/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230915.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, September 15, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 186
Headlines
1051 OGDEN: Faces Zavala Suit Over Cooks' Unpaid Wages
2227 SUPERMARKETS: Vidals Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Market Staff
3M COMPANY: Alvord Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Cornell Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Fox Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Hilling Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
A&R CREATIVE: Graham Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
ABBOTT LAB: Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Sanchez
ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class Action
AEGIS MEDIA: Kennedy Wins Class Certification Bid
AEROVIRONMENT INC: Continues to Defend Labor Class Suit in Calif.
AJ INC: Gaudreau Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
ALLIANCE GROUND: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ALLIUM US HOLDING: Kuczkowski Files Suit in S.D. New York
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Kronenberg Suit Seeks Class Certification
AMAZON WEB: Court Modifies Case Deadlines in Rivera Suit
AMERICAN TUNA: Craig Must File Class Cert Reply by Sept. 18
ANECDOTE CANDLES: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ASPEN LAWN CARE: Nunez Suit Removed to D. Kansas
BACUS FOODS: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Holder Suit Granted
BARILLA AMERICA: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 30
BAYSTATE HEALTH: Uses Private Data Without Consent, Suit Says
BIG 5 CORP: AliAbdulhadi Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
BREAKTHROUGH TOWING: Robertson Suit Seeks to Certify Class
BROCK PIERCE: Bid for Summary Judgment in Rowan Suit Partly Granted
CARESOURCE: Cooper Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PHI/PII
CELLULAR LLC: Vargas Sues Over Store Attendants' Unpaid Wages
CHEMOURS CO: $1.19MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 14
CHRISTOPHER WALZ: Dismissal & Judgment Bids in Hardee Suit Granted
CISS MANAGEMENT: Acosta Sues Over Unpaid Proper Compensations
CITADEL OF BOURBONNAIS: Underpays Nursing Assistants, Spears Claims
CITY NATIONAL BANK: Braun Sues Over Inadequate Data Security
COASTAL STEEL: Underpays Drivers and Laborers, Thomas Suit Says
COTTAGE HEALTH: Clavecilla Sues Over Website Users' Disclosed PHI
DEUTSCHE BANK: $5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 16
DICKS SPORTING: AliAbdulhadi Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
EGS FINANCIAL: Lyle Must File Class Certification Bid by Dec. 11
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
EMERLASS LLC: Barnoski Sues Over Unpaid Wages
ESSEX PROPERTY: Figueroa Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
FORETHOUGHT LIFE: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Thomas Says
GAMHAM NY: Faces Zamora Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
GC LEADER CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bermeo Alleges
GPS HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barnhart Alleges
GUITAR CENTER: AliAbdulhadi Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
HARTFORD LIFE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Cater Alleges
HELMERICH & PAYNE: Fails to Provide Proper Overtime Pay, Green Says
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Wedeking Sues Over 3rd Party Access of Info
KINGFISHER MEDIA: Aviles Suit Removed to C.D. California
LA SOLAR GROUP: Faces Denson Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
LENDINGPOINT LLC: Liantonio Files FCRA Suit in E.D. New York
LIFE MANAGEMENT CENTER: Thomas Files Suit in N.D. Florida
LLOYD'S OF LONDON: $7.9MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 14
M&T BANK: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Wormack Alleges
MAXLINEAR INC: Faces Securities Suit Over 44% Share Price Drop
MDC STEEL: Fails to Pay Welders' Proper Wages, Amarante Says
MEDTRONIC MINIMED: Illegally Sends Personal Info to Google
METRO TRANSPORT: Fugate Sues Over Dispatchers' Unpaid Overtime
MIDTOWN HOME: Filing for Class & Collective Cert Bid Due Nov. 13
MIKE BLOOMBERG: Seeks to Oppose Class Certification Bid by Oct. 2
MOOTSIE & TOMCAT'S: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Demus Suit Says
NAPCO SECURITY: Zornberg Sues Over 45.04% Drop of Securities Price
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Fails to Issue SPC, Class Suit Alleges
NEW YORK, NY: Brennan's & Aboubakar's Bids to Certify Class Denied
NEW YORK: Bid to Dismiss Mirvis v. Quay and MDC Partly Granted
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Allen Sues Over Unprotected Health Info
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Daniels Claims
RIVERSIDE, CA: Riverside All Files Suit in C.D. California
STORYBUILT LLC: Terminates Employees Without Notice, Plante Says
SUