without their consent whenever they need to rely on birth
certificates to establish their identity," the attorneys said. And
they said a national survey conducted in 2015 by the National
Center for Transgender Equality found that nearly a third of those
who had to show an identity document with a name or sex that did
not match their "gender presentation" were verbally harassed,
denied benefits or service, asked to leave, or assaulted.
Complicating matters is a 2022 law signed by Gov. Doug Ducey that
bars doctors from performing "irreversible gender reassignment
surgery" on minors -- the procedure that is now first required to
allow the health department to change a child's birth certificate.
"That just shows the problem with this unconstitutional nature of
the statute," Berg said of that statute.
"Transgender young people are unable to amend their birth
certificate to reflect their gender identity because of this
outdated surgical requirement," she said. "And it leaves them
really in horrible condition, subjected to harassment and violence
and a risk of discrimination as well."
Challengers already have scored at least a partial victory. Soto
previously has ruled that the requirement in state law for a
sex-change operation to allow for a change in birth certificates
invades the constitutional rights of plaintiffs.
No date has been set for a trial. [GN]
ARRIA NLG: Knight Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Knight, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. ARRIA NLG (USA) INC., SHARON DANIELS, and GERALD HENRY,
Case No. 1:23-cv-04681 (D.N.J., Aug. 15, 2023), is brought pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended ("FLSA") the New York
Labor Law ("NYLL"), and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"),
that they and others similarly situated are entitled to recover
from Defendants: unpaid wages, unpaid wage supplements, overtime
wages for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, liquidated damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs, for the late payment and non-payment
of wages, wage supplements and for the misclassification of
Plaintiff as exempt from overtime.
The Plaintiff worked, on average, 5 overtime hours per week, and
oftentimes more than that, but did not meet the requirements of any
overtime exemption under federal or state law and did not receive
any overtime pay for hours in excess of 40 per workweek. The
Plaintiff worked, on average, 5 overtime hours per week, and
oftentimes more than that, but did not meet the requirements of any
overtime exemption under federal or state law and did not receive
any overtime pay for hours in excess of 40 per workweek.
Arria's standard payroll cycle is bimonthly. However, starting in
July 2022, Arria has paid Plaintiff late or not at all. Arria still
owes Plaintiff salary from June 1 through 14, 2022 and a guaranteed
retention bonus of $839.58, which was supposed to be paid on
September 15, 2022. Throughout their employment at Arria, Plaintiff
regularly observed, spoke to, and messaged their colleagues about
Defendants' pay practices and policies. Based on Plaintiff's direct
observations, conversations with employees, and emails received
from management (including Defendant Daniels), Plaintiff's
U.S.-based colleagues experienced the same unlawful pay practices
as Plaintiff – namely, that they were paid their wages late
and/or not at all – on the same schedule as Plaintiff.
Arria also offered a company-administered 401k plan (the "Plan")
through Fidelity, called the Arria NLG USA Inc. 401k Plan, as a
benefit to employees, including Plaintiff, who were Plan
participants. Arria deducted money from Plan participants' pay as
employee elective salary deferrals to each participant's Plan
account. Arria also added a two percent employer match to the Plan
account, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a former employee who worked for the Defendants
from February 18, 2020 to June 14, 2023.
Arria was a foreign for-profit corporation that is authorized to,
and does, transact business in New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Marks, Esq.
DORF & NELSON LLP
555 Theodore Fremd Avenue
Rye, NY 10580
Phone: 914.381.7600
Email: amarks@dorflaw.com
ARX PATIENT: Kaminowitz Files Suit Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------
PHYLLIS KAMINOWITZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARX PATIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC,
ASSISTRX, INC., and ARX PATIENT SOLUTIONS PHARMACY, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 6:23-cv-01446 (M.D. Fla., July 28, 2023) seeks to hold
Defendants responsible for the harms caused to Plaintiff and
approximately 41,166 similarly situated persons following a massive
and preventable data breach due to Defendants' inadequately
protected computer network.
On June 30, 2023, ARX filed a notice of data breach with the Maine
Attorney General's office after discovering an employee's email
account was accessed by an unauthorized third-party. Following an
investigation, ARX determined that cybercriminals may have gained
unauthorized access to patient information contained in files
within the compromised email account in March of 2022.
The complaint alleges that Defendants breached their duty and
betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class members by failing to
properly safeguard and protect their personal information, enabling
cyber criminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise,
disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view
it. Thus, as a result of the data breach, Plaintiff and Class
members have already suffered damages. Additionally, Plaintiff and
Class members have already lost time and money responding to and
mitigating the impact of the data breach, which efforts are
continuous and ongoing, says the suit.
ARX Patient Solutions, LLC provides patient support services and
technology-enabled workflows to healthcare entities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua R. Jacobson, Esq.
NORMAND PLLC
3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175
Orlando, FL 32803
Telephone: (407) 603-6031
E-mail: jjacobson@normandpllc.com
- and -
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
ASSIGNMENT AMERICA: Myers Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Assignment America,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Kimberly Myers, on behalf of
herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Petitioner
v. Assignment America, LLC, a Limited Liability Company, Cross
Country Healthcare, Inc., Does 1-50, Respondents, Case No.
23CV006074 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Aug. 4, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Assignment America, LLC provides staffing services. The Company
offers recruitment in hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and
other health care facilities for health care professionals and
nurses.[BN]
ASUKA BLUE: Fails to Properly Pay Servers, Karonka Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
KENDELL J. KARONKA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASUKA BLUE INVESTMENT, LLC and
YOSHITOMO, INC. d/b/a ATAMI STEAK AND SUSHI, Defendants, Case No.
4:23-cv-02891 (S.D. Tex., August 7, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for failure to pay appropriate minimum wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was formerly employed as a server at Atami Steak and
Sushi restaurant from approximately 2018 until 2023.
Asuka Blue Investment, LLC is the owner and operator of a
restaurant under the name Atami Steak and Sushi located in Texas.
Yoshitomo, Inc. is the owner and operator of a restaurant under the
name Atami Steak and Sushi located in Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
TRAN LAW FIRM
2537 S. Gessner Suite 104
Houston, TX 77063
Telephone: (713) 223–8855
E-mail: trang@tranlf.com
AT&T INC: Pomerantz LLP Investigates Possible Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
AT&T Inc. ("AT&T" or the "Company"). Such investors are advised to
contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888-476-6529, ext. 7980.
The investigation concerns whether AT&T and certain of its officers
and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful
business practices.
On July 9, 2023, the Wall Street Journal published an article
reporting that more than 2,000 abandoned lead cables, previously
used by AT&T and other telecommunication companies, were degrading
and leaching into soil and groundwater, posing a significant public
health risk. In a related article, the Wall Street Journal
estimated that cleanup costs could run into the tens of billions of
dollars.
Following publication of these articles, analysts downgraded AT&T
and other telecommunication company stocks. AT&T's stock price fell
$0.97 per share, or 6.69%, to close at $13.53 per share on July 17,
2023.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members.
See www.pomlaw.com.
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]
ATLAS OLIVE OILS: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atlas Olive Oils USA
Inc. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Atlas
Olive Oils USA Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-06854-JGLC (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 4,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Atlas Olive Oils -- https://atlasoliveoils.us/ -- is an
integrated-production farm and produces only Moroccan organic extra
virgin olive oil of superior quality.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
AUTOLIV INC: Anderson Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as David Anderson, Robert Ballero Gonzalez, Deneen
Brown, Jonathan Carano, Dennis Fett, Clayton Fineout, Bonnie
Florentine, Ninotchka Harper-Bey, Mark Hartman, Michael Hayes, Brad
Hoschar, Steve Isbister, Brandy Knapp, Renee Lesesne, Rene Madueno,
James Mccrory, Janice Mckennon, Loretta Mitchell, Bryan Polo,
Steven Aula, Ryan Clark, Latricia Ford, Sheila Hall-Hudson,
Rosalind Hudson-Battie, Hannah Jones, Aaron Jophlin, Tyler Baker,
Anthony Wayne Brown, Vincent Cerrato, Jr., William Arthur Guest
Jr., Nicole Hearn, Jimmy Herrera, Cara Taylor Long, Tracy Miles,
Douglas Philip Paulson, Patricia Taylor, Jordan Tribble, Anita
Victory, Julie Walling, David Winslow, John Britton, John Britton,
Celeste Felice, Stephen Gearhart, Eniko Gedo, Eva Jacinto, Patricia
Jones, Matthew Kakol, Francine Lewis, Kristen Luiz, Rittie
Marshall, Anthony Raspantini, Nicole Senkpeil, Shona Thomas,
Melissa Warren, Marie Hudson, Leigh Schultz, Billy Sellers, Matthew
Shephard, Bobby Sims, on behalf of similarly situated v. AUTOLIV,
INC.; AUTOLIV ASP., INC.; JOYSON SAFETY SYSTEMS; TOYODA GOSEI NORTH
AMERICA, INC.; ZF ACTIVE SAFETY AND ELECTRONICS US LLC; ZF PASSIVE
SAFETY SYSTEMS US INC.; ZF AUTOMOTIVE US INC.; ZF TRW AUTOMOTIVE
HOLDINGS CORP.; ZF FRIEDRICHSHAFEN AG; FCA US LLC; FORD MOTOR
COMPANY; and GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-11601 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia on Aug. 4, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-03477-ELR to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Product Liability.
Autoliv, Inc. -- http://www.autoliv.com/-- is a US-domiciled,
Swedish-headquartered automotive safety supplier with sales to all
leading car manufacturers worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark K. Wasvary, Esq.
MARK K. WASVARY, P.C.
645 Griswold, Suite 4300
Detroit, MI 48226
Phone: (248) 649-5667
AUTOZONE INC: Herrera ADA Suit Removed to D.N.J.
------------------------------------------------
The case CARLOS HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AUTOZONE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. HUD-L-002143-23, was removed from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Hudson County, to the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on July 28, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
2:23-cv-04051-SDW-JBC to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff's complaint seeks to secure injunctive relief for
alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Autozone, Inc. is an American retailer of aftermarket automotive
parts and accessories.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Steven J. Luckner, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
10 Madison Avenue, Suite 400
Morristown, NJ 07960
Telephone: (973) 656-1600
Facsimile: (973) 656-1611
E-mail: steven.luckner@ogletree.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Barrett Files Sues Over Credit Report Check
------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES F. BARRETT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION and
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00764 (M.D.
Tenn., July 27, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
and similarly situated consumers against the Defendants for breach
of security system, negligence, unjust enrichment and violations of
the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, the Tennessee Identity Theft
Deterrence Act.
According to the complaint, when a consumer applies for a credit
card, Bank of America obtains consumer reports on the applicant.
When a potential lender obtains a credit report for the purpose of
determining a consumer's creditworthiness, this activity is noted
on future credit reports and negatively affects a consumer's credit
rating. During the process of applying for credit cards without
consumers' knowledge or consent, Bank of America would sometimes
use or obtain consumer reports. Bank of America had no permissible
purpose for obtaining these reports. Obtaining these reports had a
negative impact on the consumers whose reports were obtained. Bank
of America benefitted from these accounts created without
consumers' knowledge or consent because, among other things, Bank
of America collected fees on those accounts, says the suit.
The suit alleges that Bank of America was able to earn fees from
unwanted credit card accounts, while the customers whose identities
were stolen by Bank of America's employees were left with black
marks on their credit reports.
Bank of America offers an array of financial products and services
to consumers, including credit cards.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary E. Brewer, Esq.
BREWER AND TERRY, P.C.
1702 W. Andrew Johnson Hwy.
P.O. Box 2046
Morristown, TN 37816
Telephone: (423) 587-2730
- and -
Katherine Barrett Riley, Esq.
John W. Barrett, Esq.
David McMullan, Esq.
Sterling Aldridge, Esq.
BARRETT LAW GROUP, PA
P.O. Box 927
Lexington, MS 39095
Telephone: (662) 834-2488
Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
E-mail: kbriley@barrettlawgroup.com
dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com
saldridge@barrettlawgroup.com
dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
- and -
Warren T. Burns, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75202
Telephone: (469) 904-4550
E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com
- and -
Korey A. Nelson, Esq.
Amanda K. Klevorn, Esq.
Patrick D. Murphree, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
365 Canal Street, Suite 1170
New Orleans, LA 70115
Telephone: (504) 779-2845
E-mail: knelson@burnscharest.com
aklevorn@burnscharest.com
pmurphree@burnscharest.com
- and -
Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
Alexandra Warren, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW Suite 200
Washington, D.C. 20016
Telephone: (202) 789-3960
E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com
awarren@cuneolaw.com
- and -
Michael Flannery, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
Two CityPlace Drive
St. Louis, MO 63141
Washington, D.C. 20016
Telephone: (314) 226-1015
E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces False Advertising Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that Bank of
America and Wells Fargo have recently been on the wrong end of
lawsuits, with claims against the banks involving discriminatory
practices, misleading accountholders and sign-up bonuses.
A shareholder filed a lawsuit against Wells Fargo last month over
claims the bank failed to adequately address issues involving
discriminatory practices in its hiring and lending processes.
The shareholder argues the bank breached its fiduciary duties by
allegedly failing to monitor its lending and hiring practices that
are allegedly discriminatory against minorities.
"Wells Fargo and its board have repeatedly failed to address the
fact that the company's algorithm resulted in digital redlining,
despite recognizing the importance of ensuring that the company
must not discriminate against minority borrowers," the Wells Fargo
lawsuit states.
BoA accused of false advertising, charging undisclosed fees on
incoming wire transfers
A consumer filed a class action lawsuit against Bank of America
last month, arguing the bank falsely advertised it would provide a
sign-up bonus for opening a new credit card.
The lawsuit claims Bank of America fails to pay the allegedly
promised sign-up bonuses, including for consumers who signed up for
a new Bank of America credit card in person or via telephone.
"Whether the misrepresentation was made online or orally by Bank of
America, members of the ‘Class' were promised that they would
receive their full, as advertised Sign-Up Bonus if they met the
stated spending minimum within the time required," the Bank of
America class action states.
In a separate class action lawsuit filed in July, a Bank of America
consumer's father alleges the financial institution misled its
personal account holders into paying undisclosed fees on incoming
wire transfers.
The plaintiff claims the bank charges account holders in New Jersey
$15 for an incoming wire transfer domestically and $35
internationally.
"Plaintiff and similarly situated personal account holders are
shocked when -- after no warning and no disclosure -- they are
assessed Incoming Wire Transfer Fees after receiving wire deposits
into their accounts," the Bank of America class action states.
Bank of America fined $150 million for alleged violations
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Office of
the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), meanwhile, levied a fine of
$150 million against Bank of America in July.
They issued the fine over claims Bank of America misled customers
about credit card bonuses, opened credit cards without consent and
charged account holders improper non-sufficient fund fees.
Bank of America's fine includes $60 million in civil penalties from
the CFPB and $90 million in civil penalties from the OCC. The bank
will also pay $80.4 million toward refunding customers who the bank
allegedly charged improper non-sufficient funds fees.
"Bank of America wrongfully withheld credit card rewards,
double-dipped on fees, and opened accounts without consent," CFPB
Director Rohit Chopra says in a statement.
In other banking news, Cornerstone Research released a report last
month that revealed bank investors made more securities class
action filings in the first half of the year than in all of 2022
combined.
The data, which appears in Cornerstone Research's 2023 Midyear
Assessment for securities class action filings, indicates the
increase in securities class action can partly be attributed to a
number of bank failures creating instability in the financial
industry.
"While filing counts rose by 23%, average filing size grew as well,
leading to increases of (maximum dollar loss) by 152% (the highest
semiannual total recorded) and (disclosure dollar loss) by 45%,"
the Cornerstone Research report states.
In another report released last month, the Federal Reserve says it
found standards across the residential home loan industry tightened
amidst a period of weakened demand.
The report, which consisted of surveyed bank loan officers, reveals
standards for all types of consumer loans have tightened, demand
for auto loans has dipped and credit card loans have remained
unchanged. [GN]
BANK OF AMERICA: Illegally Enrolled Customers, Jones Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MIA JONES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION;
and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00491 (W.D.N.C., August
4, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
North Carolina's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Truth in Lending Act, and the
Fair Credit Reporting Act, and for unjust enrichment.
According to the complaint, Bank of America employees illegally
enrolled customers in savings accounts, checking accounts, credit
cards, debit cards, and other similar banking products, without
their knowledge or consent. BoA's illegal account openings harmed
the consumers it defrauded. Unaware of the accounts created on
their behalf, consumers incurred fees from BoA for failure to keep
minimal account balances or reach spending targets. Affected
consumers also suffered negative impacts on their credit scores. In
addition, acting on the mistaken assumption that these financial
products were opened by identity thieves, consumers spent money on
credit monitoring services, says the suit.
Bank of America Corporation is a bank holding company, with its
principal place of business located at Bank of America Corporate
Center, 100 N. Tryon Street, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Bank of America, N.A. is a national banking association, with its
principal place of business located at Bank of America Corporate
Center, 100 N. Tryon Street, Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jean S. Martin, Esq.
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 559-4908
E-mail: jeanmartin@ForThePeople.com
jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
- and -
Dena C. Sharp, Esq.
Adam E. Polk, Esq.
Jordan Elias, Esq.
Nina R. Gliozzo, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com
apolk@girardsharp.com
jelias@girardsharp.com
ngliozzo@girardsharp.com
BEAUMONT JUICE: Muro Files Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beaumont Juice, LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Francisco Muro, an individual, on
behalf of himself, all aggrieved employees, and the State of
California as a Private Attorneys General v. Beaumont Juice, LLC
d/b/a Perricone Juices, Does 1-50, Case No. 23STCV19278 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 14, 2023).
Beaumont Juice, LLC doing business as Perricone Juices --
https://perriconefarms.com/ -- offer 100% fresh squeezed and all
natural fruit juices.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
KOUL LAW FIRM
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 761-5484
Fax: (818) 561-3938
Email: nazo@koullaw.com
BEST WESTERN: Mendez Sues Over Illegal Collection of Personal Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS MENDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BEST WESTERN INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 5:23-cv-03860-NC (N.D. Cal., August 1, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for violation of the California
Invasion of Privacy Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant aids, employs, agrees
with, and conspires with a third party, Meta Platforms, Inc.,
("Facebook") to eavesdrop on communications sent and received by
the Plaintiff and Class members, including communications that
contain their personally identifiable information (PII). After
collecting and intercepting this information, Facebook processes
it, analyzes it, and assimilates it into datasets like Core
Audiences and Custom Audiences. As a result of the Defendant's
misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members have been injured, says
the suit.
Best Western International, Inc. is an operator of a global network
of hotels, headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Emily A. Horne, 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: ltfisher@bursor.com
ehorne@bursor.com
BF SLEEP LLC: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BF Sleep LLC. The
case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. BF Sleep LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-06831
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
BF Sleep LLC doing business as Big Fig Mattress --
https://www.bigfigmattress.com/ -- is a relatively new brand
offering a heavy-duty hybrid mattress.[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
BLUE CROSS: Collins Sues Over COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate
------------------------------------------------------
Toyoka Collins, and others similarly situated v. BLUE CROSS BLUE
SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, Case No. 2:23-cv-12081-FKB-EAS (E.D. Mich.,
Aug. 14, 2023), is brought against the Defendant's COVID-19 vaccine
mandate which resulted in the Plaintiffs termination for not having
"sincerely held religious beliefs," is arising out of the
Defendant's violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
and the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act ("ELCRA").
The Plaintiff submitted a religious accommodation request for
exemption from Defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate and was
terminated for not having "sincerely held religious beliefs" on
January 5, 2022. Despite the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission ("EEOC") telling employers to "ordinarily assume that an
employee's request for religious accommodation is based on
sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance,"
Defendant did the opposite. Instead of respecting Ms. Collins's
religious beliefs, Defendant conducted a short, arbitrary interview
with her regarding whether she had taken other vaccines or over the
counter medications. Defendant then ignored the EEOC's warning that
employers "should not assume that an employee is insincere simply
because some of the employee's practices deviate from the commonly
followed tenets of the employee's religion, or because the employee
adheres to some common practices but not others" and terminated Ms.
Collins based on Defendant's subjective standard of religiosity.
All the while, Defendant did not require the customers, vendors, or
independent contractors on its premises to be vaccinated, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Group Maintenance
Technician from October 12, 2015 until her termination effective
January 5, 2022.
The Defendant is a domestic nonprofit organization with a principal
place of business located in Lafayette Blvd., Detroit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noah S. Hurwitz, Esq.
HURWITZ LAW PLLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
340 Beakes St. STE 125
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Phone: (844) 487-9489
Email: noah@hurwitzlaw.com
BLUE CROSS: Glass Sues Over COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate
----------------------------------------------------
Tracy Glass, and others similarly situated v. BLUE CROSS BLUE
SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, Case No. 2:23-cv-12082-PDB-DRG (E.D. Mich.,
Aug. 14, 2023), is brought against the Defendant's COVID-19 vaccine
mandate which resulted in the Plaintiffs termination for not having
"sincerely held religious beliefs," is arising out of the
Defendant's violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
and the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act ("ELCRA").
The Plaintiff submitted a religious accommodation request for
exemption from Defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate and was
terminated for not having "sincerely held religious beliefs" on
January 5, 2022. Despite the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission ("EEOC") telling employers to "ordinarily assume that an
employee's request for religious accommodation is based on
sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance,"
Defendant did the opposite. Instead of respecting Ms. Collins's
religious beliefs, Defendant conducted a short, arbitrary interview
with her regarding whether she had taken other vaccines or over the
counter medications. Defendant then ignored the EEOC's warning that
employers "should not assume that an employee is insincere simply
because some of the employee's practices deviate from the commonly
followed tenets of the employee's religion, or because the employee
adheres to some common practices but not others" and terminated Ms.
Collins based on Defendant's subjective standard of religiosity.
All the while, Defendant did not require the customers, vendors, or
independent contractors on its premises to be vaccinated, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Senior Project
Consultant from September 16, 1985, until her termination effective
January 5, 2022.
The Defendant is a domestic nonprofit organization with a principal
place of business located in Lafayette Blvd., Detroit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noah S. Hurwitz, Esq.
HURWITZ LAW PLLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
340 Beakes St. STE 125
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Phone: (844) 487-9489
Email: noah@hurwitzlaw.com
BOCA CENTER: Payne Seeks Stores' Equal Access to Disabled People
----------------------------------------------------------------
DENISE PAYNE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BOCA CENTER, INC., Defendant, Case No.
9:23-cv-81101 (S.D. Fla., August 1, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendant for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has discriminated, and
continues to discriminate, against the Plaintiff and similarly
situated people with disabilities by failing, inter alia, to have
accessible facilities. The accessibility issues at the Defendant's
facilities include, but not limited to: (a) some accessible parking
spaces are located on an excessive slope; (b) inaccessible routes
from the public sidewalk and transportation stop; (c) sales
counters at the facility are mounted to high; and (d) some
permanently designated interior spaces are without proper signage.
Furthermore, the Defendant continue to discriminate against the
Plaintiff and Class members by failing to make reasonable
modifications in policies, practices or procedures, when such
modifications are necessary to afford all offered goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations to individuals
with disabilities; and by failing to take such efforts that may be
necessary to ensure that no individual with a disability is
excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated
differently than other individuals because of the absence of
auxiliary aids and services, the suit alleges.
Boca Center, Inc. is an owner and operator of a commercial shopping
center at 23269 State Road 7, Boca Raton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
Beverly Virues, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 553-3464
Facsimile: (855) 205-6904
E-mail: ajperez@lawgmp.com
bvirues@lawgmp.com
BOGDAN DELIVERY: Rodriguez-Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bogdan Delivery LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Rigoberto Rodriguez-Gonzalez, on
behalf of himself and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals v. Bogdan Delivery LLC, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2023-0008229 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Aug. 3,
2023).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Bogdan Delivery -- https://bogdandelivery.com/ -- offers full
spectrum distribution logistics solutions to both business and
residential consignees.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel F. Gaines, Esq.
GAINES & GAINES, APLC
4550 E Thousand Oaks Blvd., Ste. 100
Westlake Village, CA 91362-3824
Phone: 818-703-8985
Fax: 818-703-8984
Email: daniel@gaineslawfirm.com
BOIL C & C: Fails to Properly Pay Restaurant Staff, Perez Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
NORMAN ADALID PEREZ LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE BOIL C & C CORP. (D/B/A THE
BOIL), DD76 INC. (D/B/A THE BOIL), DONALD NGUYEN, DIEU KHUU AKA
MIKE, and JENNY LAN ZHU, Defendants, Case No 1:23-cv-06741
(S.D.N.Y., August 1, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure
to provide wage notice, failure to provide accurate wage
statements, and failure to timely pay wages.
Mr. Perez was employed by the Defendants as a dishwasher and food
preparer from approximately 2015 until on or about February 15,
2023.
The Boil C & C Corp. is the owner and operator of a seafood
restaurant under the name The Boil, located at 139 Chrystie St.,
New York, New York.
DD76 Inc. is the owner and operator of a seafood restaurant under
the name The Boil, located at 40-11 30th Ave., Astoria, New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, PC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
BOODY NORTH AMERICA: Morgan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boody North America,
LLC. The case is styled as Paradise Morgan, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Boody
North America, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-05870-JGLC (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 3,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Boody -- https://boody.com/ -- makes super soft, breathable
clothing including tanks, tees, socks, leggings, and underwear out
of organic bamboo fiber.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
BRYAN CAVE: Meyer Sues Over Unauthorized Access to Personal Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROCK MEYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER, LLP, Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-04954 (N.D. Ill., July 28, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust
enrichment, invasion of privacy, and violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
Between February 23, 2023, and March 1, 2023, the Defendant lost
control over the highly sensitive personally identifiable
information(PII) of Plaintiff and other similarly situated
individuals in a massive and preventable data breach perpetuated by
cybercriminals. According to information and belief, the data
breach affected at least 51,110 individuals. The Defendant's
failure to timely detect and report the data breach made the
victims vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to
monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent
unauthorized use of their PII, says the suit.
In failing to adequately protect Plaintiff's and the Class' PII,
failing to adequately notify them of the breach, and by obfuscating
the nature of the breach, Defendant allegedly violated state and
federal laws and harmed Plaintiff and the Class.
Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, LLP is a law firm with its principal
place of business in Jefferson City, Missouri.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
Sharon A. Harris, Esq.
Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
77 W. Washington Street Suite 1220
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 440-0020
Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
E-mail: tom@a0ttorneyzim.com
sharon@attorneyzim.com
matt@attorneyzim.com
jeff@attorneyzim.com
- and -
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL CORP.
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: (916) 239-4778
Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com
BUCCANEERS LTD: Bid to Compel Cin-Q Deal Compliance Granted in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CIN-Q AUTOMOBILES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs v.
BUCCANEERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Defendant, Case No.
8:13-cv-1592-AEP (M.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli
of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Tampa Division, grants in part and denies in part:
a. the Plaintiffs' Motion Regarding the Claims Process; and
b. the Defendant's Motion to Compel Compliance with Section
VIII of the Settlement Agreement.
The cause comes before the Court upon the following filings: Motion
Regarding the Claims Process by Plaintiffs Cin-Q Automobiles, Inc.
and Medical & Chiropractic Clinic, Inc. ("M&C"), response in
opposition thereto by Defendant Buccaneers Team LLC f/k/a
Buccaneers Limited Partnership ("BTL"); and the Defendant's Motion
to Compel Compliance with Section VIII of the Settlement Agreement,
the Plaintiffs' response in opposition thereto, and Defendant's
reply. On July 17, 2023, the Court held a hearing on these
matters.
In an Order on Sept. 2, 2022, the Court addressed the notice
program and the extensive effort to protect the rights of absent
class members under the mandates of Rule 23. In contemplating what
the Plaintiffs and the Defendant agreed to in the Settlement
Agreement and in consideration of the due process rights of the
absentee Class Members and BTL, the Court found that direct mail
notice remained appropriate in the case.
However, considering the reliability and verifiability of the
reverse lookups conducted by third-party vendors TransUnion and
LexisNexis, and the unique circumstances presented by the case
where the facsimile advertisements were allegedly sent more than a
decade ago, the Court found that the best notice that was
practicable under the circumstances was to send direct mail notice
to all individuals and entities identified as a single match or as
one of multiple matches to a unique fax number in the TransUnion
reverse lookup and direct mail notice to all individuals and
entities identified as a single match to a unique fax number in the
LexisNexis reverse lookup, in addition to publication notice.
While the Court recognized that direct notice to multiple
individuals associated with the same unique fax number during the
relevant time period may be somewhat overinclusive, to not send
notice to those multiple matches would deprive direct notice to
Class Members. Notably, the Court highlighted that multiple
safeguards exist in the claims process, including that the claimant
must provide the fax number associated with the claim (which was
not included in the notice) and certify under penalty of perjury
that the information they have provided in the Claim Form is true
and correct.
Additionally, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement
Administrator, Epiq, can reject any claim that does not
substantially comply with the instructions on the Claim Form or the
terms of the Agreement or was postmarked later than the Claim
Deadline. The decision of Epiq as to whether a claim is valid is
final and binding upon the parties, subject to an appeal by a party
or any absent Class Member, which the parties will endeavor to
resolve without Court intervention. Any disputes regarding such
determination, including as to whether a claim is fraudulent or
valid, is subject to review by the Court. At the time, the Court
found that these were sufficient safeguards against non-class
member claims while reaching as many Class Members as reasonably
possible.
Fast-forward several months and we find ourselves in another
dispute, this time over the claims process. The Plaintiffs seek an
order clarifying that the Settlement Agreement does not limit
Settlement Class Member's recovery to five faxes and a maximum
award of $615, even if the claimant received faxes at more than one
valid fax number. Moreover, they seek an order directing Epiq to
send a defect notice or a request for additional information to
five categories of claimants that the parties have already agreed
to. On the other hand, BTL alleges that the claims process has been
plagued with numerous issues and Epiq should further investigate
almost every claim filed.
As previously noted, the Plaintiffs move for an order clarifying
that the Settlement Agreement does not limit Settlement Class
Members from recovering for more than five faxes and a maximum of
$615. Essentially, they argue that there is no cap to the number of
faxes a Settlement Class Member can recover an award for other than
that they cannot recover for more than five faxes to one unique fax
number. They also seek an order directing Epiq to send a defect
notice or a request for additional information to claimants in five
agreed-upon categories. Finally, the Plaintiffs seek an order
rejecting BTL's proposed additional "defect" categories, which
would result in every person who filed a claim during the claims
process to receive a defect notice or request for additional
information. In its motion, BTL seeks compliance with section VIII
of the Settlement Agreement, in particular, alleging rampant fraud
in the claims process and a need to seek more information from all
claimants.
Judge Porcelli holds that the Plaintiffs' interpretation is not in
line with the plain language of the contract and would lead to
inequitable results. Accordingly, he finds that the Settlement
Agreement limits a Settlement Class Member to recover up to $615
for five faxes regardless of the number of fax numbers the
Settlement Class Member claims. Moreover, he denies the Plaintiffs'
request for further notice to opt-out Settlement Class Members
given that the Settlement Agreement, Claim Form, and notices are
unambiguous about the potential recovery.
With respect to the addition inquiries regarding claims, BTL raises
five additional categories of claimants it believes should also
receive requests for additional information from Epiq:
1. Claims submitted by claimants identified by TransUnion;
2. Claims submitted by claimants identified by LexisNexis;
3. Claims submitted by claimants not identified on either
reverse lookup;
4. Claims submitted by claimants providing an address outside
the State of Florida; and
5. Claims submitted by claimants for which the reverse lookup
process identified multiple matches.
BTL concedes that the first two categories are the largest groups
and, in some sense, the most important, as a decision to send
requests for additional information to the first two categories
would largely obviate the need to make a decision with respect to
the other three categories. In response, the Plaintiffs seek an
order rejecting BTL's proposed requests for additional
information.
For the reasons stated at the hearing, at this time Judge Porcelli
does not see a need to seek additional information from these
group. This does not prohibit BTL from challenging any claims
directly to Epiq or raise those issues with the Court at a later
time. He agrees with BTL that additional information should be
requested from fax service provides and notes that it has already
directed Epiq to confer with the parties to determine an
appropriate process to identify claimants reasonably believed to be
fax service providers and request additional information from such
suspected fax service providers.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Porcelli grants in part and denies
in part the Plaintiffs' Motion Regarding the Claims Process as
follows:
a. Epiq, as agreed upon by the parties, will request
additional information from the following categories of claimants:
1. Claimants that submitted a Claim Form containing non-matching
fax numbers (i.e., any claim containing a fax number not matching a
number on the Biggerstaff list); 2. Claimants that submitted a
Claim Form containing a fax number also listed on another Claim
Form; 3. Claimants that submitted a Claim Form missing a signature;
4. Claimants that are potential government entities; and 5.
Business Claimants that were registered after the class period
(July 2009 to July 2010).
b. Denied in all other respects.
Judge Porcelli grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's
Motion to Compel Compliance with Section VIII of the Settlement
Agreement as follows:
a. Epiq will confer with the parties to determine an
appropriate process to identify claimants reasonably believed to be
fax service providers and request additional information from such
suspected fax service providers.
b. Denied in all other respects.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 26, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ydrx3w2r from Leagle.com.
BUCK EATS LLC: Antonio Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Buck Eats LLC, et al.
The case is styled as Jennifer Antonio, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, Petitioner v.
Buck Eats LLC, Buckhorn Enterprises LLC, Pickapple, LLC,
Respondents, Case No. 23CV006104 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty.,
Aug. 4, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Buck Eats LLC is a restaurant located in Woodland, California.[BN]
BYLT PREMIUM BASICS: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BYLT Premium Basics,
LLC. The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. BYLT Premium Basics, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-06827 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bylt Basics -- https://byltbasics.com/ -- is an online shopping
website that sells fashionable clothes and accessories for women
and men.[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
C&C GO CORPORATION: McKenzie Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against C&C GO Corporation,
et al. The case is styled as Tyrone McKenzie, on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of
other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private
Attorneys General Act, Petitioner v. C&C GO Corporation, Does
1-100, Respondents, Case No. 23CV005944 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Aug. 3, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
C&C GO CORPORATION is an Oregon Domestic Business Corporation.[BN]
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Falagrady Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brian Falagrady, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT, INC. d/b/a
HARRAH'S RESORT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 30-2023-01333152-CU-NP-CXC was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of
Orange, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on Aug. 4, 2023, and assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-01410.
The complaint alleges three causes of action: violation of False
Advertising Law; violation of Unfair Competition Law; violation of
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Maria C. Roberts, Esq.
Nicolas J. Echevestre, Esq.
GREENE & ROBERTS
402 West Broadway, Suite 1025
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 398-3400
Facsimile: (619) 330-4907
Email: mroberts@greeneroberts.com
nechevestre@greeneroberts.com
CALENDLY: Faces Class Action in California Over Privacy Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
TCPAWorld reports that so hate is a strong word, but I really
really really don't like Calendly.
They're this terrible software platform that integrates with
people's calendars and allows them to dismissively fire off a link
at others who are trying to schedule an appointment with them.
The conversations generally go like this.
Person 1: "Hi so-and-so are you available to connect tomorrow at 1
pm pacific."
Person 2: "I dont care enough to check but here's is my calendly
link and yo can figure it out and book the appointment. thanks."
So, so, so dismissive and lazy and awful.
100% chance that if you send the Czar a calendly link you will
never hear from me again.
Anyway, so it makes me a little happy -- just a little, honestly --
that Calendly was just sued in a MASSIVE new California Invasion
Privacy Act class action in California.
The suit is brought by a consumer Ms. Ringler who contends her
"keystrokes, mouse clicks, and other communications -- such as the
personal appointments scheduled on Calendly's Website -- were
intercepted in real time" by a company called Heap, Inc.
Heap allegedly collected realtime data including "(1) pageviews;
(2) clicks; (3) inputs; (4) tap and mouse clicks; (5) scrolls and
swipes; (6) long loading spinners; (7) session time (active time);
(8) rage clicks; (9) frequent refreshes; (10) site errors; (11) JS
errors."
Under California law it is illegal for a third-party to read or
learn the content of a communication -- including communications
with web servers -- without the permission of all parties (but you
PLAINLY already know that since you subscribe to cipaworld.com!).
So if Calendly was giving Heap real time access . . . well . . . it
is in a HEAP of trouble.
*fist bump*
Anyhoo, the case is brought by Bursor and Fisher -- who pay talent
way above market because they have tons of money laying around --
contends "Calendly enabled, allowed, or otherwise procured Heap to
intercept communications between Calendly and visitors to the
Calendly Website through a contractual arrangement."
The suit seeks $5,000.00 per visitor on the Calendly website and
seeks to represent a class of everybody who was intercepted by Heap
on the Calendly site.
Now I sort of wish I used the Calendly platform -- that's good
money.
You can read the complaint here: CIPA Class Action Against
Calendly
And if you want to know more about the scourge of CIPA cases
plaguing American businesses be sure to check out this video
breaking them down: [GN]
CANADA: Discriminates Refugee Claimants, Class Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ann Hui, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that the federal
government knowingly discriminated against tens of thousands of
refugee claimants over the course of several years, according to a
lawsuit filed on behalf of former asylum seekers in Canada.
The proposed class action suit filed by two refugees, Piotr Kaczor
and Aniko Serban, centres around the "designated country of origin"
policy used by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada between
2010 and 2019. The policy, which was created by the Harper
government to deter abuse of the system, made the refugee
application process especially challenging for asylum claimants
coming from countries which the Canadian government had
predetermined as "safe." [GN]
CANADA: Toronto Police Faces Class Action Over "Carding" Practice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Black Legal Action Centre (BLAC) and McCarthy Tétrault LLP
have commenced a class action against the Toronto Police Service
for the practice of "Carding", which has disproportionately been
used to harass and intimidate Black and Indigenous people. The
action names as defendants the Toronto Police Services Board and
former and current Chiefs of Police Bill Blair, Mark Saunders,
James Ramer, and Myron Demkiw. The proposed class includes Black,
First Nations, Inuit and Métis people who were Carded by the
Toronto Police Service since 2011.
Carding refers to the police practice of stopping individuals
without any suspicion of involvement in criminal activity, seizing
their personal information, and retaining this information for law
enforcement purposes. The Toronto Police Service has, and continues
to, disproportionately Card members of Toronto's Black and
Indigenous communities. Once Carded, the Toronto Police Service
maintains a permanent record of their personal information, which
it uses for law enforcement purposes and shares with other
agencies.
The Statement of Claim, issued on August 14, 2023, alleges that the
Toronto Police Service's historical and ongoing use of Carding
breaches the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the
Ontario Human Rights Code, was negligent, and unlawfully intruded
upon the seclusion of the Class members. The claim seeks immediate
injunctive relief to reform police practices, together with
compensation for members of the proposed class.
Ayaan Farah, a 38 year-old Somali-Canadian, is the proposed
representative plaintiff. The Toronto Police Service Carded Ms.
Farah. She had done nothing wrong and she was not the subject of
any criminal investigation. At the time, Ms. Farah was an employee
of an airline, and she was required to have a security clearance as
a condition of her employment. Once she was Carded, Ms. Farah was
"known to police" and her security clearance was revoked. She was
immediately suspended from her job without pay. Ms. Farah was only
able to resume her employment some 21 months later after
successfully challenging the denial of her security clearance in
court.
Like so many members of the proposed class, Carding was a nightmare
experience for Ms. Farah that had far-reaching consequences. In
Canada, people enjoy the fundamental right to move freely and
without arbitrary detention by police officers. However, Carding
has made members of the Black and Indigenous communities fearful to
walk down the street; made them feel like criminals because of
their racial or ethnic identity; and made them feel like
second-class citizens, denied the right to live their lives without
baseless police interference.
Ms. Farah states "hopefully, this case will cause the police to
rethink their practices. There must be a way to keep our
communities safe without intimidating and harassing innocent
people."
Danette Edwards, Legal Director at BLAC and co-counsel to Ms.
Farah, states that "BLAC is dedicated to pursuing litigation that
can advance the rights of the most vulnerable members of Toronto's
Black communities. We have repeatedly heard stories of members of
the community being discriminatorily Carded. These interactions
often leave our clients feeling distraught, vulnerable and unsafe
and harken back to the days when Slavery allowed police to stop,
question and arrest Black people going about their daily business.
We are keen to pursue justice for these individuals and determined
to stop this reprehensible practice."
Solomon McKenzie, an associate at McCarthy Tétrault LLP and
co-counsel for Ms. Farah states that "the Toronto Police Service
has continued the practice of carding for decades. They have
maintained this practice despite repeated statements from community
members and leaders, advocates, public inquiries, academics,
representatives of the United Nations, and the Defendants' own
studies, which collectively confirm that Carding is discriminatory,
has harmful impacts on Black and Indigenous communities, and is an
ineffective tool for policing."
Atrisha Lewis, a partner at McCarthy Tétrault LLP and co-counsel
for Ms. Farah, states "I would particularly note the words of Chief
Justice of Ontario Michael Tulloch, whose 2018 "Report of the
Independent Street Checks Review" stated that 'Carding is a
practice that no longer has any place in modern policing'."
This case comes at an important juncture. The Ontario Human Rights
Commission is due to release its report on anti-Black racism in
Ontario policing, which is widely expected to confirm that the
practice remains endemic. The report comes as Ontario is in the
midst of implementing the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019,
which is set to replace the Police Services Act. As part of this
implementation, Ontario is seeking to amend various regulations,
including the regulations that fail to adequately control the
practice of Carding. This is an opportunity to ensure that the
Toronto Police Service does not continue to repeat the mistakes of
the past.
A 2013 class action sought to address the Toronto Police Service's
practice of Carding but failed to advance to a motion for
certification. Ms. Farah is committed to seeing her action through
to a successful resolution, and she invites the Toronto Police
Service and policymakers to a discussion about how to rebuild trust
with communities that have faced longstanding discrimination at the
hands of law enforcement.
If you identify as Black, First Nations, Inuit or Métis and have
been a victim of Carding since 2011, please leave a message for the
lawyers for Ms. Farah at 1-877-244-7711 extension 542300 or send an
email to cardingtoronto@mccarthy.ca.
For more information on the Carding class action, visit
https://www.mccarthy.ca/en/carding-class-action. [GN]
CAPITAL ONE BANK: Savett Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital One Bank,
N.A. The case is styled as Scott C. Savett, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Capital One Bank, N.A.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00890-RDA-JFA (E.D. Va., July 10, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Capital One Bank (USA), National Association --
https://www.capitalone.com/ -- operates as a bank. The Bank offers
checking accounts, credit and debit cards, loans, insurance,
payment protection, phone banking, bill pay, lending, and online
banking services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew Bryce Kaplan, Esq.
THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM
1100 N Glebe Rd., Suite 1010
Arlington, VA 22201
Phone: (703) 665-9529
Email: mbkaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com
CARGILL INC: Judge Dismisses Cattle Ranchers' Antitrust Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Papscun, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a federal
judge dismissed antitrust claims filed by a putative class of
cattle ranchers suing some of the world's largest meatpackers in a
longrunning case that alleges an industry-wide scheme to fix beef
prices.
Meatpacking giants Cargill Inc., JBS SA, Tyson Foods Inc., National
Beef Packing Co., and Swift Beef Co. escaped a raft of allegations
by ranchers who indirectly sell them cattle via intermediaries. The
plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their central arguments, Judge
John R. Tunheim of the US District Court for the District of
Minnesota ruled on Aug. 17, and can't refile their complaint
without first gaining court approval on how they plan to amend the
claims.
Tunheim appeared doubtful of the ranchers' ability to save their
case, writing that they "have not shown how they would amend their
complaint to establish antitrust standing or otherwise overcome the
deficiencies in their first pleading."
The dominant meatpackers have faced years of litigation from
suppliers, retailers, and consumers over their alleged market
manipulation. The lawsuit is part of a wave of cartel litigation
involving livestock, agriculture, and protein. JBS, a Brazilian
meatpacker, reached a $52.5 million class action settlement with
beef wholesalers in September 2022.
A group of cow-calf ranchers -- the first step in the beef supply
chain -- alleged in an October 2022 lawsuit that the meatpacking
giants coordinated to reduce the volume of beef, thereby driving up
prices due to a steep drop in supply in 2015. That both harmed
consumers and retailers on one side, and suppliers like the
ranchers on the other, they said.
The meatpackers violated the Sherman Act's provisions against
price-fixing and market allocation and the Packers and Stockyards
Act, the ranchers said, in addition to two sets of state antitrust
and consumer protection laws. But Tunheim found the harm they
suffered was too far removed from the meatpackers' alleged price
and supply manipulation.
No ‘Causal Relationship'
There are too many stages in the beef supply chain -- and too much
time between the ranchers' sale of cows and meatpackers' purchase
of them -- to adequately establish standing for the Sherman Act and
Packers and Stockyards claims, Tunheim said.
He applied a 1983 antitrust standing test established by the US
Supreme Court in Associated General Contractors of California v.
California State Council of Carpenters. The test requires in part
that plaintiffs demonstrate a causal connection between the alleged
violation and the harm they suffered, whether Congress intended the
antitrust laws to address that type of harm, that the defendants
had "improper motive," and how directly the injury and market
restraint are connected.
"The Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to establish antitrust
standing under AGC," Tunheim wrote, referring to the high court
test. "They did not plausibly allege a causal relationship between
Defendants' conduct and their injury, or that their injury and
damages are in fact traceable to Defendants' actions. Plaintiffs
instead rely on inferences based upon the Court's prior analysis
for Class Plaintiffs, which is not informative here given the more
attenuated connection between Plaintiffs raising calves and
Defendants processing and packing beef."
He found similar issues warranted dismissal of the charges under
various state laws.
Tunheim denied the ranchers leave to amend the complaint, but said
they can file a letter with the court outlining their plans to fix
the standing issues, "which the Court will then consider and
determine whether leave to amend is warranted."
The case is In Re: Cattle and Beef Antitrust Litigation, D. Minn.,
No. 0:22-md-03031, 8/17/23. [GN]
CARVED LLC: Hernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carved, LLC. The case
is styled as Mairoby Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Carved, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-06811-PAE-VF (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Carved, LLC -- https://www.carved.com/ -- design and make unique,
handmade wooden goods that you'll be proud to carry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick William Gallagher, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 595-6200
Email: pgallagher@mizrahikroub.com
CATSKILL BARBECUE: Perez-Bustamante Sues Over Underpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Margarito Perez-Bustamante and Dicxon Ismael Sanchez Guardado,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. CATSKILL
BARBECUE, LLC; CONIFER TERRACE INC; SATMAR MEATS DIVISION OF
FLATBUSH INC.; ISAAC HIRSCH; and JACOB M. HIRSCH; jointly and
severally, Case No. 1:23-cv-05908 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2023), is
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the
N.Y. Lab. Law ("NYLL"), allege that the Defendants violated the
FLSA and the Defendants are liable to the Plaintiffs and Party
Plaintiffs for unpaid or underpaid minimum wages, overtime
compensation, and such other relief available by law.
The Defendants willfully failed to pay the Plaintiffs and party
Plaintiffs the applicable minimum wage. The Plaintiffs and party
Plaintiffs worked more than forty hours each workweek, yet the
Defendants willfully failed to pay the Plaintiffs and party
Plaintiffs overtime compensation of one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay the Plaintiffs worked a spread of hours more
than ten each day, yet the Defendants willfully failed to pay the
Plaintiffs spread-of-hours compensation. The Defendants unlawfully
deducted from the Plaintiffs' wages. The Defendants failed to
provide the Plaintiffs with a notice and acknowledgment at the time
of hiring. The Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiffs with a
statement with each payment of wages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants.
The Defendants' businesses is a supermarket or grocery store doing
business as Boosur Meat & Deli.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
277 Broadway, Suite 408
New York, N.Y. 10007-2036
Phone: (212) 229-2249
Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
Email: bsherr@zellerlegal.com
jazeller@zellerlegal.com
CENTENE MGMT: Class Settlement in Foon Suit Wins Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHELE FOON, on behalf of herself and other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, CENTENE
CORPORATION, CENPATICO BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, LLC, ENVOLVE HOLDINGS,
INC., and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Plaintiff's Notice of
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01420-AC (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge
Allison Claire of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California grants the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement.
The Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval came before the Court on
July 26, 2023, at 10:00 a.m.
Judge Claire grants the Motion for Final Approval, approves the
terms of the settlement outlined in the Joint Stipulation, and
finds that the settlement is, in all respects, fair, adequate and
reasonable and in the best interests of the Class and each Class
Member.
As previously ruled in the Court's Order Granting Preliminary
Approval, the Class, for settlement purposes only, satisfies the
requirements for a Rule 23 settlement class, and is defined as
follows: All California-based employees of Defendants from June 20,
2015 through July 16, 2021 (Class Period) as follows: (1) all
non-exempt remote employees who had work-from-home arrangements
that started prior to March 20, 2020; and (2) all exempt remote
employees who had work-from-home arrangements that started prior to
March 2020.
By the Order of Final Approval and Judgment, the Class
Representative will release, relinquish and discharge, and the
members of the Class will be deemed to have fully released their
Released Claims, as set forth in the Joint Stipulation.
Judge Claire directs the parties to effectuate the settlement
according to the terms set forth in the Joint Stipulation and her
Order.
As to the unpaid residue or unclaimed or abandoned class member
funds that remain in the Settlement Fund Account after 180 days due
to Class Participants' and PAGA Employees' failure to deposit or
cash their settlement checks, those funds will be sent to the State
of California's Unclaimed Property Fund in the Class Participants'
names.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(a) and (b), Judge
Claire enters a judgment based on the terms set forth in the
Settlement Agreement and reserves exclusive and continuing
jurisdiction over the litigation, the Class Representative and the
members of the Class, and Defendants for purposes of supervising
the implementation, enforcement, construction, administration and
interpretation of the Settlement Agreement and this Order of Final
Approval and Judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 26, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bdzttshr from Leagle.com.
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Morris Sues Over Unsolicited Robocalls
--------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE MORRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS (DE), INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01741-K (N.D. Tex., August 4, 2023) is
a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in a practice
of placing telemarketing calls to consumers in an attempt to
promote its products and services without having first obtained
their express written consent to place such calls. The Plaintiff
brings this class action complaint to stop the Defendant's
practices of (1) calling consumers nationwide using pre-recorded
messages who did not provide their prior express written consent to
receive them; and (2) calling persons listed on the National Do Not
Call Registry. The Plaintiff also seeks to obtain redress for all
persons injured by the Defendant's conduct.
Charter Communications (DE), Inc. is a telecommunications company,
with a principal place of business at 400 Washington Blvd.,
Stamford, Connecticut. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bart Dalton, Esq.
BROZYNSKI & DALTON PC
5700 Tennyson Parkway, Suite 300
Plano, TX 75024
Telephone: (972) 371-0679
Facsimile: (972) 637-9185
- and -
Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
519 W. 7th Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 312-8500
Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
E-mail: rpulliam@cpblaw.com
cross@cbplaw.com
CMFG LIFE: Hundley Sues Over Disclosed Info to Unknown Parties
--------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA HUNDLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CMFG LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 3:23-cv-00540-slc (W.D. Wis., August 7, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
implied contract, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the protected health information and personally
identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
customers stored within its network systems following a data breach
between May 29, 2023 and May 30, 2023. The Defendant also failed to
timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals
about the data breach. As a result, the PII and PHI of the
Plaintiff and Class members were compromised and damaged through
access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties,
says the suit.
CMFG Life Insurance Company is a provider of insurance and related
financial services, with its principal place of business at 5910
Mineral Point Road, Madison, Wisconsin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Blythin, Esq.
ADEMI LLP
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
- and -
Mark S. Reich, Esq.
Courtney Maccarone, Esq.
Gary S. Ishimoto, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
55 Broadway, 4th Floor, Suite 427
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: mreich@zlk.com
cmaccarone@zlk.com
gishimoto@zlk.com
COBHAM ADVANCED: Langston Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-------------------------------------------------------------
ARLENE LANGSTON, MICHAEL PHILLIPS, BRENDA PACLIK and CRYSTAL
FRANKLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. COBHAM ADVANCED ELECTRONIC SOLUTIONS, INC.,
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COBHAM ADVANCED ELECTRONIC SOLUTIONS,
INC., THE 401(K) PLAN COMMITTEE OF COBHAM ADVANCED ELECTRONIC
SOLUTIONS, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-30, Defendants, Case No.
5:23-cv-03785 (N.D. Cal., July 28, 2023) is a class action brought
pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,
against the Cobham United States 401(k) Plan's fiduciaries, which
include Cobham Advanced Electronic Solutions, Inc., the Board of
Directors of Cobham Advanced Electronic Solutions, Inc. and its
members during the Class Period for breaches of their fiduciary
duties.
The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period,
Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, as that term is defined
under ERISA, breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to
Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter
alia, (1) failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's
investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment
option was prudent, in terms of cost; and (2) maintaining certain
funds in the Plan despite the availability of identical or similar
investment options with lower costs and/or better performance
histories.
The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of
participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the
fiduciary duty of prudence, in violation of the law. Their actions
were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the
Plan and its participants millions of dollars, says the suit.
During their employment, Plaintiffs participated and invested in
the options offered by the Plan that are challenged in this
lawsuit.
Cobham Advanced Electronic Solutions, Inc. manufactures search and
navigation equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel L. Germain, Esq.
ROSMAN & GERMAIN APC
5959 Topanga Canyon Boulevard Suite 360
Woodland Hills, CA 91367-7503
Telephone: (818) 788-0877
Facsimile: (818) 788-0885
E-mail: Germain@lalawyer.com
- and -
Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
2933 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 233-4101
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com
- and -
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
COMERICA INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Comerica Incorporated (NYSE: CMA) resulting from
allegations that Comerica may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Comerica securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=16714 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On May 29, 2023, citing a review of "internal
documents," American Banker reported that "Comerica Bank officials
privately acknowledged significant compliance failures in their
operation of a Treasury Department program that provides federal
benefits on prepaid cards to millions of unbanked Americans[.]"
American Banker stated that "[a] Comerica executive said the Dallas
bank faced a 'serious contract violation' for allowing fraud
disputes and data on Direct Express and cardholders to be handled
out of a vendor's office in Lahore, Pakistan[.]"
On this news, Comerica's stock fell $1.40 per share, or 3.59%, to
close at $37.59 per share on May 30, 2023.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
COOPERATIEVE RABOBANK: Laydon Files Appeal in U.S. Supreme Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY LAYDON is taking an appeal to the Supreme Court of United
States from a ruling entered his lawsuit entitled Jeffrey Laydon,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Petitioner, v. Cooperatieve Rabobank U.A., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 20-3626, 20-3775, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.
The Plaintiff filed this class action complaint against the
Defendants under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and the Sherman
Antitrust Act and sought leave to assert claims under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) by engaging in
conspiracy to manipulate two benchmark rates known as Yen-LIBOR and
Euroyen TIBOR. The district court dismissed the CEA and antitrust
claims and denied leave to add the RICO claims. The Second Circuit
affirmed.
The appellate case is captioned Jeffrey Laydon, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioner vs.
Cooperatieve Rabobank U.A., et al., Case No. 23-80, in the Supreme
Court of United States, filed on July 27, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner JEFFREY LAYDON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Kevin K. Russell, Esq.
GOLDSTEIN, RUSSELL & WOOFTER LLC
1701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20006
E-mail: krussell@goldsteinrussell.com
ELEVANCE HEALTH: Fails to Protect Private Info, Marshall Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHONTAY MARSHALL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELEVANCE HEALTH, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-01326-RLY-MG (S.D. Ind., July 28, 2023) seeks to
remedy injuries on behalf of Plaintiff and all similarly situated
customers whose personal identifying information(PII) and personal
health information(PHI) were exfiltrated and compromised in a data
breach due to Elevance's impermissibly inadequate data security.
According to the complaint, the personal information of Plaintiff
and those similarly situated was exfiltrated by unauthorized access
by cybercriminals between January 28, 2023 and January 30, 2023.
Ultimately, Elevance deprived Plaintiff and Class Members of the
chance to take speedy measures to protect themselves and mitigate
harm. Simply put, Elevance impermissibly left Plaintiff and Class
Members in the dark -- thereby causing their injuries to fester and
the damage to spread, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered--and will continue to
suffer--from the loss of the benefit of their bargain, unexpected
out-of-pocket expenses, lost or diminished value of their PII and
PHI, emotional distress, and the value of their time reasonably
incurred to mitigate the fallout of the data breach.
Elevance Health, Inc. is a nationwide health insurance provider
with its headquarters and principal place of business located in
Indianapolis, Indiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon W. Smith, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
426 Bank Street, Ste 300
New Albany, IN 47150
Telephone: (812) 670-3313
Facsimile: (812) 850-6875
E-mail: brandonsmith@forthepeople.com
- and -
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Ra O. Amen, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
E-mail: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com
Ramen@forthepeople.com
EXPRESS SERVICES: Faces Patrice Wage-and-Hour Suit in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT PATRICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EXPRESS SERVICES, INC. d/b/a EXPRESS
EMPLOYMENT PROFESSIONALS, and GRASSFIRE, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
178715496 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 11th Jud. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., August
1, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from approximately July 1,
2022 to January 14, 2023.
Express Services, Inc., doing business as Express Employment
Professionals, is a staffing company, headquartered in Oklahoma.
Grassfire, LLC is a company that conducts canvassing operations
based in Oklahoma. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julisse Jimenez, Esq.
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
THE SAENZ LAW FIRM
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 482-1475
E-mail: julisse@legalopinionusa.com
martin@legalopinionusa.com
FEI LABS: $17.85MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 27
----------------------------------------------------------
If you purchased FEI or TRIBE tokens in the Genesis Event between
March 31, 2021 and April 3, 2021, a class action settlement may
affect your rights
A court authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation from a
lawyer.
Simpluris Inc. disclosed that a settlement has been proposed in a
class action lawsuit concerning the sale of "FEI" or "TRIBE" tokens
through the Fei Protocol in an initial sale conducted between March
31, 2021 and April 3, 2021, called the "Genesis Event." The
settlement will provide $17,850,000 to pay claims to persons and
entities who purchased FEI or TRIBE tokens in the Genesis Event. If
you qualify, you can submit a Proof of Claim form to get your share
of the settlement, exclude yourself from the settlement to retain
your right to sue, or object to the settlement. The amount of your
claim could be substantial.
The Superior Court of California for San Francisco County
authorized this notice. Before any money is paid, the Court will
have a hearing to decide whether to approve the settlement.
WHO IS INCLUDED IN THE SETTLEMENT?
You are a class member and could get a payment if you purchased the
digital assets FEI or TRIBE in exchange for ETH in the Genesis
Event conducted between March 31, 2021 and April 3, 2021, including
if you "pre-swapped" your FEI token allocation for TRIBE.
If you are not sure if you are included, you can get more
information, including a detailed notice and class definition, at
www.FEITRIBESecuritiesSettlement.com or by calling toll free
888-427-9229.
WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT?
The lawsuit claims that the sale of FEI and TRIBE tokens in the
Genesis Event was a sale of unregistered securities. The plaintiff
claims that this entitles persons who purchased FEI and TRIBE
tokens directly from the Fei Protocol in the Genesis Event to get
compensation. The defendants deny any wrongdoing, and the Court has
not found that any defendant has committed wrongdoing.
WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?
The settlement creates a fund of $17,850,000.00 ("Settlement Fund")
that will be used to pay class claims, settlement administration
costs, taxes, attorneys' fees and costs, and a potential service
award to the plaintiff. The Net Settlement Fund, which is the
amount left over after the Court approves any notice, claims and
administration costs, taxes and tax expenses, attorneys' fees and
costs, a potential service award to the Plaintiff who brought the
lawsuit, and other Court-approved deductions, will be divided pro
rata among all class members who timely file a valid Proof of Claim
form and do not exclude themselves from the settlement. The Net
Settlement Fund is estimated to be at least $13 million, if the
Court approves the payment of notice, claims and administration
costs, attorneys' fees and costs, and a service award for Plaintiff
in the full amounts sought.
Your share of the Net Settlement Fund will depend on the total
number of valid claims submitted, the amount of FEI and TRIBE
tokens you purchased, and the amount you recouped or could recoup
from selling or surrendering the tokens. All of the $17,850,000.00
fund will be paid out. Generally, if you bought more FEI and TRIBE
tokens, and have more losses, you will receive a greater payment.
If you bought fewer FEI and TRIBE tokens, and have fewer losses,
you will receive a lesser payment.
HOW DO YOU REQUEST A PAYMENT?
To qualify for a payment, you must submit a valid Proof of Claim
form and supporting documentation. You can download a paper version
of the Proof of Claim form or submit one online at the Settlement
Website www.FEITRIBESecuritiesSettlement.com. Proof of Claim forms
are due by October 1, 2023.
WHAT ARE YOUR OTHER OPTIONS?
If you do not want to be legally bound by the settlement, you must
exclude yourself by September 6, 2023, or you will not be able to
sue or continue to sue the defendants about the legal claims in
this case. If you exclude yourself, you cannot get money from the
settlement. If you remain in the class, you may object to the
settlement by October 1, 2023. For further information about your
rights to object or to request exclusion from the settlement, you
may visit www.FEITRIBESecuritiesSettlement.com, and in particular,
the full Long Form Notice, which can be found at
www.FEITRIBESecuritiesSettlement.com/long-form-notice.pdf.
The Court will hold a hearing on October 27, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. to
consider whether to approve the settlement, and a request by the
lawyers representing class members for approximately $4,500,000.00
in attorneys' fees and costs for investigating the facts,
litigating the case, and negotiating the settlement, as well as a
service award of up to $10,000.00 for plaintiff for litigating
class members' claims. These requested fees, costs, and service
award would represent approximately 25% of the settlement fund if
approved. You may request to appear at the hearing, but you do not
have to.
For more information, you may call toll free 888-427-9229, visit
the website www.FEITRIBESecuritiesSettlement.com, email
info@FEITRIBESecuritiesSettlement.com, or write to FEI TRIBE
Securities Settlement, P.O. Box 25243, Santa Ana, CA 92799.
FIFTYONE MERCHANTS: $750K Class Deal in Antezana Suit Has Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICARDO ANTEZANA, GEOVANNI RENDON, ABIBOU FAYE,
EMMANUEL MORALES, AND JOEL ROSAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. FIFTYONE MERCHANTS LLC
D/B/A VIA CAROTA, Defendant, Index No. 536229/2022 (N.Y.), Supreme
Court Justice Ingrid Joseph of the Supreme Court of Kings County
grants the Plaintiffs' unopposed:
a. motion for certification of the settlement class, final
approval of the class action settlement, and approval of
the FLSA settlement; and
b. motion for approval of mediator's fees, claims
administrator's fees, attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses.
The Parties entered into a settlement totaling $750,000 on Nov. 28,
2022, in a Class and Collective Action Settlement Agreement and
Release and filed for preliminary approval of the settlement on
Dec. 13, 2022.
On Dec. 13, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Final Approval
of Class and Collective Action Settlement, Claims Administrator's
Fees, Service Awards, and Attorney's Fees and Expenses. The motion
was unopposed, and Defendant took no position with respect to the
requests for attorneys' fees, costs or service payments.
On April 12, 2023, the Court entered an Order preliminarily
approving the settlement on behalf of the class set forth therein,
conditionally certifying the settlement class, appointing The Law
Office of Jeffrey E. Goldman as the Class Counsel, appointing
Ricardo Antezana, Geovanni Rendon, Abibou Faye, Emmanuel Morales
and Joel Rosas, as the class representatives, authorizing the
parties to retain Martom Solutions, LLC as the Settlement
Administrator, and authorizing notice to all Class Members.
Judge Joseph held a fairness hearing on July 25, 2023. No Class
Member objected to the settlement at or prior to the hearing.
Having considered the Motion for Final Approval, the supporting
declarations and exhibits, the oral argument presented at the July
25, 2023 fairness hearing, and the complete record in the matter,
for the reasons set forth therein and stated on the record at the
fairness hearing, Judge Joseph, pursuant to NY CPLR Section 901,
et. seq. confirms as final the Court's certification of the Class
for settlement purposes based on its findings in the Preliminary
Approval Order.
In the absence of any objections from Class Members to such
certification, the following Class: all persons who work or have
worked as a server, backwaiter, busser, runners, bartender, and
barback, at any time since July 1, 2015 through July 15, 2022.
Pursuant to 29 Section U.S.C. 216(b), Judge Joseph approves the
FLSA Settlement. She confirms as final the appointment of
Plaintiffs Ricardo Antezana, Geovanni Rendon, Abibou Faye, Emmanuel
Morales and Joel Rosas as the representatives of the Class, under
CPLR Section 901, et seq. She likewise confirms as final the
appointment of The Law Office of Jeffrey E. Goldman as the Class
Counsel for the Class pursuant to CPLR Section 901, et. seq.
Pursuant to CPLR Section 908, Judge Joseph grants the Motion for
Final Approval to the Agreement and finally approves the settlement
as set forth therein. She finds that the settlement is fair,
reasonable and adequate in all respects and that it is binding on
Class Members and FLSA Members who opted in pursuant to the
procedures set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order.
Judge Joseph finds that the proposed plan of allocation is
rationally related to the relative strengths and weaknesses of the
respective claims asserted. The mechanisms and procedures set forth
in the Settlement Agreement by which payments are to be calculated
and made to Class Members are fair, reasonable and adequate, and
payment will be made according to those allocations and pursuant to
the procedures as set forth in the Agreement.
As set forth in the Settlement Agreement, the amount necessary to
fund all payments to be made from the Settlement Fund is to be
issued by the Defendant to the Claims Administrator within 21 days
from the Effective Date of the Settlement. The Effective Date of
the Settlement will be the last of the following dates: (a) the
date 35 days after the entry of an order by the Court granting
final approval to the Agreement, if there are no appeals; or (b) if
there is an appeal of the Court's decision or order granting final
approval, the day after all appeals are finally resolved in favor
of final approval.
Within five business days after receiving such funds from the
Defendant, the Claims Administrator will distribute the following
payments: (a) paying the Class Counsel's Court-approved attorneys'
fees and costs; (b) paying the Court-approved Service Payments to
the Named Plaintiffs (c) paying the Claims Administrator's
Court-approved fees and costs; and (4) paying Participating
Claimants their portion of the Net Settlement Fund.
Judge Joseph grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
awards Class Counsel $250,000 which is one-third of the Settlement
Fund, which the Court finds to be fair and reasonable. She also
awards the Class Counsel reimbursement of their litigation expenses
in the amount of $5,622, which expenses the Court finds were
necessarily and reasonably incurred by the Class Counsel in
prosecuting the litigation. The attorneys' fees and the amount in
reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses will be paid from
the Settlement Fund.
Judge Joseph approves and finds reasonable the service awards for
the Named Plaintiffs each in the amount of $10,000 (totaling
$50,000), in recognition of the services they rendered on behalf of
the class. These service awards will be paid from the Settlement
Fund. She approves and finds reasonable the payment of the
Settlement Administrator's fees in the amount of $8,700, which will
be paid from the Settlement Fund.
The Final Order and Final Judgment and Dismissal with prejudice is
entered. Judge Joseph fully and finally dismisses the matter and
the litigation in its entirety and with prejudice. No party to the
litigation is or will be considered a prevailing party.
All Class Members and claimants are enjoined pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1651(a) from initiating or proceeding against the Defendant
and any of the Releasees as defined in the agreement. All Opt-In
Plaintiffs, the Class Members, and the claimants who sign their
respective settlement check(s), are enjoined pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1651(a) from initiating or proceeding against the Defendant
and any of the Releasees.
The Court retains jurisdiction over the action for the purpose of
enforcing the Settlement Agreement and overseeing the distribution
of settlement funds. The Parties will abide by all terms of the
Settlement Agreement and the Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 26, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/239r953d from Leagle.com.
GARNET HEALTH: Illegally Transmits Personal Info to FB, Gay Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DOLORES GAY and CORINNE JACOB, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GARNET HEALTH, Defendant,
Case No. 7:23-cv-06950 (S.D.N.Y., August 7, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of fiduciary duty/confidentiality,
invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment,
negligence, and violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act and the New York Consumer Law for Deceptive Acts and
Practices.
The case arises from the Defendant's installation and
implementation of the Facebook Tracking Pixel on its website,
https://www.garnethealth.org/, which secretly enables the
unauthorized transmission and disclosure of the Plaintiffs' and
Class Members' protected health information and personally
identifiable information as they used the Defendant's website. The
Defendant never disclosed to the Plaintiffs or Class Members that
it shared their sensitive and confidential communications via the
website with Facebook. As a result, the Plaintiffs and Class
Members were unaware that their private information was being
surreptitiously transmitted to Facebook as they communicated their
healthcare information and other private information via the
website, says the suit.
Garnet Health is a healthcare services provider based in
Middletown, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Vicki J. Maniatis Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (865) 412-2700
E-mail: vmaniatis@milberg.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-7300
Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com
- and -
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
Dylan J. Gould, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 E. Court St., Ste. 530
Cincinnati, OH 4502
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com
dgould@msdlegal.com
- and -
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
THE LYON FIRM
2754 Erie Ave.
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Telephone: (513) 381-2333
Facsimile: (513) 766-9011
E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
GARRISON PROTECTIVE: Goss Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
VASHON GOSS, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. GARRISON PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-05737 (E.D.N.Y., July 29, 2023) is a
class action brought by the Plaintiff seeking redress for late and
non-payment of minimum and overtime wages against Defendant in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant from February 2019 until June
2021. The job duties of Plaintiff, the Collective and the Class
included, but were not limited to the following: patrolling and
securing the assigned premises, greeting customers/patients and
visitors, customer service, general labor; heavy and light cleaning
and material moving, etc.
Garrison Protective Services is a provider of security guard
services in and around the City of New York and its metropolitan
area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David C. Wims, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID WIMS
1430 Pitkin Ave., 2nd Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11233
Telephone: (646) 393-9550
GOLDMAN SACHS: 2nd Circuit Reverses Class Certification Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP on Aug. 14 disclosed that in the most
closely watched securities case in recent years, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the certification of a
class of Goldman Sachs shareholders and instructed the district
court to decertify the class. The August 10 ruling in this
13-year-old lawsuit follows a favorable ruling for Goldman Sachs by
the U.S. Supreme Court in 2021. Goldman Sachs also achieved a rare
feat in securing three discretionary Rule 23(f) appeals of a grant
of class certification from the Second Circuit, marking just the
second time this has happened.
The Second Circuit's opinion will be a critical precedent for
securities class actions moving forward. It adds important
guardrails to the increasingly popular "inflation-maintenance"
theory of securities fraud and may help curb event-driven
securities litigation. These cases are often filed after a
significant disruptive event at a company causes its stock to drop
-- such as an environmental disaster, data privacy breach,
employment scandal or government investigation -- as opposed to
litigation based on accounting or financial misrepresentations.
This case dates back to the 2008 financial crisis and alleged
conflicts of interests in Goldman Sachs investment vehicles
relating to subprime mortgages. Plaintiffs claimed that those
alleged conflicts contradicted generic statements made by Goldman
Sachs about its corporate principles and conflicts management
procedures, which had supposedly inflated the price of Goldman
Sachs stock.
The Second Circuit panel unanimously voted to decertify. Judges
Richard Wesley and Denny Chin began their 70-page majority opinion
by acknowledging that this case presented a "challenging question"
of how to interpret the "fraud-on-the-market" presumption of
class-wide reliance established by the Supreme Court in Basic v.
Levinson. Relying heavily on expert evidence developed by S&C over
the lengthy history of the case, the Second Circuit agreed with
Goldman Sachs that the district court had failed to meaningfully
apply the framework established by the Supreme Court and had
improperly extended the inflation-maintenance theory. Providing
guidance for future cases, the appeals court set out the
"searching" review standard courts should apply when shareholder
plaintiffs claim that stock price declines in response to negative
news show that earlier generic statements fraudulently inflated a
company's stock price.
Judge Richard Sullivan, who had agreed with Goldman Sachs in the
Second Circuit's earlier reviews, stated in a concurring opinion
that he believed all along that the case was "straightforward."
Describing the extensive expert evidence developed by S&C, he
concluded that the "overwhelming evidence offered by Goldman"
renders this "not a close case." "Defendants offered persuasive and
uncontradicted evidence that Goldman's share price was unaffected
by earlier disclosures of Defendants' alleged conflicts of
interest."
The S&C team was led by Robert Giuffra Jr., David Rein, Richard
Klapper, Benjamin Walker, Julia Malkina and Morgan Ratner and
included Jacob Cohen, Eric Andrews, Albert Kwan, Michael Lemanski,
Krystal Valentin, Miles Greene and Esther Loh. [GN]
GUAM: Court to Hear Oral Arguments in Double Pay Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
John O'Connor, writing for The Guam Daily Post, reports that the
Supreme Court of Guam is set to hear oral arguments on Aug. 10 in
the nearly three-year-long case over double pay for government of
Guam employees working during the COVID-19 public health emergency.
Plaintiffs in the case have sought a substantial judgment of no
less than $100 million for all the double pay reportedly owed to
them and their represented class.
The issue of double pay for essential government workers arose
during the early months of the pandemic when the government was
operating at a limited capacity and some agencies were closed.
The public health emergency ultimately lasted about three years,
beginning in March 2020 and ending in January this year, although
restrictions on businesses and personal movement were relaxed
earlier than the actual end of the emergency.
A class-action lawsuit on behalf of GovGuam employees was initially
filed in October 2020 against the governor and various government
agencies. An amended complaint was filed in September of the
following year. The government of Guam moved to dismiss the lawsuit
in November 2021.
Plaintiffs alleged that Rule 8.406 of the Department of
Administration's personnel rules and regulations entitled them to
double pay and/or overtime pay during a public health emergency.
Sovereign immunity
By May 2022, the court had decided to dismiss the amended
complaint. A seconded amended class action complaint was filed in
July 2022, but by January of this year that seconded amended
complaint was also dismissed by the court.
Superior Court of Guam Judge Elyze Iriarte dismissed the second
amended complaint and stated that the plaintiffs failed to cure
defects in their complaint, and the court once again held that the
claims are barred by sovereign immunity -- the doctrine that a
government cannot be sued or tried in its own court.
There are ways around sovereign immunity. For example, GovGuam
waives immunity through the Government Claims Act, which sets
certain parameters for lawsuits and limitations on liability.
The court had explained that judicial review of a final adverse
action could also defeat sovereign immunity.
"The court held that there was no final adverse action for the
plaintiffs to appeal because they did not exhaust their
administrative remedies, and plaintiffs did not establish that
their claims fell within the Government Claims Act. Moreover, as it
relates to the futility argument, which plaintiffs raised once
again in their opposition to the motion to dismiss, the court held
that without an express waiver of sovereign immunity, plaintiffs
were still required to receive a final adverse action before
seeking for judicial review," Iriarte wrote.
Waived
In the second amended complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the
government waived sovereign immunity but provided no statutory or
factual basis, Iriarte stated.
The plaintiffs also stated that the court had already deemed
sovereign immunity waived through an initial decision and order,
but Iriarte said the court reviewed the issue further in a second
order and detailed that sovereign immunity was not waived.
According to Iriarte, while the plaintiffs also asserted that one
of them began the grievance process -- determined moot by a DOA
review board -- and asserted that this exhausted administrative
remedies and that any further attempts to resolve matters
administratively would be futile, that disregarded the court's
second decision and order, which explained that a final decision
from the Civil Service Commission is necessary to satisfy the
"final adverse action requirement" for defeating sovereign
immunity.
"Moreover, the asserted futility argument is irrelevant without an
express waiver of sovereign immunity, as explained in the second
(decision and order)," Iriarte stated.
Entitled
Following the January 2023 decision, the plaintiffs appealed to the
Guam Supreme Court.
Representing the plaintiffs, attorney Joshua Walsh stated that
government employees did not receive the pay they were entitled to,
and administrative pathways to grieve that lack of pay were
"ignored by the government, thwarted, or otherwise preempted by the
clearly articulated views of the governor and the attorney general
that the employees were wrong."
The employees then brought suit, and while the first judge to hear
the case "agreed that such administrative futility resulted in the
waiver of sovereign immunity," another judge reversed course and
dismissed the matter on sovereign immunity grounds, Walsh stated in
his Supreme Court brief.
"The employees contend that the Superior Court's determination that
administrative processes must be exhausted, even if futile, was
wrong, as it leaves them with no pathway to ever obtaining
meaningful judicial review. Sovereign immunity was waived, and
their claims for pay owed, declaratory relief and estoppel should
have been allowed to proceed forward," Walsh stated.
The plaintiffs have asked the Supreme Court to reverse the
dismissal of their calls and remand the matter to the Superior
Court with the instruction that they be allowed to advance their
claims beyond the initial pleading stage.
Attorney Joseph McDonald wrote the government's reply brief and
stated that government employees "eschewed administrative remedy to
their own detriment" and filed a lawsuit under "untried, creative
legal theories."
"Moreover, lacking any award from the CSC, or even a single attempt
to appeal a grievance under DOA (rule) 8.406 to that administrative
body, these employees have not and cannot show precisely how or why
any of their overtime and related claims are not barred by
sovereign immunity," McDonald wrote. [GN]
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Faces Class Action Over Wildfires
----------------------------------------------------
Spectrum News reports that three law firms filed a class-action
lawsuit against Hawaiian Electric on Aug. 12, alleging that the
utility's downed power lines significantly contributed to the
deadliest U.S. wildfire in more than a century.
The complaint, obtained by Spectrum News, claims that Hawaiian
Electric, which supplies 95% of the state's power, "inexcusably
kept their power lines energized during forecasted high fire danger
conditions."
On Aug. 4 -- four days before the fire swept Maui and leveled the
city of Lahaina -- the National Weather Service (NWS) warned Hawaii
could experience "indirect impacts" from Hurricane Dora, including
"strong and gusty trade wins" and "dry weather & high fire
danger."
The NWS issued a Red Flag Warning for portions of the Hawaiian
Islands, including West Maui. On Aug. 8. Despite Hawaiian Electric
officials' knowledge of these warnings, they failed to shut off the
downed lines, causing loss of life, serious injuries, destruction
of hundreds of homes and businesses, displacement of thousands of
people and damage to many of Hawaii's historic and cultural sites,
the complaint alleges.
The lawsuit is filed against Maui Electric Company, Limited
("MECO"); Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. ("HECO"); Hawaii Electric
Light Company, Inc. ("HELCO"); and their parent company, Hawaiian
Electric Industries, Inc. ("HEI") on behalf of the victims and
survivors of the Lahaina Fire. It was filed by the Honolulu and Los
Angeles-based law firm of LippSmith LLP, together with Foley Bezek
Behle & Curtis, LLP and Robertson & Associates, LLP.
"We have been representing thousands of homeowners across the state
of Hawaii for many years now, and we are humbled to represent the
victims and survivors of this tragedy," said Graham LippSmith, the
co-founder of LippSmith LLP.
The practice of deenergizing power lines during fire weather
conditions is commonplace in the Western United States, the suit
says. Public Safety Power Shutoffs ("PSPS") are used during Red
Flag and High Wind conditions to prevent wildfires, to protect
against dangerous conditions that could damage equipment and spark
a fire.
Power lines have been blamed for roughly half of the most
destructive wildfires in California history, according to
California's Public Utility Commission, and for many others in the
U.S.
The suit cites Jennifer Potter, a member of the Hawaii Public
Utilities Commission who lived in Lahaina on Maui, who said nine
months ago that the utility knew about the wildfire risk to Maui.
"There was absolutely knowledge within the state and within the
electric industry that fire was a huge, huge concern on the island
of Maui, and even more so than any of the other islands," Potter
said, according to the complaint.
It also cites a Hawaiian Electric funding request from June 2022.
That report says "[t]he risk of a utility system causing a wildfire
ignition is significant" and the company sought funding
specifically to "minimize the probability of the Companies'
facilities becoming the origin or contributing source of ignition
for a wildfire."
Potter, in the complaint, described said the utility was "not as
proactive as they should have been" and criticized them for not
taking meaningful steps to address their "inadequacies in terms of
wildfire."As of Aug. 13, at least 93 people are confirmed dead in
the Maui wildfires, the largest such toll in a U.S. wildfire in
more than a century. The Pacific Disaster Center and FEMA estimate
that the cost of rebuilding following damage from the Lahaina Fire
is $5.52 billion.
"This destruction could have been avoided if Defendants had heeded
the National Weather Service warnings and deenergized their power
lines during the predicted high-wind event," the complaint states.
A spokesperson Hawaiian Electric declined to comment on the lawsuit
in a statement to Spectrum News, saying that the company does not
comment on pending litigation as a policy.
"Our immediate focus is on supporting emergency response efforts on
Maui and restoring power for our customers and communities as
quickly as possible," the spokesperson said in an emailed
statement. "At this early stage, the cause of the fire has not been
determined and we will work with the state and county as they
conduct their review."
Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez announced an investigation into
the causes of the fire and potential shortcomings by officials and
agencies in the lead up to the blaze.
"My Department is committed to understanding the decisions that
were made before and during the wildfires and to sharing with the
public the results of this review," Lopez said in a statement on
Aug. 11. "As we continue to support all aspects of the ongoing
relief effort, now is the time to begin this process of
understanding."
Hawaii Sen. Mazie Hirono said she supported reviews, including
Lopez's, into state and local officials' efforts to warn residents
to evacuate ahead of the fire. There have been reports some
residents did not receive wireless emergency alerts and a
spokesperson for the state's Emergency Management Agency told the
Los Angeles Times that a network of outdoor sirens was not
activated when the fire began to blaze on Aug. 8.
"I'm not going to make any excuses for this tragedy," Hirono said.
"There will be time enough, I would say, for those kinds of reviews
and investigations to occur, but we are really focused as far as
I'm concerned on the need for rescue. [GN]
HCA HEALTHCARE: Glascock Sues Over Illegal Access of Health Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARCUS GLASCOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HCA HEALTHCARE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-00822 (M.D. Tenn., August 7, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
implied contract, unjust enrichment, bailment, deceptive trade
practices, and violations of the California Confidentiality of
Medical Information Act and the California Unfair Competition Law.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the protected health information (PHI) and personally
identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly
situated customers stored within its network systems following a
data breach. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach.
As a result, the PII and PHI of the Plaintiff and Class members
were compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to
unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
HCA Healthcare, Inc. is a healthcare services provider, with its
headquarters in Nashville, Tennessee. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
Cecily C. Jordan, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 682-5600
Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
cjordan@tousley.com
- and -
Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
Kenneth S. Byrd, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
222 2nd Ave., S. #1640
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (615) 313-9000
E-mail: mchalos@lchb.com
kbyrd@lchb.com
- and -
Jason L. Lichtman, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLC
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
E-mail: jlichtman@lchb.com
- and -
Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
Jalle H. Dafa, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLC
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
E-mail: msobol@lchb.com
jdafa@lchb.com
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Minnesota AG Urges Court to Strengthen Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stacie Van Dyke, writing for Valley News Live, reports that
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison announced on Aug. 14 that
he has led a coalition of seven attorneys general in urging the
federal court overseeing a private, consumer class-action
settlement involving Hyundai and Kia to strengthen the settlement
by requiring the companies to recall or buy back their theft-prone
vehicles and equip them with engine-immobilizer technology that the
vehicles currently lack. In a letter to the court, Attorney General
Ellison and the coalition stress that any measure short of this
will not stem the ongoing public-safety crisis of auto thefts,
dangerous joyriding and collisions, and violent crime that Hyundai
and Kia's theft-prone vehicles have wrought in Minnesota and across
the country.
Among the terms of the private consumer settlement as currently
proposed are a requirement that Hyundai and Kia provide a "software
upgrade" for only a certain subset of their vehicles that will
extend the length of the vehicles' alarm from 30 seconds to 1
minute and requires the key to be in the ignition to start the
vehicle. For vehicles for which this software upgrade is
incompatible, the settlement requires Hyundai and Kia to reimburse
consumers up to $300 for their purchase of a wheel lock or
anti-theft system.
In the letter that Attorney General Ellison led, he and the
coalition express grave concerns that these remedies are
insufficient to resolve the ongoing rash of Hyundai and Kia thefts
that continue to harm public safety. For example, the supposed
"software upgrade" is not feasible for approximately 2.3 million
theft-prone vehicles, is being slowly rolled out in phases that
will take months (or years) to complete, and requires consumers to
proactively seek it out. The attorneys general also explain their
serious concerns with the effectiveness of the "software upgrade,"
as it has already been available for six months or more in the real
world and during that time the high rate of Hyundai and Kia thefts
has not abated, with ensuing harms to public safety. For example,
in July 2023, the number of Hyundai and Kia vehicles stolen (313
vehicles) in Minneapolis alone was still more than 15 times higher
than it was in July 2021 (20 vehicles).
"This issue is simple: too many Kia and Hyundai vehicles lack
industry-standard anti-theft technology that nearly every other
vehicle in America has. Because Kia and Hyundai continue to refuse
to voluntarily recall these vehicles and install at their own
expense the technology the vehicles should have had in the first
place, public safety in Minnesota and across the country is still
at risk," Attorney General Ellison said. "I led this national
coalition of attorneys general to make sure the court overseeing
the private consumer class action is aware of the remedies we
strongly believe are necessary to put an end to this ongoing crisis
that Hyundai and Kai caused. No matter how the court ultimately
rules, however, our investigation will continue and we will take
any and all law-enforcement action necessary to protect public
safety."
The hearing for preliminary approval of the private consumer
class-action settlement will be held on Tuesday, August 15 at 3:00
pm Pacific Time before the Honorable James V. Selna of the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California in Santa Ana,
California.
Minnesota has experienced a drastic increase in Kia and Hyundai
thefts
People who want to steal cars are well aware of the lack of
anti-theft technology in many of Kia and Hyundai's vehicles, which
has led to a drastic increase of Kia and Hyundai vehicle thefts
throughout the nation, including in Minnesota. For example,
reported thefts of Kia and Hyundai vehicles increased by 836% in
Minneapolis and 611% in Saint Paul from 2021 to 2022. Some vehicles
have even been stolen multiple times in the same year.
These stolen vehicles have been used in violent crimes in Minnesota
and have been involved in numerous traffic collisions, some of
which have been fatal. For example, in Minneapolis alone, in 2022
Kia and Hyundai vehicle thefts were tied to at least:
-- Five homicides;
-- 13 shootings;
-- 36 robberies; and
-- 265 motor vehicle accidents.
These are not just numbers; they are public-safety incidents that
have caused substantial and serious harm to our neighbors and
communities. As just one example, in December 2022, a 14-year-old
boy lost his life in Minneapolis after getting into a
single-vehicle crash that involved a stolen Kia.
Joining Attorney General Ellison in the letter are the attorneys
general of the District of Columbia, Illinois, New Jersey, New
York, Pennsylvania, and Washington.
AG Ellison leading fight to make Kia, Hyundai vehicles safer
Attorney General Ellison has been leading the fight to make Kia and
Hyundai vehicles safer since early 2023. The letter to the federal
court follows Attorney General Ellison's announcement in March 2023
that he was launching a civil investigation into Hyundai and Kia's
sale of these theft-prone vehicles. The letter also follows an
April 2023 letter Attorney General Ellison sent as part of a
coalition of 18 attorneys general that called on the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration to recall Hyundai's and Kia's
theft-prone vehicles, as well as a March 2023 letter he sent with
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, and Saint Paul Mayor Melvin Carter
III to Kia and Hyundai that pressed the companies for an immediate
safety recall to stem the rise of thefts of their vehicles.
Attorney General Ellison's civil investigation is active and
ongoing.
Attorney General Ellison urges Minnesota consumers who wish to
report concerns about the theft or risk of theft of their Kia or
Hyundai vehicles to submit a complaint online or call the Attorney
General's Office at (651) 296-3353 (Metro area), (800) 657-3787
(Greater Minnesota), or (800) 627-3529 (Minnesota Relay). [GN]
IMAGINE360 LLC: McGee Sues Over Unprotected Health Information
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAWN MCGEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. IMAGINE360, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:23-cv-02910-GEKP (E.D. Pa., July 28, 2023) asserts claims for
negligence, negligence per se, and declaratory judgment against the
Defendant, arising from alleged exposure of Plaintiff and similarly
situated patients' personally identifying information(PII) or
protected health information(PHI) to unauthorized persons resulting
to the invasion of private health matters.
According to the complaint, despite Imagine360's duty to safeguard
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI, Plaintiff's and Class
Members' PII and/or PHI in Defendant's possession was accessed and
exfiltrated by unauthorized third parties during a data breach of
Imagine360's file-sharing software, which Defendant discovered
around January 30, 2023, but did not disclose for approximately
five months until June 30, 2023. As a direct and proximate result
of Defendant's inadequate data security, and breach of its duty to
handle PII and PHI with reasonable care, Plaintiff's and Class
Members' PII and PHI has been exfiltrated by hackers and exposed to
an untold number of unauthorized individuals, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly
increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft,
misappropriation of health insurance benefits, intrusion of their
health privacy, and similar forms of criminal mischief, risk which
may last for the rest of their lives. Consequently, Plaintiff and
Class Members must devote substantially more time, money, and
energy to protect themselves, to the extent possible, from these
crimes, the suit claims.
Imagine360 is a Pennsylvania-based health plan company that
develops health plan solutions for employers and also provides
self-funded health plan solutions for business owners and their
employees.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
jamisen@lcllp.com
nickc@lcllp.com
INTELLIHARTX LLC: McDavitt Balks at Illegal Access of Personal Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTI MCDAVITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INTELLIHARTX, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-01499-JGC (N.D. Ohio, August 1, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty,
unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the protected health information (PHI) and personally
identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly
situated customers stored within its systems following a data
breach which was discovered on or about February 2, 2023. The
Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly
situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the PII
and PHI of the Plaintiff and Class members were compromised and
damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and
unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
Intellihartx, LLC is a payment and collections service provider,
with its principal place of business in Findlay, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
nickc@lcllp.com
- and -
Jennifer S. Czeisler, Esq.
STERLINGTON PLLC
One World Trade Center, 85th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 433-2993
E-mail: jennifer@sterlingtonlaw.com
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD: Mullins Sues Over Unpaid Wages in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS NEAL MULLINS and JOHN R. SCHOLZ, III, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, a labor organization; SEAN
O'BRIEN, in his official capacity as General President of the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters; TEAMSTERS LOCAL 986, a
labor organization; CHRIS GRISWOLD, in his official capacity as
Teamsters Local 986 principal officer; and UNITED AIRLINES, INC.;
and UNITED AIRLINES HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-03939 (N.D. Cal., August 6, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for breach of the duty of fair representation,
breach of contract, violation of the Statutory Right to Due Process
of Grievances, fraudulent concealment and intent to deceive,
violation of the Labor Management Reporting Disclosure Act, and
violations of California Labor Code and California Business and
Professions Code including failure to timely pay all earned wages,
failure to pay agreed upon wages for all hours worked, and failure
to provide accurate wage statements.
Mr. Mullins and Mr. Scholz worked as a non-exempt quality control
lead inspector and a non-exempt hydraulic mechanical technician for
United Airlines, Inc., respectively.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters is a labor organization,
with its principal offices and headquarters in Washington, DC.
Teamsters Local 986 is a labor organization, with its principal
offices and headquarters in Washington, DC.
United Airlines, Inc. is an air carrier, headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois.
United Airlines Holdings, Inc. is a publicly traded airline holding
company, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jane C. Mariani, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JANE C. MARIANI
587 Castro Street, #687
San Francisco, CA 94114
Telephone: (415) 203-2453
E-mail: jcm@marianiadvocacy.com
JAGUAR LAND: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Battery Fires
------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that Jaguar
I-PACE battery fires have caused a class action lawsuit which
includes all 2019-2024 Jaguar I-PACE vehicles in California.
The Jaguar I-PACE battery fire lawsuit was filed by California
plaintiff Sharon Joyce who purchased a new 2020 Jaguar I-PACE in
July 2019.
In September 2019, she took the vehicle to a Jaguar dealer for
"various defects" and the repair order allegedly said, "during the
pre-delivery inspection, Plaintiff's Vehicle displayed reduced
electric vehicle range."
No repairs were made because there allegedly were no repair
procedures available.
In October 2019, she again took her I-PACE to a dealer for "various
defects" and technical service bulletin H247 was available for the
problem associated with a display warning of reduced range.
In January 2020, Jaguar issued technical service bulletin software
update H264 to deliver up to 12 miles of additional real-world
range on a full charge.
The lawsuit further alleges TSB H264 changed the battery to run to
a lower state of charge than before, and without affecting
performance.
The plaintiff contends she had to have her Jaguar towed to a dealer
where the vehicle registered diagnostic trouble code POABF-12 in
the battery energy control module.
The plaintiff's I-PACE suffered another high-voltage battery
failure in April 2023, "leaving her stranded in the middle of a
street and blocking people from exiting their parking spaces."
The I-PACE allegedly displayed a battery fault light, other warning
lights and then died. The Jaguar was towed and both the startup
battery and secondary battery were replaced.
Jaguar I-PACE Battery Fire Recall H441
According to the class action lawsuit, the plaintiff received an
I-PACE recall letter in July which said, "the high-voltage battery
may overheat which increases the risk of a fire and occupant injury
and/or injury to persons outside the Vehicle, as well as property
damage."
The recall letter said to be aware of battery fault messages,
popping sounds, burning smells, smoke and flames. The repair
includes a software update to "monitor the battery pack assembly
operational status that indicates where the battery contains
conditions which may lead to overheating."
Jaguar I-PACE owners were warned to park outside due to the fire
danger, and owners were also warned not to charge their vehicles
above 75% until repairs were completed.
Jaguar says the software update provides an "enhanced level of
driver warnings in relation to battery condition and where the
software determines a risk exists, the High Voltage battery
charging capacity is limited to 75%."
The lawsuit alleges Jaguar knew the battery systems were defective
even before the vehicles were built, and the software update
allegedly does nothing to protect the vehicles from fires.
Jaguar allegedly concealed the battery defects and dangers from
customers and the public. And when I-PACE owners complained about
battery problems, Jaguar dealers allegedly told customers there
were no repairs available.
When the Jaguar I-PACE battery recall was announced, Jaguar knew of
at least eight battery fires. And the lawsuit alleges this has
caused the I-PACE vehicles to lose their values.
The Jaguar I-PACE battery fire class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California:
Sharon Joyce v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, et. al.
The plaintiff is represented by Wirtz Law APC, and O'Connor Law
Group. [GN]
JOSE I. LANDSCAPING: Mejia Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS MEJIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOSE I. LANDSCAPING INC. and JOSE CANALES,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-05936 (E.D.N.Y., August 4, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to
pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to timely
pay wages, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide
accurate wage statements.
Mr. Mejia was employed by the Defendants as a mason, brick worker
and laborer from in or around December 2019 until in or around June
2023.
Jose I. Landscaping Inc. is a landscaping services company, with a
principal executive office at 192 Asbury Ave., Carle Place, New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
K5 GLOBAL: Liable to Fraud, FTX Collapse, Rabbitte Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK RABBITTE, MARK GIRSHOVICH, BRANDON ORR, LEANDRO CABO
(CABO), RYAN HENDERSON, MICHAEL LIVIERATOS, ALEXANDER CHERNYAVSKY,
GREGG PODALSKY, VIJETH SHETTY, CHUKWUDOZIE EZEOKOLI, MICHAEL
NORRIS, EDWIN GARRISON, SHENGYUN HUANG, JULIE PAPADAKIS, VITOR
VOZZA, KYLE RUPPRECHT, WARREN WINTER, and SUNIL KAVURI,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. K5 GLOBAL ADVISOR, LLC, SKYBRIDGE CAPITAL II, LLC,
SEQUOIA CAPITAL OPERATIONS, LLC, THOMA BRAVO, LP, PARADIGM
OPERATIONS LP, MULTICOIN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC, TIGER GLOBAL
MANAGEMENT, LLC, RIBBIT MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, and ALTIMETER
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-03953-DMR
(N.D. Cal., August 7, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the California's Unfair Competition
Law, the California's False Advertising Law, the California Corp.
Code, the Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and
the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' actions which contributed to
the collapse of the FTX Group. Specifically, these actions include,
but not limited to: (1) aiding and abetting and/or actively
participating in the FTX Group's massive, multibillion dollar
global fraud; and (2) promoting, offering, or selling unregistered
securities such as FTX's yield-bearing accounts ("YBA") and FTX's
native cryptocurrency token ("FTT"). Because of the Defendants'
schemes, the FTX Group imploded, and over $30 billion in value
evaporated almost overnight when the FTX Group filed its emergency
Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in Delaware. As a result of the
Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiffs and Class members suffered
damages, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs also bring claims for negligent misrepresentation,
intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, civil
conspiracy, aiding and abetting fraud, aiding and abetting
conversion, and declaratory judgment.
K5 Global Advisor, LLC is a venture capital firm based in
California.
SkyBridge Capital II, LLC is an investment management firm based in
New York.
Sequoia Capital Operations, LLC is a venture capital firm
headquartered in Menlo Park, California.
Thoma Bravo, LP is an investment management firm headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois.
Paradigm Operations LP is an investment management firm
headquartered in California.
Multicoin Capital Management LLC is an investment management firm
headquartered in Texas.
Tiger Global Management, LLC is an investment management firm based
in New York.
Ribbit Management Company, LLC is a venture capital investment firm
headquartered in California.
Altimeter Capital Management, LP is an investment firm based in
Boston, Massachusetts and Menlo Park, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eric I. Niehaus, Esq.
Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
Patton L. Johnson, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
E-mail: ericn@rgrdlaw.com
bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
pjohnson@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
Anny M. Martin, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 750-3000
Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
amartin@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
Hadiya K. Deshmukh, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Post Montgomery Center
One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 288-4545
Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
hdeshmukh@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
John C. Herman, Esq.
Candace Smith, Esq.
HERMAN JONES LLP
3424 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 1650
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone: (404) 504-6555
Facsimile: (404) 504-6501
E-mail: jherman@hermanjones.com
csmith@hermanjones.com
- and -
David Boies, Esq.
Alexander Boies, Esq.
Brooke Alexander, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Telephone: (914) 749-8200
E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com
aboies@bsfllp.com
balexander@bsfllp.com
- and -
Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
3250 Mary Street, Suite 202
Coconut Grove, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 740-1423
E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com
joseph@moskowitz-law.com
KRAFT HEINZ: Drink Enhancers' Natural Label "False," Phillips Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
TINA PHILLIPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 8:23-cv-01741 (M.D. Fla., August 4, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of 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 advertising; fraud; and
unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its blueberry
and raspberry flavored drink enhancer under Crystal Light brand.
The Defendant labels the product with "No Artificial Flavors" and
"Natural Flavor With Other Natural Flavor." However, these
statements are false and misleading because the product contains
D-Malic Acid, an artificial flavor. As a result of the false and
misleading representations, the product is sold at a premium price,
says the suit.
Kraft Heinz Foods Company is a food processing company, with a
principal place of business in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
[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
LINCARE INC: Faces Cowan Suit Over Agents' Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
KIA COWAN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LINCARE INC., Defendant, Case No.
8:23-cv-01690 (M.D. Fla., July 28, 2023) is a collective and class
action that arises out of Defendant's systemic failure to
compensate its employees for all hours worked, including overtime
hours worked at the appropriate overtime rate, in willful violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Nevada Wage and Hour Law, and
common law.
Plaintiff Cowan is a resident of Las Vegas, Nevada working for
Defendant as an agent from approximately November 2022 until March
2023.
Headquartered in Clearwater, Florida, Lincare Inc. is a provider of
oxygen and other respiratory therapy services to patients in the
home.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
Albert J. Asciutto, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
aasciutto@sommerspc.com
- and -
Bradley W. Butcher, Esq.
BUTCHER & ASSOCIATES
6830 Porto Fino Circle, Suite 2
Fort Meyers, FL 33912
Telephone: (239) 322-1615
E-mail: bwb@b-a-law.com
MANPOWER US: Faces Keopimpha Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES KEOPIMPHA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MANPOWER US INC.; MANPOWERGROUP US INC.;
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 23STCV18670 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
August 7, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the California's Private Attorney General Act
including unpaid minimum and overtime wages, meal and rest break
violations, inaccurate wage statements, unlawful deductions,
inaccurate wage records, Unreimbursed Business Expenses, sick leave
and seating violations, untimely payment of wages, and unlawful
agreements.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee
from in or around July 2022 through in or around October 2022.
Manpower US Inc. is a staffing agency doing business in
California.
ManpowerGroup US Inc. is a staffing agency doing business in
California.
Honeywell International, Inc. is a multinational conglomerate
corporation headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
Jamie Serb, Esq.
Brandon Brouillette, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, PC
9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (866) 276-7637
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
E-mail: zach@crosnerlegal.com
jamie@crosnerlegal.com
bbrouillette@crosnerlegal.com
MDL 2873: AFFF Exposure Caused Cancer, Madore Says
--------------------------------------------------
ROGER MADORE, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-03607-RMG (D.S.C., July 27, 2023) is a class
action brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated
individuals seeking 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).
According to the complaint, AFFF containing PFAS that was designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by the Defendants was
so hazardous, toxic, and dangerous to human health that the act of
designing, formulating, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and
selling this AFFF was unreasonably dangerous under the
circumstances. The AFFF designed, formulated, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, and sold by Defendants was defectively
designed and the foreseeable risk of harm could and would have been
reduced or eliminated by the adoption of a reasonable alternative
design that was not unreasonably dangerous. The Defendants'
defective design and formulation of AFFF containing PFAS was a
direct and proximate cause of the contamination of the blood and/or
body of Plaintiff and the persistence and accumulation of PFAS in
Plaintiff's blood and/or body, says the suit.
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. He was diagnosed with pancreatic
cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, the
suit asserts.
The Madore case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
E-mail: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
MDL 2873: Caverly Suit Alleges Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALAN JAY CAVERLY, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-03603-RMG (D.S.C., July 27, 2023) is a class
action brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated
individuals seeking 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).
According to the complaint, AFFF containing PFAS that was designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by the Defendants was
so hazardous, toxic, and dangerous to human health that the act of
designing, formulating, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and
selling this AFFF was unreasonably dangerous under the
circumstances. The AFFF designed, formulated, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, and sold by Defendants was defectively
designed and the foreseeable risk of harm could and would have been
reduced or eliminated by the adoption of a reasonable alternative
design that was not unreasonably dangerous. The Defendants'
defective design and formulation of AFFF containing PFAS was a
direct and proximate cause of the contamination of the blood and/or
body of Plaintiff and the persistence and accumulation of PFAS in
Plaintiff's blood and/or body, says the suit.
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. He was diagnosed with testicular
cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, the
suit asserts.
The Caverly case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
E-mail: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
MDL 2873: Garner Says AFFF Exposure Caused Illness
--------------------------------------------------
CURTIS DEAN GARNER, JR., Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota
Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.;
AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-03605-RMG (D.S.C., July 27, 2023) is a class
action brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated
individuals seeking 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).
According to the complaint, AFFF containing PFAS that was designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by the Defendants was
so hazardous, toxic, and dangerous to human health that the act of
designing, formulating, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and
selling this AFFF was unreasonably dangerous under the
circumstances. The AFFF designed, formulated, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, and sold by Defendants was defectively
designed and the foreseeable risk of harm could and would have been
reduced or eliminated by the adoption of a reasonable alternative
design that was not unreasonably dangerous. The Defendants'
defective design and formulation of AFFF containing PFAS was a
direct and proximate cause of the contamination of the blood and/or
body of Plaintiff and the persistence and accumulation of PFAS in
Plaintiff's blood and/or body, says the suit.
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. He was diagnosed with Graves disease
as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, the suit
asserts.
The Garner case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
E-mail: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
MDL 2873: Gregg Sues Over Exposure to AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------
ROGER A. GREGG, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-03606-RMG (D.S.C., July 27, 2023) is a class
action brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated
individuals seeking 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).
According to the complaint, AFFF containing PFAS that was designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by the Defendants was
so hazardous, toxic, and dangerous to human health that the act of
designing, formulating, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and
selling this AFFF was unreasonably dangerous under the
circumstances. The AFFF designed, formulated, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, and sold by Defendants was defectively
designed and the foreseeable risk of harm could and would have been
reduced or eliminated by the adoption of a reasonable alternative
design that was not unreasonably dangerous. The Defendants'
defective design and formulation of AFFF containing PFAS was a
direct and proximate cause of the contamination of the blood and/or
body of Plaintiff and the persistence and accumulation of PFAS in
Plaintiff's blood and/or body, says the suit.
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. He was diagnosed with prostate
cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, the
suit asserts.
The Gregg case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
E-mail: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
MDL 2873: Neubauer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
SANDA NEUBAUER, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-03608-RMG (D.S.C., July 27, 2023) is a class
action brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated
individuals seeking 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).
According to the complaint, AFFF containing PFAS that was designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by the Defendants was
so hazardous, toxic, and dangerous to human health that the act of
designing, formulating, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and
selling this AFFF was unreasonably dangerous under the
circumstances. The AFFF designed, formulated, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, and sold by Defendants was defectively
designed and the foreseeable risk of harm could and would have been
reduced or eliminated by the adoption of a reasonable alternative
design that was not unreasonably dangerous. The Defendants'
defective design and formulation of AFFF containing PFAS was a
direct and proximate cause of the contamination of the blood and/or
body of Plaintiff and the persistence and accumulation of PFAS in
Plaintiff's blood and/or body, says the suit.
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. He was diagnosed with Hashimoto's
disease and hyprothyrodism as a result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products, the suit asserts.
The Neubauer case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
E-mail: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
MDL 2873: O'brien Suit Alleges Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES O'BRIEN, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-03609-RMG (D.S.C., July 27, 2023) is a class
action brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated
individuals seeking 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).
According to the complaint, AFFF containing PFAS that was designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by the Defendants was
so hazardous, toxic, and dangerous to human health that the act of
designing, formulating, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and
selling this AFFF was unreasonably dangerous under the
circumstances. The AFFF designed, formulated, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, and sold by Defendants was defectively
designed and the foreseeable risk of harm could and would have been
reduced or eliminated by the adoption of a reasonable alternative
design that was not unreasonably dangerous. The Defendants'
defective design and formulation of AFFF containing PFAS was a
direct and proximate cause of the contamination of the blood and/or
body of Plaintiff and the persistence and accumulation of PFAS in
Plaintiff's blood and/or body, says the suit.
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. He was diagnosed with prostate
cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, the
suit asserts.
The O'brien case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
E-mail: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
MDL 2873: Toxic Aqueous Foams Exposure Caused Illness, Chapman Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH H. CHAPMAN, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-03604-RMG (D.S.C., July 27, 2023) is a class
action brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly situated
individuals seeking 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).
According to the complaint, AFFF containing PFAS that was designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by the Defendants was
so hazardous, toxic, and dangerous to human health that the act of
designing, formulating, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and
selling this AFFF was unreasonably dangerous under the
circumstances. The AFFF designed, formulated, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, and sold by Defendants was defectively
designed and the foreseeable risk of harm could and would have been
reduced or eliminated by the adoption of a reasonable alternative
design that was not unreasonably dangerous. The Defendants'
defective design and formulation of AFFF containing PFAS was a
direct and proximate cause of the contamination of the blood and/or
body of Plaintiff and the persistence and accumulation of PFAS in
Plaintiff's blood and/or body, says the suit.
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. He was diagnosed with prostate
cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, the
suit asserts.
The Chapman case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
E-mail: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
MILLERKNOLL INC: Aids FB to Collect Personal Info, Marquez Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MARQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MILLERKNOLL, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-03861-JCS (N.D. Cal., August 1, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the California Invasion of
Privacy Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant aids, employs, agrees
with, and conspires with a third party, Meta Platforms, Inc.,
("Facebook") to eavesdrop on communications sent and received by
the Plaintiff and Class members, including communications that
contain their personally identifiable information. After collecting
and intercepting this information, Facebook processes it, analyzes
it, and assimilates it into datasets like Core Audiences and Custom
Audiences. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff
and Class members have been injured, says the suit.
MillerKnoll, Inc. is a modern design company, headquartered in
Zeeland, Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Emily A. Horne, 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: ltfisher@bursor.com
ehorne@bursor.com
MISSOURI: Court Orders Powell to File Signed Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK POWELL, Plaintiff v. ANNE L. PRECYTHE, WARDEN
HANCOCK, MAJOR MINCHUE, LT. JONES, LT. HANNEWINKLE, and SGT.
MCDANIEL, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-CV-00893-NCC (E.D. Mo.),
Magistrate Judge Noelle C. Collins of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, orders the
Plaintiff to:
a. file a signed, amended complaint on a Court-provided form;
and
b. either file a Court-provided "Application to Proceed in
District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs" or pay the
$402 filing fee.
On July 10, 2023, 14 individuals incarcerated at the Missouri
Eastern Correctional Center ("MECC"), including the Plaintiff,
filed a "class action" lawsuit. The class action lawsuit names six
Defendants affiliated with MECC. The Defendants are accused of
allowing the Plaintiffs to be restrained with plastic zip-ties for
an excessive amount of time while the Correctional Emergency
Response Team searched their housing unit. Only one of the
Plaintiffs, David Wilson, signed the complaint, filed an
application to proceed in the district court without prepaying
filing fees and costs, and submitted a copy of his inmate account
statement.
Because the Court does not allow multiple prisoners to join
together in a single lawsuit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
20, new cases were opened for each individual plaintiff. The case
is one of the newly-opened cases brought by a plaintiff who did not
sign the original complaint.
Judge Collins holds that the complaint in this action is defective
for two reasons. First, the complaint is not signed by Powell.
Second, the complaint alleges violations of the rights of a group
of inmates as a whole, rather than describing the specific
constitutional violations alleged by each plaintiff individually.
Because the Plaintiff is representing himself, Judge Collins gives
him the opportunity to file a signed, amended complaint to set
forth his own claims for relief. The Plaintiff should type or
neatly print his complaint on the Court's prisoner civil rights
form, which will be provided to him. In the "Caption" section of
the form, he should clearly name each and every party he seeks to
sue.
In the "Statement of Claim" section, the Plaintiff should provide a
short and plain statement of the factual allegations supporting his
claim. It is important that he establishes the responsibility of
each separate Defendant for harming him. The Plaintiff is warned
that the filing of an amended complaint completely replaces the
original complaint. If he does not file an amended complaint on the
Court-provided form within 30 days as instructed, the Court will
dismiss the action without prejudice and without further notice to
the Plaintiff.
Finally, the Plaintiff has not paid the $402 filing fee, and has
not filed an "Application to Proceed without Prepaying Fees or
Costs." The Plaintiff must either pay the full filing fee or file
the application to proceed in the district court without prepaying
fees and costs (which the Court will mail to him) within 30 days of
the date of the order. If he does not timely comply with this
order, the Court will dismiss his action without prejudice and
without further notice.
Accordingly, the Clerk of Court will mail to the Plaintiff a copy
of the Court's prisoner civil rights complaint form and
"Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or
Costs" form.
The Plaintiff must file an amended complaint on the Court's
prisoner civil rights complaint form within 30 days of the date of
the Order. He must either pay the $402 filing fee or file the
application to proceed without prepaying fees and costs within 30
days of the date of the Order. If he fails to timely comply with
the Order, the Court will dismiss the action without prejudice and
without further notice.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 26, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4x473vx9 from Leagle.com.
MOREHART AIR: Mohr Seeks Over Installers' Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG MOHR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MOREHART AIR CONDITIONING AND HEATING LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-01535-MTL (D. Ariz., August 1, 2023) is
a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
Mr. Mohr worked for Morehart as a lead installer and crew member
from approximately October 2021 until September 2022.
Morehart Air Conditioning and Heating LLC is a provider of heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) services, headquartered in
Peoria, Arizona. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel R. Randall, Esq.
RANDALL LAW PLLC
4742 North 24th Street, Suite 300
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 328-0262
Facsimile: (602) 926-1479
E-mail: srandall@randallslaw.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
E-mail: 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
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
NATASHA ACCESSORIES: Faces Kaur Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
JASWINDER KAUR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATASHA ACCESSORIES LTD., GOKORAN SINGH, and
RAVIE SINGH, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06948 (S.D.N.Y., August
7, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay straight time wages,
failure to timely pay wages, failure to furnish wage notices, and
failure to furnish wage statements.
Ms. Kaur worked for the Defendants as a laborer in their warehouse
located at 30-30 60th Street, Woodside, New York from on or about
May 20, 2023 until July 11, 2023. He also brings claims under the
New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights
Law for discrimination, failure to accommodate, aiding and
abetting, and retaliation.
Natasha Accessories Ltd. is a jewelry wholesaler based in New York,
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amit Kumar, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 583-7400
E-mail: AKumar@CafaroEsq.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Race Discrimination Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that the
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) implements
so-called academic reforms to discriminate against Black student
athletes and teams from Historically Black colleges and
universities (HBCUs), a new class action lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiff Brenda McKinney claims the NCAA included metrics in its
new Academic Performance Program (APP) that the organization knew
would lead to discrimination against Black student athletes at
HBCUs.
McKinney argues the NCAA's decision to adopt and enforce the APP
represents a "pattern or practice of intentional discrimination
against Black student-athletes at HBCUs on the basis of race."
"The NCAA's design and implementation of the APP perpetuates a
system that punishes Black student-athletes at HBCUs because of the
HBCUs' unique and historical role in the education of Black people
within the systemic vestiges of discrimination," the NCAA class
action states.
McKinney argues the APP is designed to penalize NCAA teams that do
not meet or exceed a point scale based on team members' academic
performance, among other indicators, according to the NCAA class
action.
The formula the APP is based on, meanwhile, "includes metrics that
the NCAA knew would discriminate against Black student-athletes at
HBCUs," the NCAA class action alleges.
McKinney, a current member of the Grambling State University
women's basketball team, wants to represent a nationwide class of
all current Black student athletes at HBCUs participating in DI
athletics during the academic year 2022-23.
The NCAA is accused of violating Section 1981 and Section 1985 of
the Civil Rights Act. She is demanding a jury trial and requesting
injunctive relief and equitable relief for herself and all class
members.
A separate class action lawsuit was filed against the NCAA earlier
this year over claims the organization violated the Sherman Act by
allegedly conspiring with member schools to fix the compensation
for certain Division I college coaches.
The plaintiff is represented by William N. Riley, Russell B. Cate,
and Sundeep Singh of RileyCate LLC, Elizabeth A. Fegan, Melissa R.
Clark, and Ling S. Wang of Fegan Scott LLC, and LaRuby May, Je Yon
Jung, and Jessica H. Meeder of May Jung LLP.
The NCAA discrimination class action lawsuit is McKinney, et al. v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 1:23-cv-01372,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.
[GN]
ORRICK HERRINGTON: Faces Class Action Over March 2023 Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP failed to protect the personal
information of nearly 153,000 people that was exposed in a March
2023 data breach, a proposed federal class action said.
Dennis Werley alleged that the international law firm failed to
implement reasonable measures to ensure their computer systems were
protected, take adequate steps to prevent and stop the breach, or
provide timely notice to victims.
Information exposed in the incident included names, addresses,
dates of birth, and Social Security numbers, according to a
complaint filed Aug. 11 in the US District Court for the Northern
District of California.
Orrick declined to comment.
Werley and class members have suffered damages in the form of an
increase in spam telephone calls, an increased risk of fraud and
identity theft, invasion of privacy, reduced value of personal
information, and lost time and out-of-pocket costs incurred
mitigating the effects of the breach, the complaint said.
Werley seeks to represent a class of all people whose information
was exposed the in breach.
The lawsuit brings claims of negligence, negligence per se, breach
of fiduciary duties, breach of confidence, breach of implied
contract, invasion of privacy, and declaratory relief.
Werley seeks actual damages, statutory damages, punitive damages,
injunctive relief, equitable relief, attorneys' fees and costs, and
pre- and post-judgment interest.
Green and Noblin PC and Federman & Sherwood represent Werley and
the proposed class.
The case is Werley v. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe Int'l LLP,
N.D. Cal., No. 3:23-cv-04089, case filed 8/11/23. [GN]
PACIFICA OF THE VALLEY: Santos Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO SANTOS, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved
Employees, Plaintiff v. PACIFICA OF THE VALLEY CORPORATION, DBA
PACIFICA HOSPITAL OF THE VALLEY, a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 23BBCV01703 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 27, 2023) arises from the
Defendants' alleged unlawful labor policies and practices in
violation of the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to provide employment
records; failure to pay overtime and double time; failure to
provide rest and meal periods; failure to pay minimum wage; failure
to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage
statements; failure to pay reporting time wages; failure to pay
split shift wages; failure to pay all wages earned on time; failure
to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation; failure to
reimburse necessary, business-related expenses; and failure to
provide notice of paid sick time and accrual.
Representative Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants with the job
title of physical therapist on January 1, 2019 until present.
Pacifica of the Valley Corporation is a hospital & health care
center based in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
Melissa Robinson, Esq.
HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 696-2306
Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
melissa@hbklawyers.com
PERFECT AUTO: Faces Mendez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
EDGAR GUZMAN MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PERFECT AUTO REPAIRS INC. and
LUBNA SALEEM, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-05926 (E.D.N.Y., August
4, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide wage
statements.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an assistant,
cleaner and parking attendant from in or around November 2022 until
in or around May 2023.
Perfect Auto Repairs Inc. is an operator of auto repair shop, with
a principal executive office located at 3236 Green Point Ave., Long
Island City, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
PERFORMANCE HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over MOVEit Cyberattack
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Alder, writing for The HIPAA Journal, reports that
Performance Health Technology (PH Tech), an Oregon-based provider
of data management services to health insurers, is being sued by
individuals who had their protected health information (PHI)
compromised in a recent cyberattack. The attack on PH Tech was
conducted by the Clop hacking group, which exploited a zero-day
vulnerability in Progress Software's MOVEit Transfer file transfer
solution. The vulnerability was exploited on May 28, 2023, and
Progress Software informed PH Tech about the flaw on June 2. The
review of the affected files revealed that the data of several of
its clients was stolen, including that of the Oregon Medicaid
coordinated care organization, Health Share of Oregon. The
compromised information varied from individual to individual and
included names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, addresses,
member ID numbers, plan ID numbers, email addresses, authorization
information, diagnosis codes, procedure codes, and claim
information.
PH Tech was one of hundreds of companies to have the vulnerability
exploited. The Clop hacking group is known to have attacked at
least 677 companies by exploiting the vulnerability and the records
of more than 42 million individuals were stolen in the attacks. The
vulnerability was identified by Progress Software on May 31, 2023,
a patch was released to fix the vulnerability the same day, and
customers were immediately notified. PH Tech explained in its
notification letters that access to the platform was disabled as
soon as the vulnerability was discovered, the patch was applied
when it was released by Progress Software, and the MOVEit platform
was rebuilt to prevent further unauthorized access.
At least two lawsuits have now been filed in District Court in
Oregon in response to the data breach that name PH Tech as a
defendant -- Ballard v. Performance Health Technology, Ltd. & Malo
v. Performance Health Technology, Ltd. The Ballard lawsuit names PH
Tech customer Jordinn Ballard as the plaintiff, and the Malo
lawsuit names Katelin Malo as plaintiff, individually, and as the
natural parent and next friend of K.J., a minor, and Corrinna Reed
and Joann Kindred.
The lawsuits both allege PH Tech was negligent for failing to
secure the personally identifiable (PII) and personal health
information (PHI) of the plaintiffs and class members and failing
to comply with industry standards for protecting information
systems. The Ballard lawsuit claims PH Tech failed to monitor its
servers for potential security issues and the Malo lawsuit claims
that PH Tech's lax security was a violation of the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act's (HIPAA) Privacy and Security
Rules and a violation of FTC guidelines.
In addition to negligence, the Malo lawsuit alleges negligence per
se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations
of the Oregon Unfair Trade Practices Act. The lawsuit also seeks an
order from the court requiring PH Tech to improve data security,
including engaging third-party security auditors to conduct
testing, penetration testing, and audits of PH Tech's systems, run
automated security monitoring, train its staff, and improve access
controls and firewalls.
The lawsuits claim that the plaintiffs' sensitive data is in the
hands of cybercriminals and that they face imminent and ongoing
harm from the misuse of their data and will need to monitor their
financial and personal records for years to come. Both lawsuits
seek class action status, a jury trial, and damages in excess of $5
million. [GN]
POWERGRID PARTNERS: Underpays Wind Turbine Technicians, Moreno Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ADOLFO MORENO III, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POWERGRID PARTNERS LTD.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01525 (N.D. Ohio, August 4, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Alaska Wage
and Hour Act, the Massachusetts Wage and Hour Law, the New York
Labor Law, and the Vermont Minimum Wage Law.
Mr. Moreno worked for PowerGrid as a wind turbine technician from
approximately June 2020 until July 2022.
PowerGrid Partners Ltd. is a provider of wind turbine services with
its headquarters in Oregon, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.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
E-mail: 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
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
PRECIGEN INC: $13MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 19
-----------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARTIN JOSEPH ABADILLA, et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
PRECIGEN, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 5:20-cv-06936-BLF
CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING;
AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES
TO:
All Persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded shares of the common stock of Precigen Inc. (f/k/a
Intrexon Corporation) ("Precigen") (ticker: PGEN, formerly XON)
between May 10, 2017 and September 25, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period") and were damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"):1
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A
CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United State District Court
for the Northern District of California (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned litigation (the "Action") is pending in the Court.
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Lead Plaintiff in the Action, Raju
Shah, has reached a proposed settlement of the Action with
Defendants Precigen, its former chief executive officer, Randal J.
Kirk, and its former officer, Robert F. Walsh III (collectively,
the "Defendants"), that, if approved, will (i) provide for the
payment of U.S. $13,000,000.00 in cash for the benefit of the
Settlement Class, and (ii) resolve, settle, dismiss and release all
claims asserted in the Action against the Defendants (and their
Related Persons).
A hearing will be held on October 19, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. Pacific
Time, before the Hon. Beth Labson Freeman by telephone or
videoconference. At the hearing, the Court will determine (i)
whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be
dismissed with prejudice against all Defendants, and whether the
releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement, dated March 1, 2023 (and in the Notice) should be
granted; (iii) whether, for purposes of the proposed Settlement
only, the Action should be certified as a class action on behalf of
the Settlement Class, Lead Plaintiff should be certified as Class
Representative for the Settlement Class, and Scott+Scott Attorneys
at Law LLP ("Plaintiff's Lead Counsel") should be appointed as
Class Counsel; (iv) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should
be approved as fair and reasonable; and (v) whether Plaintiff's
counsel's application for an award of attorney's fees and
reimbursement of litigation expenses (including an award to the
Lead Plaintiff) should be approved.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class (a "Settlement Class
Member"), your rights will be affected by the pending Action and
the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement
Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice and Claim Form, you
may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims
Administrator, A.B. Data, Ltd., at Precigen Securities Litigation,
c/o A.B. Data, P.O. Box 173117, Milwaukee, WI 53217,
1-866-540-4950. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be
downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator
at www.PrecigenSecuritiesLitigation.com.
If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to receive a
payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form
postmarked (if mailed), or online, no later than November 25, 2023,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Claim Form.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper
Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution
of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be
bound by any releases, judgments, or orders entered by the Court in
the Action.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion
such that it is postmarked no later than September 26, 2023, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Plaintiff's Counsel's Fee and Expense Application,
must be filed with the Court and delivered to Plaintiff's Counsel
and defendant Precigen's counsel such that they are filed or
postmarked no later than September 26, 2023, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Precigen, the
other Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice. All
questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your
eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to
Plaintiff's Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to:
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
William C. Fredericks, Esq.
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Ave., 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
1-800-404-7770
scottcases@scott-scott.com
Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:
Precigen Securities Litigation Settlement
c/o A.B. Data
P.O. Box 173117
Milwaukee, WI 53217
www.PrecigenSecuritiesLitigation.com
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
1 Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement
Class by definition, as set forth in the long-form Notice of (I)
Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement
Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Attorney's Fees and
Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"), a copy of which may be
downloaded from the settlement website maintained by the Claims
Administrator at www.PrecigenSecuritiesLitigation.com
PRECIGEN INC: $13MM Class Settlement to be Heard on October 19
--------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARTIN JOSEPH ABADILLA, et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
PRECIGEN, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 5:20-cv-06936-BLF
CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING;
AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES
TO:
All Persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded shares of the common stock of Precigen Inc. (f/k/a
Intrexon Corporation) ("Precigen") (ticker: PGEN, formerly XON)
between May 10, 2017 and September 25, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period") and were damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"):1
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United State District Court
for the Northern District of California (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned litigation (the "Action") is pending in the Court.
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Lead Plaintiff in the Action, Raju
Shah, has reached a proposed settlement of the Action with
Defendants Precigen, its former chief executive officer, Randal J.
Kirk, and its former officer, Robert F. Walsh III (collectively,
the "Defendants"), that, if approved, will (i) provide for the
payment of U.S. $13,000,000.00 in cash for the benefit of the
Settlement Class, and (ii) resolve, settle, dismiss and release all
claims asserted in the Action against the Defendants (and their
Related Persons).
A hearing will be held on October 19, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. Pacific
Time, before the Hon. Beth Labson Freeman by telephone or
videoconference. At the hearing, the Court will determine (i)
whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be
dismissed with prejudice against all Defendants, and whether the
releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement, dated March 1, 2023 (and in the Notice) should be
granted; (iii) whether, for purposes of the proposed Settlement
only, the Action should be certified as a class action on behalf of
the Settlement Class, Lead Plaintiff should be certified as Class
Representative for the Settlement Class, and Scott+Scott Attorneys
at Law LLP ("Plaintiff's Lead Counsel") should be appointed as
Class Counsel; (iv) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should
be approved as fair and reasonable; and (v) whether Plaintiff's
counsel's application for an award of attorney's fees and
reimbursement of litigation expenses (including an award to the
Lead Plaintiff) should be approved.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class (a "Settlement Class
Member"), your rights will be affected by the pending Action and
the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement
Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice and Claim Form, you
may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims
Administrator, A.B. Data, Ltd., at Precigen Securities Litigation,
c/o A.B. Data, P.O. Box 173117, Milwaukee, WI 53217,
1-866-540-4950. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be
downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator
at www.PrecigenSecuritiesLitigation.com.
If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to receive a
payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form
postmarked (if mailed), or online, no later than November 25, 2023,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Claim Form. If
you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim
Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the
net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound
by any releases, judgments, or orders entered by the Court in the
Action.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion
such that it is postmarked no later than September 26, 2023, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Plaintiff's Counsel's Fee and Expense Application,
must be filed with the Court and delivered to Plaintiff's Counsel
and defendant Precigen's counsel such that they are filed or
postmarked no later than September 26, 2023, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Precigen, the
other Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice. All
questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your
eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to
Plaintiff's Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to:
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
William C. Fredericks, Esq.
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Ave., 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
1-800-404-7770
scottcases@scott-scott.com
Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:
Precigen Securities Litigation Settlement
c/o A.B. Data
P.O. Box 173117
Milwaukee, WI 53217
www.PrecigenSecuritiesLitigation.com
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
1 Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement
Class by definition, as set forth in the long-form Notice of (I)
Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement
Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Attorney's Fees and
Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"), a copy of which may be
downloaded from the settlement website maintained by the Claims
Administrator at www.PrecigenSecuritiesLitigation.com [GN]
PROMPTCARE COMPANIES: Faces Schiller Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA SCHILLER-EGLES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PROMPTCARE COMPANIES, INC.,
d/b/a PROMPT CARE COMPANIES INC., Defendant, Case No. 7:23-cv-06790
(S.D.N.Y., August 2, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay
agreed wages, failure to pay timely wages, and failure to provide
accurate wage statements.
Ms. Schiller-Egles has been employed at the Prompt Care in New York
as a respiratory therapist since approximately September 2019.
The PromptCare Companies, Inc., doing business as Prompt Care
Companies Inc., is a provider of respiratory products and infusion
therapy services, headquartered in New Providence, New Jersey.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
RACK ROOM: Assists Facebook to Intercept Information, Marquez Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MARQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RACK ROOM SHOES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:23-cv-03859 (N.D. Cal., August 1, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendant for violation of the California Invasion of Privacy
Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant aids, employs, agrees
with, and conspires with a third party, Meta Platforms, Inc.,
("Facebook") to eavesdrop on communications sent and received by
the Plaintiff and Class members, including communications that
contain their personally identifiable information (PII). After
collecting and intercepting this information, Facebook processes
it, analyzes it, and assimilates it into datasets like Core
Audiences and Custom Audiences. As a result of the Defendant's
misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members have been injured, says
the suit.
Rack Room Shoes, Inc. is a shoe store owner and operator,
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Emily A. Horne, 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: ltfisher@bursor.com
ehorne@bursor.com
ROLIMA GROUP: Misclassifies Metal Workers, Guerrero Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
JAIME GUERRERO, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROLIMA GROUP LLC dba METAL ARKT, a Florida
for profit Corporation, and MOISE MUTAL, an individual, Defendants,
Case No. 0:23-cv-61444-AHS (S.D. Fla., July 28, 2023) is a
collective action brought by the Plaintiff under the Fair Labor
Standards Act for wage and labor violations arising from
Defendants' intentional misclassification of its employees as
independent contractors, and for unpaid overtime wages in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Rolima Group as a metal worker for
eight years. He seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages for every
hour worked over 40 during his employment, liquidated damages, and
any other relief as allowable by law.
Rolima Group LLC is a for profit limited liability company formed
and organized under the laws of Florida, which does business as
METAL ARKT, with a boutique retail business located in Hallandale
Beach, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Suhaill M. Morales, Esq.
SMM LAW P.A.
5803 NW 151 Street, Suite 205
Miami Lakes, FL 33014
Telephone: (305) 518-7026
E-mail: Smorales@smmlawfirm.com
RUANE CUNNIFF: $124.62MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 23
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miller Shah LLP on Aug. 17 disclosed that the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York has approved
the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement
that would benefit participants in the DST Systems, Inc. 401(k)
Profit Sharing Plan.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Civil Action No.
1:17-cv-06685-ALC-BCM
MICHAEL L. FERGUSON, MYRL C. JEFFCOAT and DEBORAH SMITH,
individually and as representatives of a class of
similarly situated plan participants and beneficiaries, and on
behalf of the DST SYSTEMS, INC. 401(K) PROFIT SHARING PLAN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
RUANE, CUNNIFF & GOLDFARB INC., et al.
Defendants.
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND
SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING
TO: ALL CURRENT AND FORMER PARTICIPANTS IN THE DST SYSTEMS, INC.
401(K) PROFIT SHARING PLAN (THE "PLAN") WHO WERE PARTICIPANTS IN
THE PLAN BETWEEN MARCH 14, 2010 AND JULY 31, 2016 AND DID NOT SERVE
AS FIDUCIARIES TO THE PLAN DURING THIS CLASS PERIOD.
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.
A FEDERAL COURT AUTHORIZED THIS NOTICE.
THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION. YOU ARE NOT BEING SUED.
A settlement has been preliminarily approved by a federal court in
a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiffs Michael L. Ferguson,
Myrl C. Jeffcoat, and Deborah Smith (collectively, "Named
Plaintiffs"), on behalf of the Settlement Class and the DST
Systems, Inc. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (the "Plan"), against
Defendants Ruane, Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc. ("RCG"); DST Systems,
Inc. ("DST"), the Advisory Committee of the DST Systems, Inc.
401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (the "Advisory Committee"), and the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems,
Inc. (the "Compensation Committee," and together with DST and the
Advisory Committee, the "Ferguson DST Defendants"), as well as
Robert D. Goldfarb ("Goldfarb," a defendant in a separate related
action). RCG, the Ferguson DST Defendants, and Goldfarb are
collectively referred to as "Defendants." Plaintiffs allege
breaches of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). This Settlement will provide
$124,625,000.00 to the Plan, subject to certain deductions for
Court-approved fees and expenses, including attorney's fees;
administrative costs; and civil penalties paid to the United States
Department of Labor. The net settlement amount after these
deductions will be allocated to Plan participants who had Plan
accounts during the Class Period. All capitalized terms not
otherwise defined in this Summary Notice of Class Action Settlement
(the "Summary Notice") have the meaning provided in the Settlement
Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") available on the Settlement
website (provided below). If you currently have a Plan account, you
will receive an allocation to your Plan account without taking any
further action. If you previously had a Plan account but no longer
have one, you will be sent a check unless you submit a Former
Participant Rollover Form. The United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York authorized this Summary Notice.
WHO IS INCLUDED IN THE SETTLEMENT?
If you were a Participant in the Plan at any time during the period
from March 14, 2010 until July 31, 2016, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), or you were a Beneficiary or Alternate Payee of any such
Participant, then you are a member of the Settlement Class (a
"Settlement Class Member"), UNLESS you: (i) were a member of the
Advisory Committee of the Plan during the Settlement Class Period;
(ii) were a member of the Compensation Committee of the Board of
Directors of DST Systems, Inc. during the Settlement Class Period;
(iii) otherwise served as a fiduciary of the Plan during the
Settlement Class Period; or (iv) are a beneficiary, immediate
family member, estate or executor of (i)-(iii).
WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT?
Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants violated ERISA by, among other
things, investing an inappropriate amount of the PSP's assets in
the stock of Valeant Pharmaceuticals ("VRX"), failing to timely
reduce and/or eliminate the PSP's investments in VRX, and, in the
case of the Ferguson DST Defendants, failing to adequately monitor
the fiduciaries managing the PSP's investments. Plaintiffs'
allegations are described in more detail in the Complaint(s)
available on the Settlement website. The Court has not made any
finding that the Defendants have done anything wrong or violated
any law or regulation. Both sides agreed to the Settlement to avoid
the cost and risk of further litigation.
WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?
Defendants have agreed to provide $124,625,000.00, which will be
divided among eligible Settlement Class Members after payment of
attorneys' fees to Class Counsel, to counsel who represent certain
Settlement Class Members who pursued arbitrations ("Arbitration
Counsel"), and to counsel who represent certain other Settlement
Class Members who filed separate actions in the Southern District
of New York ("Canfield/Mendon Counsel"); Case Contribution Awards
to Named Plaintiffs; payment of other costs and expenses of the
Settlement, including notice and claims administration, as the
Court may allow; and civil penalties payable to the United States
Department of Labor. The total attorneys' fees and expenses to be
requested from the Settlement Fund will be no more than
$25,125,000.00, with Class Counsel requesting an award of
$9,500,000.00; Arbitration Counsel requesting $15,500,000.00; and
Canfield/Mendon Counsel requesting up to $250,000.00, half of which
amount will be paid by Arbitration Counsel. Arbitration Counsel are
also paying a portion of their fees to Canfield/Mendon counsel on
account of assistance he provided in the arbitration matters. The
Settlement Agreement, other related documentation, and a list of
Frequently Asked Questions, available at the Settlement website
identified below, describe the details of the proposed Settlement.
Your share (if any) of the settlement fund will depend upon the
amount and value of your Plan account(s) during the Settlement
Class Period and certain other factors, including whether you
previously obtained any payment from any of the Defendants related
to the PSP's investment in VRX.
Please note that, if you executed a release in favor of any the
Defendants or had an award or judgment entered in connection with
any related proceedings against any of the Defendants (regardless
of whether you won or lost), you may still be able to obtain a
payment as part of the Settlement. If you already have received an
arbitration award related to claims concerning the PSP's investment
in VRX, as part of this Settlement you will receive at least the
amount of any unpaid damages against DST included in that
arbitration award. If you already received consideration (meaning a
monetary payment, account allocation or financial benefit of any
kind) as an arbitration claimant in return for execution of a
release in favor of any of the Defendants, you will retain that
consideration and, if you are entitled to a share of the Settlement
Fund according to the Settlement Agreement that is greater than the
amount of that consideration, you will receive a "top-off" payment
in the amount of the difference.
This Settlement releases any claims against Defendants relating in
any way to the allegations made in this case or in other lawsuits
or arbitrations involving the Plan, as well as any claims in any
way related to the Plan, its investments, fees, or performance, or
any action or inaction by any Plan fiduciary. This means that if
the Court approves the Settlement, you will not be able to pursue
any other lawsuit or other legal proceeding, including arbitration,
against any of the Defendants that asserts any claims in any way
related to any of the allegations made in this case or in other
lawsuits or arbitrations involving the Plan, or any claims in any
way related to the Plan, its investments, fees, or performance, or
any action or inaction by any Plan fiduciary.
The Settlement also will resolve a separate proceeding brought by
the Department of Labor alleging ERISA violations in connection
with the Plan.
HOW DO I RECEIVE A PAYMENT?
If you are a Settlement Class member, a current Participant in the
Plan, or a Beneficiary or Alternate Payee of a Plan participant who
has an active account in the Plan, and you are entitled to a share
of the Settlement Fund according to the Settlement Agreement, you
are not required to do anything to receive a payment. Your
Settlement Payment will automatically be calculated by the
Settlement Administrator, deposited into your Plan account, and
invested in accordance with your investment elections for new
contributions.
If you are no longer a Participant in the Plan, or you are a
Beneficiary or Alternate Payee of a Plan Participant who does not
have an active account in the Plan, you will receive your
Settlement Payment directly in the form of a check. If your address
has changed since you closed your Plan account(s), please contact
the Settlement Administrator toll-free at (866) 274-4044 or by
email to info@strategicclaims.net to advise of the change of
address.
If you are no longer a Participant in the Plan, or you are a
Beneficiary or Alternate Payee of a Plan participant who does not
have an active account in the Plan and you would prefer to receive
your Settlement Payment through a rollover to a qualified
retirement account instead of a check, you will need to submit a
Former Participant Rollover Form by the deadline contained on the
Settlement website. You may download the Former Participant
Rollover Form on the Settlement website.
CAN I OBJECT TO OR OPT OUT OF THE SETTLEMENT?
This is a mandatory settlement. You do not have the right to
exclude yourself from the Settlement in this case, but you do have
the right to object to it by writing to the Court. Your objection
may include objecting to the amount of attorneys' fees and expenses
requested by Class Counsel or any other counsel, the amount of Case
Contribution Awards requested by the Named Plaintiffs, and the
amount of civil penalties to be remitted to the United States
Department of Labor. You will be bound by any judgments or orders
that are entered in this Action, and if the Settlement is approved,
you will be deemed to have released the Defendants and associated
persons from all claims that were or could have been asserted in
this case, including all Released Claims as defined under the
Settlement Agreement, other than your right to obtain the relief
provided to you, if any, by the Settlement.
The Court will hold a hearing in this case on October 23, 2023 at
4:00 PM via telephone conference, with the Honorable Andrew L.
Carter, Jr., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, to consider whether to approve the Settlement and a request
by the lawyers representing all Settlement Class Members, Class
Counsel, as well as other counsel, for attorneys' fees, for Case
Contribution Awards to the Named Plaintiffs, for other case-related
expenses, and the civil penalties amount payable to the United
States Department of Labor. If approved, these amounts will be paid
from the Settlement Fund. You may ask to speak at the hearing by
filing a Notice of Intention to Appear no later than October 13,
2023, but you are not required to do so.
Although you cannot opt out of the Settlement, you may object to
all or any part of the Settlement and/or the Motion for Attorneys'
Fees filed by Class Counsel, the Motion for Attorneys' Fees filed
by other counsel, and the request for award of Case Contribution
Awards in accordance with the instructions included in the
long-form Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action and
Settlement Fairness Hearing available at the Settlement website
below. Objections must be received by the Court, by filing or by
mail, by no later than October 13, 2023. Please note that the time,
place and date of the hearing may change without a further mailing.
Class Counsel will update the Settlement website below if the
hearing time or location is changed. Please check the website or
contact Class Counsel if you wish to confirm that the hearing time
has not been changed.
HOW DO I GET MORE INFORMATION?
If you are a Settlement Class member and would like to receive
additional information or to receive a copy of the long-form Notice
of Proposed Settlement of Class Action and Settlement Fairness
Hearing, you can obtain such information by (a) sending a letter to
DST Settlement Administrator, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N
Jackson Street, Suite 205, Media, PA 19063; (b) sending an e-mail
to info@strategicclaims.net; (c) visiting the Settlement website at
www.strategicclaims.net/dst; or (d) calling toll-free at (866)
274-4004.
SCULPTOR CAPITAL: Juan Monteverde Investigates Rithm Sale
---------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2021 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:
Sculptor Capital Management Inc. (NYSE: SCU), relating to its
proposed sale to Rithm Capital Corp. Under the terms of the
agreement, Class A SCU shareholders are expected to receive $11.15
in cash per share they own. Click here for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/sculptor-capital-management-inc. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Denbury, Inc. (NYSE: DEN), relating to its proposed sale to Exxon
Mobil Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, DEN shareholders are
expected to receive $89.45 in cash per share they own. Click here
for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/denbury-inc. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
Neoleukin Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: NLTX), relating to its
proposed merger with Neurogene Inc. Under the terms of the
agreement, NLTX shareholders are expected to own approximately 16%
of the combined company. Click here for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/neoleukin-therapeutics-inc. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Bunge Limited, Inc. (NYSE: BG), relating to its proposed merger
with Viterra Limited. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/bunge-limited-inc. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
About Monteverde & Associates PC
We are a national class action securities and consumer litigation
law firm that has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders
and is committed to protecting investors and consumers from
corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers have
significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and
Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by
recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct.
Mr. Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019 and a Super Lawyers Honoree in
Securities Litigation in 2022-2023. He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2023 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's
recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory
that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the
Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm
successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a
writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States
Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019).
Also, over the years the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen
cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class
action cases.
If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
SELECT REHABILITATION: Underpays Therapy Assistants, Hovorka Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA HOVORKA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SELECT REHABILITATION LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-05192 (N.D. Ill., August 7, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a physical therapy
assistant from June 2012 until April 2022.
Select Rehabilitation LLC is a provider of physical therapy, with
its principal place of business located at 2600 Compass Rd.,
Glenview, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
6916 West Linebaugh Avenue, Ste. 101
Tampa, FL 33625
Telephone: (813) 639-9366
Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
E-mail: Mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com
STANDARD FIRE: Bid to Remand Fronberg Case to State Court Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NATHANIEL FRONBERG, and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-20, on
behalf of themselves and a class of people similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY (aka
"TRAVELERS"), an insurance company; and DOE INDIVIDUALS AND ROE
CORPORATIONS I-X, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00156 (D. Utah),
Judge Jill N. Parrish of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Utah grants the Plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state
court.
The Court originally scheduled oral argument on this motion for
Aug. 2, 2023. However, having reviewed the briefing, Judge Parrish
concludes that oral argument is no longer necessary. Accordingly,
she vacates the hearing.
On Jan. 23, 2023, Fronberg filed a complaint against Travelers in
the Third Judicial District Court of Salt Lake County Utah. He
asserted that Travelers had improperly delayed and denied his
automobile insurance claim. Fronberg sought to join a class of Utah
citizens who had their individual automobile insurance claims
improperly delayed or denied by Travelers as plaintiffs in this
case pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Utah Rules of Civil
Procedure.
On March 2, 2023, Travelers removed the case to this Court on
diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332. Fronberg
now asks the court to remand the case to state court because he
alleges that the amount in controversy threshold has not been
satisfied.
As a preliminary matter, Judge Parrish notes that Travelers has
taken inconsistent positions concerning the class action treatment
of the case. On the one hand, Travelers argues that this case
should not be treated as a class action because it has not been
certified yet. At the same time, in its notice of removal, it
attempts to aggregate the unnamed class members to meet the amount
in controversy threshold.
Judge Parrish is persuaded that Travelers has improperly aggregated
the claims of the unnamed class members. Even though the class
members share the common question of Traveler's liability, each
class member holds an independent insurance contract with
Travelers. Thus, Judge Parrish is persuaded that aggregation of the
claims is inappropriate.
Judge Parrish is also persuaded that the amount in controversy
threshold has not been met. In light of the clear statement
contained in the Plaintiff's complaint that the relief would be
less than $75,000, Travelers had an objectively reasonable basis to
remove the case. Accordingly, Judge Parrish grants Fronberg's
request for attorneys' fees.
In conclusion, Judge Parrish grants the Plaintiff's motion for
remand. The case will be remanded to state court. Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1447(c), Travelers will reimburse the Plaintiff for
its reasonable attorneys' fees incurred as a result of the
removal.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 26, 2023 Memorandum Decision &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yrapkjf2 from
Leagle.com.
STATE FARM: Court Denies Renewed Bid to Dismiss Wiggins Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Kristopher Wiggins and Billy Paul Cobb, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. State
Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and State Farm Fire and
Casualty Company, Defendants, C/A No. 8:21-cv-03803-DCC (D.S.C.),
Judge Donald C. Coggins, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division, denies the
Defendants' Renewed Motion to Dismiss.
The matter is before the Court on Defendants State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Co. and State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.'s
Renewed Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiffs filed a Response in
Opposition, and the Defendants filed a Reply.
The case arises from an automobile insurance dispute in which the
Plaintiffs owned vehicles that were deemed a total loss by the
Defendants. The Defendants elected to pay the Plaintiffs the actual
cash value of their insured vehicles pursuant to their insurance
policies. The Plaintiffs allege in the Complaint that the
Defendants employed a total loss settlement process, which involved
obtaining a market-driven valuation report from Audatex North
America, Inc.
To arrive at the valuation of the insured vehicles, the report
provided the prices of four different comparable vehicles
advertised for sale online and applied a "Typical Negotiation
Adjustment" of approximately 6% to each one. Using this method, the
Defendants valued Wiggins' total loss claim at $12,524 and Cobb's
total loss claim at $12,194 and paid the Plaintiffs those amounts
as the actual cash values of their totaled vehicles.
The Plaintiffs claim that Defendants' use of the "Typical
Negotiation Adjustment" to adjust their total loss claims downward
violates the applicable insurance policies, is factually erroneous,
and was applied solely to pay them less than the actual cash value
of their total loss vehicles to which they were entitled by
contract. As a result, they claim that without this erroneous
adjustment, the actual cash value of their vehicles would have been
$848 and $749 higher, respectively.
On Oct. 15, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Defendants in the Oconee County Court of Common
Pleas, alleging claims for breach of contract and for a declaratory
judgment. The Defendants removed the action to this Court on Nov.
19, 2021. The Defendants sent a written request for appraisal of
the Plaintiffs' covered vehicles pursuant to their policies on Dec.
21, 2021. By letter dated the same day, the Plaintiffs refused to
participate in the appraisal process. Thereafter, the Defendants
filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Compel Appraisal
and Stay. The Court held a hearing on the Motion on June 16, 2022,
granted the Motion to Compel Appraisal and Stay, and denied the
Motion to Dismiss with leave to refile within 30 days after the
completion of the appraisal process.
Pursuant to the Court's June 23, 2022 Order, the parties completed
the appraisal process on Sept. 21, 2022, which determined the
actual cash value of Wiggins's vehicle to be $13,346.75 and Cobb's
vehicle to be $12,943. The Defendants assert, and the Plaintiffs
acknowledge, that they paid the Plaintiffs the difference between
the appraisal awards and the total loss payments previously paid.
On Oct. 21, 2022, the Defendants filed a Renewed Motion to Dismiss
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. The Plaintiffs filed a
Response in Opposition, and the Defendants filed a Reply. The
Motion is now before the Court.
The Defendants renew their request to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
Complaint, alleging that the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) because their claims have become
moot now that the appraisal process has been completed and the
Defendants have paid them the difference between the appraisal
awards and the total loss payments previously paid. Alternatively,
the Defendants request dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) because
the Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently allege that they
breached the insurance policies by paying less than the actual cash
value of the Plaintiffs' totaled vehicles through use of the
"Typical Negotiation Adjustment" in the total loss settlement
process. In contrast, the Plaintiffs argue dismissal under Rule
12(b)(1) is inappropriate because the jurisdictional facts are
inextricably intertwined with the facts central to the merits of
their claims.
Having reviewed the arguments and submissions of the parties, Judge
Coggins finds that the Defendants' payment to the Plaintiffs of the
difference between the appraisal awards and the total loss payments
previously paid does not moot the Plaintiffs' claims and divest the
Court of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under
Rule 12(b)(1) is denied.
Judge Coggins further finds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently
stated claims for breach of contract to avoid dismissal under Rule
12(b)(6). Accepting the Plaintiffs' allegations as true, he finds
the Plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim for relief. While the
actual cash values of their vehicles have purportedly been
satisfied by Defendants' payment following appraisal, there are
ostensible damages which flow from Defendants' alleged breach of
contract, such as the expenses they incurred by not having use of
their vehicles and those incurred by being forced to hire an
appraiser to show that their vehicles were being undervalued.
Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for failure to state
a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is denied as to these claims.
Moreover, the Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated claims for a
declaratory judgment, at this stage of the litigation, that the
Defendants' use of the "Typical Negotiation Adjustment" in the
total loss settlement process breached the terms of the insurance
policies requiring them to pay the Plaintiffs the actual cash value
of their covered vehicles. Indeed, the Plaintiffs have alleged
facts showing a substantial controversy between the parties.
Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for failure to state
a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is also denied as to these claims.
For the reasons set forth, Judge Coggins denies the Defendants'
Renewed Motion to Dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 26, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ysyr7u55 from Leagle.com.
SYNAGRO WOONSOCKET: Faces Class Action Over Noxious Odors
---------------------------------------------------------
Rob Smith, writing for ecoRI news, reports that the operators of a
Woonsocket wastewater treatment facility are being sued, again.
Last month local residents Maurice Doire and Joshua Hoye filed a
class-action lawsuit in Rhode Island District Court against Synagro
Woonsocket LLC and Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. over their alleged
mismanagement of the wastewater treatment plant and sewage sludge
incinerator on the banks of the Blackstone River.
In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege Baltimore-based Synagro and
Texas-based Jacobs, which have a history of odor complaints and
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management violations,
"have, and continue to, unnecessarily and unreasonably cause
noxious odors to be emitted off-site and into Plaintiffs homes and
similarly situated neighboring residential properties in
Woonsocket."
The odor emissions from the treatment plant and sludge incinerator
persist every day and night, according to Doire and Hoye. In a
statement quoted in the complaint, Hoye said the odors he smelled
on a daily basis were "like I live across from a large city dump on
a 90-degree day."
The plaintiffs allege the odorous emissions have adversely impacted
their property values and prevented them from enjoying the ordinary
use of their homes.
If the class definition is approved by a judge, the legal action
will be open to any resident living within a mile of the treatment
facility and sludge incinerator, at 11 Cumberland Hill Road.
Neither Synagro, which operates the sludge incinerator, or Jacobs,
which operates the treatment facility, responded to requests for
comment.
The facility is one of the biggest wastewater treatment plants in
northern Rhode Island, serving 51,400 customers in Woonsocket,
North Smithfield, and the Massachusetts communities of Bellingham
and Blackstone. It treats an average of 9.3 million gallons of
wastewater daily.
It's also been partially privatized; the town owns the actual
facility, but the day-to-day operations of the plant and sludge
incinerator were outsourced to outside companies starting in the
1980s.
It's not the first time either company has been taken to court over
their operation of the Woonsocket facility. In March, DEM and
Attorney General Peter Neronha announced they were suing both
companies and the city of Woonsocket in Superior Court over
numerous violations of the Clean Water Act, the state's Freshwater
Wetlands and Environmental Rights acts, and the impairment of
public trust resources.
During a press conference announcing the lawsuit, state officials
described the repeated discharges as "amazingly frustrating."
From March 2022 to March 2023, the wastewater facility was found to
be illegally discharging partially treated sewage -- also known as
effluent -- into the Blackstone River three times.
DEM said it inspected the plant 36 times during that 12-month
period, and prior to that, the plant racked up 12 citations for
violations of its Rhode Island Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (RIPDES) permit. At that time, facility officials told state
inspectors the violations stemmed from sand filters or because of
extreme weather events.
During an illegal discharge in June 2022, state inspectors visited
the plant four times in a week, finding six permit violations and
giving its superintendent, following 10 odor complaints from
residents, a notice of noncompliance for odors extending beyond the
property lines.
A report prepared by the environment consultants Weston & Sampson
on behalf of DEM indicated the discharge problems at the plant were
institutional, citing a lack of communication and cooperation
between Jacobs and Synagro during daily operations, and noted the
plant continually ran at or near capacity of its system limits.
A spokesperson for the attorney general said the state's lawsuit
against the operators and the city was still pending.
The Rhode Island Current reported in May the city and its
contractors fixed the urgent problems that would have cost the
facility its DEM permit, and state inspectors have returned to
their usual schedule of inspection every two to three months
instead of every day. The City Council also approved an emergency
contract for a temporary gravity belt thickener while the plant's
gravity thickener is out of commission for repairs. A gravity belt
thickener uses gravity drainage through a filter belt to thicken
polymer conditioned sludge prior to digestion, mechanical
dewatering, or trucking to a land application site or disposal
site. [GN]
TATA MOTORS: Shelor Sues Over Vehicles' Defective Outlet Pipes
--------------------------------------------------------------
WARREN SHELOR, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TATA MOTORS GROUP; JAGUAR LAND
ROVER LIMITED; JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00908 (M.D. Fla., August 2, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of express warranty,
implied warranty of merchantability, implied warranty of fitness
for a particular purpose, Florida Unfair and Deceptive Business
Practices Act, and Magnuson-Moss Warranty and for negligent
misrepresentation and injunctive and declaratory relief.
The case arises from the Defendants' design, manufacturing,
distribution, and marketing of 2013 through 2017 model year Jaguar
and Land Rover vehicles with defective plastic outlet pipe. The
defective outlet pipe malfunctions causing coolant to rapidly spill
onto and around Class Vehicle engines with little to no warning
causing catastrophic engine damage. The defective outlet pipes
cannot be inspected by owners without specialized equipment, and
the Defendants have failed to remedy the dangerous and devastating
defect. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions
of the Defendants, the Plaintiff and the proposed Class have been
damaged, says the suit.
Tata Motors Group is a multinational conglomerate headquartered in
Mumbai, India.
Jaguar Land Rover Limited is an automobile manufacturer with its
head office in Whitley, England.
Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC is an automobile company, with
its office in New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charles T. Douglas, Jr., Esq.
Jeremiah Blocker, Esq.
Rory J. Diamond, Esq.
DOUGLAS LAW FIRM
100 Southpark Blvd., Suite 414
Saint Augustine, FL 32086
Telephone: (800) 705-5457
Facsimile: (386) 385-5914
E-mail: charlie@dhclawyers.com
jeremiah@dhclawyers.com
rory@dhclawyers.com
TEACHERS INSURANCE: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Jentz Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
GAYLE JENTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TEACHERS INSURANCE AND ANNUITY ASSOCIATION
OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-06944 (S.D.N.Y., August 7,
2023) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence,
breach of third-party beneficiary contract, breach of fiduciary
duty, unjust enrichment, and violation of the New York Deceptive
Trade Practices Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated customers stored within its network systems
following a data breach. The Defendant also failed to timely notify
the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data
breach. As a result, the PII of the Plaintiff and Class members
were compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to
unknown and unauthorized third parties, the suit claims.
Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America is a stock
insurance company with its principal place of business located at
730 Third Avenue, New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (865) 412-2700
E-mail: vmaniatis@milberg.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
TRAVELEX INSURANCE: Haas Appeals Summary Judgment to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
DONNA HAAS is taking an appeal from a court order granting the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled
Donna Haas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Travelex Insurance Services, Inc., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-06171-PSG-PLA, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed a complaint against the Defendants for unjust enrichment,
conversion, and violations of California Business and Professions
Code and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants refused to refund the
Travel Insurance Plan acquired by the Plaintiff for a cruise travel
based on the argument that the request to cancel it already lapsed
the 15-day review period. The Plaintiff contends that she contacted
the Defendants immediately to cancel the Travel Insurance Plan
after she was notified by Viking River Cruises that the cruise trip
was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic and issued her a full
refund of the trip. The Plaintiff also argues that she had no way
to know that the trip would be cancelled thus it was impossible for
her to request for the insurance plan cancellation within the
15-day time period.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unfair business
acts and practices, the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered
injury in fact and have lost money or property as a result of
purchasing Defendants' Travel Insurance Plans.
On July 14, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment.
On Sept. 21, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to exclude or
strike the report, opinions, and testimony of the Plaintiff's
proposed expert Jeffrey E. Thomas.
On June 27, 2023, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
exclude the opinions of Jeffrey E. Thomas and motion for summary
judgment through an Order entered by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. The
case was closed.
The appellate case is captioned Donna Haas v. Travelex Insurance
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-55670, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 28, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Donna Haas Mediation Questionnaire was due on
August 4, 2023;
-- Appellant Donna Haas opening brief is due on November 3,
2023;
-- Appellees Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance Company and
Travelex Insurance Services, Inc. answering brief is due on
December 4, 2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant DONNA HAAS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:
Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
468 North Camden Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
- and -
Zev B. Zysman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ZEV B. ZYSMAN, APC
15760 Ventura Boulevard
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 783-8836
Defendants-Appellees TRAVELEX INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., et al. are
represented by:
Markham Richard Leventhal, Esq.
CARLTON FIELDS, PA
1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 400 West
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 965-8189
- and -
Steven B. Weisburd, Esq.
CARLTON FIELDS, LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 843-6600
TWININGS NORTH: Piotroski Sues Over Tea Products' Misrepresentation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KARIN PIOTROSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TWININGS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:23-cv-05930 (E.D.N.Y., August 4, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of New York General Business
Law and for unjust enrichment.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
tea products. The Defendant misleads reasonable consumers to
believe that the teas are produced in England, by using the
following phrases on the label: (1) "TWININGS OF London"; (2) "216
THE STRAND, LONDON WC2, ENGLAND"; (3) "TEA AND COFFEE MERCHANTS R.
TWINING AND COMPANY LIMITED, LONDON"; and (4) "BY APPOINTMENT TO
HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II." Consumers interpret the English
representations to mean that the products are produced in and
imported from England. Unfortunately for consumers, the English
representations are false and misleading because the products are
produced in Poland, says the suit.
Twinings North America, Inc. is a manufacturer of tea products,
with a principal place of business in Clifton, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ben Travis, Esq.
BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC
4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (619) 353-7966
E-mail: ben@bentravislaw.com
- and -
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
Sue J. Nam, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
snam@reesellp.com
- and -
Charles D. Moore, Esq.
REESE LLP
121 N. Washington Ave, 4th Floor
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
E-mail: cmoore@reesellp.com
TZUMI INNOVATIONS: Loses Coverage Bid in False Ads' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Mandato, writing for Law360, reports that a New York
federal judge dismissed a company's lawsuit seeking coverage from a
Hartford unit for an underlying class action alleging the company
falsely advertised that its sanitizing products were effective in
disinfecting surfaces, finding the underlying allegations don't
meet is commercial general liability policy's scope of coverage.
According to Westlaw Today, Tzumi Innovations LLC is owed no
coverage against a consumer class-action lawsuit alleging it made
misleading claims that its Wipe Out! personal care products were
effective surface disinfectants, a Manhattan federal judge has
ruled. [GN]
UBS GROUP: Legalpass Files Credit Suisse Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Finews.com reports that on Aug. 18 a second lawsuit was filed by
Credit Suisse shareholders. The plaintiffs are defending themselves
against the low price paid by UBS for the takeover.
Legalpass, a firm based in western Switzerland, filed a lawsuit on
behalf of over 3,000 Credit Suisse shareholders with the Zurich
Commercial Court on Aug. 18, according to an email statement. The
suit was put together within just two months and completed on
August 10.
Invoking the Merger Act
Legalpass' action follows that of the Swiss Investor Protection
Association (SASV), which also filed a complaint with the Zurich
Commercial Court on Aug. 14. For its part, the SASV represents
around 500 Credit Suisse shareholders, with the plaintiffs seeking
compensation for losses they incurred as a result of the Credit
Suisse takeover.
In particular, they want the exchange ratio of UBS to Credit Suisse
shares at the time of the takeover to be reviewed by the courts
pursuant to Article 105 of the Merger Act (FusG). In the forced
takeover in March, UBS paid $3 billion for the outstanding share
capital of its rival, which was on the verge of insolvency, while
it still had a market value of around two-and-a-half times that.
The Legalpass filing is represented by the Zurich law firm
Baumgartner Maechler.
Declared Crazy
"The response to our campaign was really incredible. We're very
happy and proud of the journey we have made," commented Philippe
Grivat, co-founder of Legalpass, on Aug. 14. During the creation of
the collective action, which is a novelty in Switzerland, he and
his team were often declared crazy, said the Frenchman. "But on
Aug. 14 the result shows that we were right to believe in our
project despite all the criticism." [GN]
UJAMAA CONSTRUCTION: Jackson Seeks Maintenance Staff's Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
DARRYL JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UJAMAA CONSTRUCTION, INC. and JIMMY
AKINTONDE, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-05141 (N.D. Ill., August 4,
2023) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as maintenance staff
beginning in April 2018 until his termination on or around May 9,
2023.
UJAMAA Construction, Inc. is a construction company, with its
address located at 7744 S. Stony Island Avenue, Chicago, Illinois.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathan C. Volheim, Esq.
Chad W. Eisenback, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Telephone: (630) 568-3056
Facsimile: (630) 575-8188
E-mail: nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com
ceisenback@sulaimanlaw.com
ULTIMATE FIGHTING: Ex-Fighters' Antitrust Suit Gets Partial Cert.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael mcCann, writing for Sportico, reports that the antitrust
battle for better pay and greater free agency that pits Cung Le and
five other former UFC fighters against the MMA league entered a new
phase on Aug.10, when U.S. District Judge Richard Boulware issued a
lengthy order partially certifying their case as a class action.
Le v. Zuffa has massive implications for UFC and its fighters, as
well as for the future of MMA, and Boulware's latest opinion, which
totals more than 31,000 words, reflects the enormity of the issues
at play. In 2020, Boulware indicated that he would do exactly what
he did, granting the fighters' motion to certify a "bout class"
that competitors in one or more UFC bouts that took place, or were
broadcast, in the U.S. from Dec. 16, 2010, to June 30, 2017. That
class contains over 1,200 people, the judge wrote.
UFC contested certification on several grounds, including that more
prominent and successful fighters possessed more negotiating
leverage and thus shouldn't be grouped with the six plaintiffs. UFC
also argued former fighters and current fighters have different
objectives, with former fighters most interested in maximizing
monetary damages whereas current fighters likely have a greater
interest in changing rules.
Boulware disagreed, finding that claims for the six fighters, who
are represented by Joseph Saveri and other antitrust attorneys,
need only be "reasonably coextensive" and not "substantially
identical" to other fighters. He also wrote that both former and
current fighters share the overarching goal of obtaining more
compensation.
Certification means fighters who fought during the class period
would be eligible to receive a portion of damages should the
plaintiffs prevail. They'd also be eligible for proceeds from any
settlement.
On the other hand, Boulware denied the fighters' motion to certify
an "identity class," which would have included fighters whose
identity was used -- the fighters say unlawfully -- in video games
and other licensed merchandise and promotional materials, at least
in part, because fighters "significantly vary in notoriety."
The case centers on fighters' claims that the UFC functions as a
monopsony, which is akin to a monopoly except instead of selling
products or services—think Microsoft and computer operating
systems—a monopsony is a buyer of services.
Like other MMA promotions, UFC is in the business of "buying" the
services of elite professional MMA fighters. Those fighters argue
that UFC has too much control in buying those services, and it uses
anti-competitive practices to pay fighters less and to stymie rival
MMA promotions.
This is the same core issue that drove LIV Golf and 11 of its
golfers' antitrust lawsuit against the PGA Tour, which they accused
of being a monopsony in the market for elite professional golfers'
services. In a preliminary hearing last year, a federal judge
expressed skepticism toward that allegation. The case ended via a
settlement in June, and the PGA Tour and LIV are now negotiating a
deal that would make them business partners.
UFC fighters are, like pro golfers, independent contractors; how
much each earns reflects individual success and fame. Unlike
players in the NFL, NBA, WNBA, MLB and NHL, UFC fighters have not
formed a union and thus do not collectively bargain economic rules,
such as a fixed share of league income. This has legal
significance: Rules in a CBA pertaining to wages, hours and other
conditions are generally exempt from antitrust scrutiny since they
reflect labor and management giving and taking, and finding
consensus.
UFC fighters sign two contracts, a Promotional and Ancillary Rights
Agreement and a Bout Agreement. These agreements stipulate fighters
must fight to receive compensation and that victors are paid more.
The agreements also contain clauses that restrict competition. For
example, an exclusion clause requires a UFC fighter to fight for
UFC and not rival MMA leagues. A right-to-match clause allows UFC
to match a contract from a competitor, an exclusive negotiation
clause supplies UFC with a 30- to 90-day window to negotiate
exclusively, and a champion's clause empowers UFC to extend a
fighter's contract if he or she becomes a title-holding champion.
Boulware was critical of these provisions, writing that they limit
"fighters' ability to control their careers and compensation." The
judge seemed particularly troubled by how provisions prevent some
fighters "from becoming free agents" for as long as 15 months after
their last bout.
The judge also portrayed UFC as head and shoulders above other MMA
promoters. He wrote that "except for Bellator and Strikeforce,"
other MMA options for fighters tend to be "small regional outfits"
that "consider themselves to be minor leagues." These smaller
promotions sometimes even offer "UFC-out" clauses, enabling a
fighter to exit and join UFC.
Even Bellator and Strikeforce, Boulware suggests, are not on the
same level as UFC, though they similarly compete for TV airtime,
sponsorship deals and media attention. According to data provided
by the plaintiffs, Bellator, Strikeforce and World Series of
Fighting have combined for less than 10% of total revenues from MMA
live bout events and associated products sold to customers,
including viewers, cable networks, broadcast networks and
sponsors.
UFC disputes the fighters' contentions in several ways.
Most crucially, UFC argues its success reflects merit in that it
offers fans and fighters a superior product than other MMA
promotions. UFC depicts its fighters' contracts as sensible
business arrangements that have made MMA more commercially
successful, including for fighters.
UFC has noted that total compensation for fighters has increased by
over 600% since 2005, that it pays fighters much more than other
MMA outfits and offers fighters world-class training facilities and
instructors. UFC further stresses that while players in NBA, NFL,
MLB and NHL have negotiated 48% of 50% shares of their league
revenues, those amounts are borne through the give-and-take of
collective bargaining. There is no law that, in the absence of a
CBA or other contract, guarantees workers a certain share of their
employer's income.
Boulware wasn't persuaded by those points. He believed there is a
"dearth of evidence" that UFC policies have "contributed to the
development of MMA." The judge criticized UFC for what he regarded
as leveraging bargaining power to "pressure" fighters into
accepting less generous economic arrangements than they'd negotiate
in a more competitive market.
In a statement shared by UFC, William A. Isaacson, lead counsel for
UFC and partner with Paul, Weiss, said:
"We have anticipated this decision, and as we have previously
communicated to Judge Boulware, we plan to appeal. This is just one
step in a long legal process, and we are confident that the Court
will ultimately recognize that the claims outlined in this lawsuit
are legally and factually meritless. UFC's own continued growth
accompanied by the growth of other established MMA promoters and
the prevalence of successful new market entrants all demonstrate
the existence of a healthy and competitive MMA market which
benefits athletes, promoters, and fans alike."
The case began in 2014 and, with likely appeals, could remain in
federal court for several more years. [GN]
ULTIMATE INTERNET: Fails to Properly Pay Laborers, Brokl Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN BROKL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ULTIMATE INTERNET ACCESS INC. and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CIV SB 2317831 (Cal.
Super., San Bernardino Cty., August 2, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code
and the California's Business and Professions Code including
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime compensation,
failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit
rest breaks, failure to indemnify necessary expenses, failure to
timely pay final wages at termination, failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements, and unfair business practices.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a laborer in
California.
Ultimate Internet Access Inc. is an internet service provider in
Wrightwood, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
Brett Gunther, Esq.
Jessica Abreu, Esq.
MOON LAW GROUP, PC
1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 232-3128
Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
E-mail: kmoon@moonlawgroup.com
dgunther@moonlawgroup.com
jabreu@moonlawgroup.com
UNITED STATES: Court Substitutes Decedent Casaretti Plaintiffs
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, J. CASARETTI, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant, Case No. 15-294C (Fed. Cl.), Judge Victor J. Wolski of
the U.S. Court of Federal Claims grants:
a. the motion to substitute decedent David Edwards with Tanja
Edwards, Personal Representative of the Estate of David
Edwards; and
b. the motion to substitute decedent Kenneth Michael Marquis
with Tammy Marquis, Successor in Interest and Distributee
of the Estate of Kenneth Michael Marquis.
Two statements noting deaths have been filed, informing the Court
that Plaintiffs David Edwards and Kenneth Michael Marquis,
respectively, are deceased. Pursuant to Rule 25(a)(1) of the Rules
of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC), two motions to
substitute a party have been filed, one for each decedent.
The case seeks damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
29 U.S.C. Section 201-16, and "decedents' causes of action under
the FLSA survive to the representatives of their estates. The
government did not file a paper opposing either motion before the
filing deadline, and that reason alone suffices for the granting of
the motions.
During the status conference held on July 24, 2023, the Defendant
nevertheless raised concerns about the timing of the two motions,
noting that a motion to substitute a party in place of Marquis had
initially been filed in April of 2021 before being withdrawn two
months later; and that Edwards had died prior to the class action
opt-in period. But Edwards had joined the lawsuit on August 7, 2015
-- 10 months before his death -- when his written consent pursuant
to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) was filed with Ninth Notice of Filing
Consents.
As for the timeliness of the motions, under RCFC 25(a)(1), the
90-day period for filing a substitution motion is triggered upon
service of a statement noting death upon a successor or
representative of the deceased party. The initial statement noting
deaths, including those of Messrs. Edwards and Marquis, was filed
on Jan. 25, 2021, but was not served on successors or
representatives. Moreover, service upon Tammy Marquis, Marquis'
successor in interest, could not have been made at that time, as
the order admitting the will of Marquis would not issue until Sept.
14, 2021. The more recent statements noting the deaths of Messrs.
Edwards and Marquis were served upon successors and representatives
on June 23, 2023. The motions to substitute a party were filed that
same day and are thus timely under RCFC 25(a).
Moreover, both motions appear to contain the requisite
documentation identifying the proper parties for substitution.
Accordingly, the motion to substitute decedent David Edwards with
Tanja Edwards, Personal Representative of the Estate of David
Edwards; and the motion to substitute decedent Kenneth Michael
Marquis with Tammy Marquis, Successor in Interest and Distributee
of the Estate of Kenneth Michael Marquis are both granted.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 26, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bdh9da7b from Leagle.com.
UNITED STATES: Etchegoinberry Appeals Suit Dismissal to Fed. Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL ETCHEGOINBERRY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court
order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Michael Etchegoinberry, et
al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No.
1:11-cv-00564-ZNS, in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
filed a complaint on Sept. 2, 2011, alleging that the federal
government's failure to provide drainage effected a physical
taking. On Dec. 8, 2011, the government filed a motion to dismiss
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the Plaintiffs'
complaint was time barred because events giving rise to the United
States' alleged liability occurred years before September 2, 2005.
Judge Marian Blank Horn, in 2013, denied the government's motion,
finding the complaint was timely filed.
On Sept. 25, 2020, the government moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of
the Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"). In its
motion to dismiss, the government principally argued that the
Plaintiff's just compensation claim is based on "inaction" by the
United States and that a just compensation claim cannot be based on
the government's failure to act. The government moved to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim.
According to the government, the Court must dismiss the Plaintiffs'
claims because they are based on government inaction and takings
liability does not arise from government inaction or failure to
act. Previously, the government moved under RCFC 12(b)(1) to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction because the government argued the Plaintiffs' claims
were untimely. Judge Horn denied the government's RCFC 12(b)(1)
motion.
However, Judge Zachary N. Somers, in trying to better understand
the Plaintiffs' protean allegations as to exactly what action by
the government caused the alleged taking, has become convinced that
the Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the statute of limitations.
Accordingly, because the Tucker Act's statute of limitations is
jurisdictional, he must dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint even
though an RCFC 12(b)(1) motion is not currently pending before it,
the law of the case notwithstanding.
In response to the government's motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, the Plaintiffs asserted that their
claims were not untimely because the stabilization doctrine delayed
accrual of their claims. According to them, their complaint clearly
alleges that the government has taken and befouled their properties
through the inundation of water, and that such a process has been
continuous and gradual over time, and both the Supreme Court and
the Court have ruled the application of the stabilization doctrine
entirely appropriate in these circumstances.
After reviewing the extensive record in the case, applicable case
law, and related litigation in this and other federal courts in
order to assess fully the government's RCFC 12(b)(6) motion, Judge
Somers said he simply cannot concur that the Plaintiffs' complaint
was filed within six years of the date on which the claims accrued.
Accordingly, he dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to
RCFC 12(h)(3) and the government's previous motion to dismiss.
The appellate case is captioned Etchegoinberry v. US, Case No.
23-2196, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit, filed on July 26, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Entry of Appearance and Certificate of Interest were due on
August 9, 2023;
-- Docketing Statement is due on August 25, 2023; and
-- Appellants' brief is due on September 25, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants MICHAEL ETCHEGOINBERRY, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Eric Lawrence Klein, Esq.
BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND PC
155 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 419-2316
Defendant-Appellee UNITED STATES is represented by:
William B. Lazarus, Esq.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
P.O. Box 7415
Washington, DC 20044
Telephone: (202) 514-4168
- and -
Frank J. Singer, Esq.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
P.O. Box 663
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
Telephone: (202) 616-9490
UNITED STATES: Sheffield Sues Over Denied IVF for Same-Sex Veterans
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY SHEFFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS, DENIS MCDONOUGH, in his official capacity as United States
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and IVAN E. CORREA, individually and
in his capacity as acting Chief of Staff for Edward P. Boland VA
Medical Center, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-11757-LTS (D. Mass.,
August 2, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
deprivation of equal protection, discrimination based on sex and
sexual orientation, and deprivation of due process in violation of
U.S. Constitution.
The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendants on
behalf of all veterans who have been denied the opportunity to
obtain in vitro fertilization (IVF) services by the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) or who have been denied reimbursement for
services from private providers by VA because the veteran is in a
same-sex marriage. Based on the eligibility requirements of the
2021 and 2022 Appropriations Acts and Veterans Health
Administration (VHA) Directive 1334, infertile veterans in same-sex
marriages are barred from IVF medical care through VA, whereas
infertile veterans in opposite-sex marriages qualify for IVF
medical care through VA. These eligibility requirements for IVF
services discriminate against veterans on the basis of sex and
sexual orientation. The discriminatory policies enforced by
Defendants forced the Plaintiff and similarly situated veterans to
endure a starkly different fertility experience than veterans in
opposite-sex marriages, says the suit.
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is a department of the
executive branch of the United States government, with its
headquarters located at 810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Stefanilo, Jr., Esq.
Monica Towle, Esq.
BRODY HARDOON, PERKINS, & KESTEN, LLP
699 Boylston Street, 12th Floor
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 880-7100
E-mail: mstefanilo@bhpklaw.com
mtowle@bhpklaw.com
- and -
Renee A. Burbank, Esq.
Ryan Kelley, Esq.
NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM
1100 Wilson Blvd., Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22209
E-mail: Renee.Burbank@nvlsp.org
ryan.kelley@nvlsp.org
- and -
Peter Romer-Friedman, Esq.
PETER ROMER-FRIEDMAN LAW PLLC
1629 K. Street NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 355-6364
E-mail: peter@prf-law.com
US BANCORP: S.D. California Denies Gold's Bid for TRO in RICO Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHELLE GOLD, individually and as Trustee of The
Michelle Gold Separate Property Trust Dated December 23, 2002, aka
The Gold Family Trust; STAR MARTINEZ, Trustee; GONZALEZ-GOLD,
individually and on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; and DOES 1-5000, Plaintiffs v. US BANCORP, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 23cv1342-JES (BLM) (S.D. Cal.), Judge
James E. Simmons, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California denies the Plaintiffs':
(i) motion for a temporary restraining order ("TRO"); and
(ii) related ex-parte motion regarding the request for the
TRO.
The Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit on July 21, 2023. The complaint,
styled as a purported class action, is titled "RICO Complaint" and
demands "RESCISSION; INJUNCTION; DECLARATORY RELIEF, AND DAMAGES
PURSUANT TO THE RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT 18
U.S.C. Sections 1961-1968 et. seq; FALSE CLAIMS ACT 31 U.S.C.
Section 3729 et seq."
The complaint is disjointed and difficult to decipher. The
Plaintiffs start with stating that they seek an emergency
injunction staying a writ of eviction that was scheduled for July
21, 2023 at 6:00 a.m. They allege that the eviction was based on
forged and fraudulent documents, that the foreclosure was illegal,
and that they are the rightful owners of the property. They further
allege that they will suffer irreparable harm because the 3-day
notice received was not sufficient. Th e Plaintiffs fail to
identify the property that they are being evicted from in the
complaint itself, but the motion for a TRO appears to identify the
property as located at 3342 Randy Ln, Chula Vista, CA 91910.
In the remainder of this complaint, however, the Plaintiffs allege
that the case began with purchase of a home in Florida that was
financed with a mortgage and subsequently foreclosed upon. Then
elsewhere they allege that there are three properties at issue,
though she does not identify what those properties are or whether
one is the Randy Lane property. Regardless, the Plaintiffs allege
that during the course of their investigation into the foreclosure
of the Florida property, they discovered that the Defendants
engaged in fraudulent practices that also occurred in numerous
other cases.
The Plaintiffs allege that the loan on Gold's property was
"procured by fraud" by the Defendants. They further allege that the
loan and mortgage was never registered with MERS and therefore, all
subsequent assignments and transfers endorsed by Defendants are
void and must be rescinded.
The complaint also includes class allegations related to a class
that the Plaintiffs propose as homeowners with mortgages held in
any of the MBS trusts listed in Exhibit A. The complaint, as filed,
however does not include an Exhibit A. Regardless, the complaint
includes allegations that Defendants did not comply with various
requirements as to these trusts and again used fraudulent documents
with regards to these trusts.
The complaint names over 100 individual Defendants. The allegations
in the Complaint generally group all Defendants together, not
attributing any specific causes of action to any specific
defendant. The Plaintiffs allege widespread doctoring of mortgage
documents, fraudulent behavior, and a conspiracy between Defendants
to deprive homeowners of mortgage assistance, to the Defendants'
benefit and benefit of third parties.
Concurrent with the filing of the complaint, the Plaintiffs filed a
motion for a TRO. The motion, like the complaint, is difficult to
decipher, but the Plaintiffs appear to be asking for: (1) an
emergency request for an injunction to set aside the eviction and
foreclosure; and (2) to consolidate the related state court case,
case no. 37-2022-00042825-CL-UD-CTL. The Plaintiffs subsequently
filed another ex parte motion. This motion does not appear to seek
additional relief from the Court, but instead purports to offer
further argument to support the motion for a TRO.
Judge Simmons holds that the Plaintiffs have failed to meet their
burden to obtain a TRO and so he denies the request for a TRO.
While he is not unsympathetic to the Plaintiffs' situation, Judge
Simmons says the Plaintiffs have failed to meet the legal
requirements to obtain a TRO. Other than arguably irreparable harm,
they do not address any of the elements for which it is their
burden to address to obtain a TRO. The Plaintiff does not address
likelihood of success on the merits, and upon independent review of
the complaint, it is not clear how the allegations there relate to
the Randy Lane property or even what the causes of action are and
what facts support them.
As to balance of equities and public interest, the Plaintiffs do
not explain why this Court should set aside, on an emergency ex
parte basis, an eviction that has been ordered by another court, in
proceedings that have were initiated last year. Even though the
Plaintiffs now argue that they did not have sufficient time to
prepare for the eviction, their own complaint states that they were
given 3 days of notice -- the Plaintiffs do not explain how this
was not sufficient time to pack their essential belongings to avoid
the harm they claim they suffer.
Judge Simmons denies the request for consolidation of state court
case no. 37-2022-00042825-CL-UD-CTL with this action. He holds that
the request is procedurally improper because the proper way to
place a state law action into federal court is to remove the case
under the appropriate federal statutes and that the Court had no
authority to remove a case on behalf of a party. Furthermore, all
the authorities that the Plaintiffs rely upon relate to when
federal cases already in federal court can be consolidated.
For the reasons he stated, Judge Simmons denies the Plaintiffs'
motion for a TRO and related ex parte motion.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 26, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/f7vwdvxx from Leagle.com.
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Meehan Sues Over Drop of Securities Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE MEEHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., HANS VESTBERG,
and MATTHEW ELLIS, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01375-NR (W.D. Pa.,
August 1, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding Verizon's business, operations,
and prospects in order to trade Verizon securities at artificially
inflated prices between February 4, 2020 and July 26, 2023.
Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that: Verizon owns
cables around the country that are highly toxic due to being
wrapped in lead, and which harm company employees and non-employees
alike; (2) it faces potentially significant litigation risk,
regulatory risk, and reputational harm as a result of its ownership
of these lead cables and the health risks stemming from their
presence around the United States; (3) it was warned about the
damage and risks presented by these cables but did not disclose
that they posed a threat to employee safety, to everyday people,
and communities around the country; and (4) as a result, the
Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.
When the truth emerged, the price of Verizon stock declined by
$0.79 per share, or 2.30 percent, to close at $33.55 per share on
July 27, 2023, says the suit.
Verizon Communications, Inc. is a telecommunications company
headquartered in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Hockenberry, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF LEON AUSSPRUNG MD, LLC
1800 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1500
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 717-0744
E-mail: JH@aussprunglaw.com
- and -
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
VIRAGE CAPITAL: Sued Over Mismanaged Settlement Money in NFL Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emily R. Siegel, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Virage
Capital Management, which invests in lawsuits hoping for a return,
is being sued over funds the firm claims it is owed from a
now-disbarred attorney who represented former NFL players in a
class action over concussions.
Attorney J.B. Harris sued Virage, alleging the company is wrongly
holding up settlement money in a tobacco case because the disbarred
attorney, who also worked on the tobacco matter, owes the funder
money from the NFL litigation.
The tobacco settlement funds were frozen after Virage asserted a
lien on the proceeds. The firm claimed it is entitled to a 40%
interest in legal fees because of an agreement it entered into with
Harris after he stopped receiving payments from the disbarred
attorney.
The lawsuit shows the challenge Houston-based Virage faces in
collecting the proceeds of legal cases it backed. A spokesperson
for Virage declined to comment.
The disbarred attorney, Tim Howard, represented the former NFL
players in a class-action lawsuit and improperly enticed his
clients to invest their retirement funds with his investment
companies, the US Attorney's Office for the Northern District of
Florida said in an Aug. 3 statement.
Howard pleaded guilty to racketeering and is scheduled to be
sentenced Nov. 6. The Florida Supreme Court last year banned him
from practicing law in the state.
Virage provided $30 million to Howard to pursue the concussion
cases. Harris claims that without his knowledge, Howard used
proceeds from the tobacco case to secure his debt with Virage.
The tobacco case involved 96 claims against Philip Morris, now
known as Altria Group Inc., and RJ Reynolds, now part of British
American Tobacco Plc. Plaintiffs alleged ill health from smoking
and from second-hand smoke on airplanes in the 1990s.
Both sides came to an agreement this year, though Harris said the
amount of the settlement is confidential.
A Houston judge last year ruled that Virage is entitled to 40% of
gross fees across all cases due to a previous agreement it had with
Harris. Harris is appealing the verdict.
Harris alleges in his suit against Virage that the company doesn't
have the right to tobacco settlement money because Howard's
disbarment and guilty plea act as a forfeiture to any claim for
fees.
The case is Harris v. Virage Capital Management, Fla. Cir. Ct.,
2023-021459-CA-01, 8/16/23 [GN]
WELLS FARGO: Patterson Sues Over Opening of Unauthorized Accounts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BERNARD J. PATTERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO & CO.; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.;
and EARLY WARNING SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-03858
(N.D. Cal., August 1, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence/gross negligence and violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; the Electronic
Funds Transfer Act, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
According to the complaint, Wells Fargo Bank opened unauthorized
consumer checking accounts in victims' names without their
knowledge or consent. Wells Fargo Bank uses Early Warning Services
to provide identity verification services when it opens new
consumer banking accounts. Early Warning falsely verified the
Plaintiff's and the other victims' identities in connection with
Wells Fargo's opening of unauthorized consumer checking accounts in
their names. Once opened, Wells Fargo Bank used these unauthorized
consumer checking bank accounts to process unauthorized financial
transactions in the victims' names. The Defendants worked together
to effectuate this scheme, and they profited from this scheme, the
suit alleges.
Wells Fargo & Co. is a financial services company headquartered in
San Francisco, California.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a banking company headquartered in San
Francisco, California.
Early Warning Services, LLC is a specialty credit reporting agency
based in Sacramento, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Ave, Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
- and -
Theodore (Thad) O. Bartholow III, Esq.
KELLETT & BARTHOLOW PLLC
11300 N. Central Expressway, Suite 301
Dallas, TX 75243
Telephone: (214) 696-9000
Facsimile: (214) 696-9001
E-mail: thad@kblawtx.com
WELLS FARGO: Sued in California Over Fraudulent Bank Accounts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Styf, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that plaintiff
Bernard Patterson filed a class action lawsuit against Wells Fargo
Bank and Early Warning claiming that Wells Fargo allows fraudulent
bank accounts to be created and then combines with Early Warning to
release full banking details of real customers to those creating
the fraudulent accounts.
"It literally includes the victims' entire personal banking balance
and transaction history for every legitimate bank account they
maintain going back for years, as well as full account numbers,
account open and close dates, and all of the detailed PII each of
the victims' banks associate with each account," the lawsuit
states. "It is everything necessary to steal a person's financial
identity and ultimately, it is everything necessary to steal
everything the unwitting victims have in their legitimate bank
accounts."
Early Warning knew that the account information on the fraudulent
Wells Fargo accounts didn't match information on the real
customers' other accounts but still verified the victims'
identities on those accounts, the Wells Fargo class action claims.
The fraudulent accounts were then used to transfer money and obtain
the remaining bank account information from real customers through
the Early Warning credit check, the lawsuit claims. By allowing the
scheme to continue, Wells Fargo and Early Warning both benefited
from the fraud, the Wells Fargo accounts lawsuit claims.
Wells Fargo recently was ordered to pay $3.7 billion in
compensation and penalties for charging illegal fees and interest
on auto and mortgage loans by the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau.
Has someone ever created a fraudulent bank account in your name?
Let us know in the comments.
The plaintiff is represented by Abbas Kazerounian of Kazerouni Law
Group and Theodore O. Bartholow, III of Kellett and Bartholow
PLLC.
The Wells Fargo class action lawsuit is Patterson v. Wells Fargo
and Co., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-03858, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California San Francisco Division.
[GN]
WEST VIRGINIA: Faces Class Action Over Poor Jail Conditions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chase Campbell, writing for WTAP, reports that understaffing,
overcrowding, and deferred maintenance.
Those are the three problems that a class action lawsuit filed on
August 8 contends have been creating poor conditions in West
Virginia's jails and prisons for years.
The lawsuit says these three problems create conditions that
violate the eighth and fourteenth amendment protections offered to
inmates by the U.S. Constitution.
The suit names Governor Jim Justice and Cabinet Secretary of
Homeland Security Mark Sorsaia as defendants. Justice addressed the
lawsuit in a briefing on August 9. "You know, you've got lawyers
just taking advantage of stuff and everything," Justice said. "You
know, there's $100 million that went into deferred maintenance in
the last session. You know, right now we've got $25 million or
whatever the number may be, $30 million of stuff that's going to
corrections folks right now."
"Deferred maintenance" refers to long-standing projects in West
Virginia prison and jails that don't currently have funding,
including upgrades to door locking control systems in regional
jails. The lawsuit quotes officials as saying under oath that
addressing deferred maintenance needs will require over 200 million
dollars of state investment, a number that has grown steadily over
the years.
West Virginia lawmakers have recently taken steps to addressing
some of the issues outlined in the lawsuit. Bills passed in the
August 2023 special session offer raises to corrections workers in
the hopes of improving recruitment and retention. Another bill sets
aside some more funds for deferred maintenance.
But the funds lawmakers have set aside for corrections fall short
of what the lawsuit says is necessary. And the suit says that
inadequate funding has led to poor conditions for inmates,
including unsanitary facilities and a lack of adequate food.
The lawsuit says these issues persist in prisons, jails, and
juvenile facilities
The suit asks that the actions of the defendants led directly to
inhumane conditions and constitutional violations in prisons. It
also asks the court to compel the state to put upwards of 300
million budget surplus dollars into fixing the alleged issues in
jails and prisons. [GN]
YELLOW CORP: Keef Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Advance Notice
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROGER KEEF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. YELLOW CORPORATION, YRC INC. d/b/a YRC
FREIGHT, Defendants, Case No. 23-50458-CTG (D. Del., August 7,
2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act by failing to
provide their employees with the 60-day advance notice required
under the WARN Act before terminating them starting on or about
July 28, 2023.
Mr. Keef was employed by the Defendants as a dock hand/spotter at
2000 Lincoln Highway, Chicago Heights, Illinois from February 1995
until July 30, 2023.
Yellow Corporation is a transportation holding company
headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee.
YRC Inc., doing business as YRC Freight, is a transportation
holding company headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ian Connor Bifferato, Esq.
THE BIFFERATO FIRM PA
1007 North Orange St., 4th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 225-7600
Facsimile: (302) 298-0688
E-mail: cbifferato@tbf.legal
- and -
Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
1109 Lancaster Avenue
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (610) 200-0581
Facsimile: (610) 421-1326
E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com
jbk@sstriallawyers.com
YZER LLC: Faces Jacinto Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------
MARTA ALICIA GARCIA JACINTO, an individual, Plaintiff v. YZER, LLC,
a Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive;
Defendants, Case No. 23STCV17662 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
July 27, 2023) arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the
California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to provide prompt
payment of wages to employees upon termination and resignation;
failure to provide itemized wage statements to employees; failure
to provide meal and rest periods; failure to pay overtime wages;
failure to provide unpaid balance of full amount of overtime
compensation; failure to pay minimum wage; failure to reimburse
employees for all reasonably necessary expenditures and losses
incurred by employees in direct consequence of the discharge of
their duties and other work-related expenses; failure to provide
itemized wage statements to employees; and violation of the state
law by misclassifying its employees as independent contractors.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a delivery driver and
laborer from July 2022 through April 11, 2023.
YZER, LLC is a freight shipping/trucking company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarkis Sirmabekian, Esq.
SIRMABEKIAN LAW FIRM, PC 3435
Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (818) 473-5003
Facsimile: (818) 476-5619
E-mail: contact@slawla.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***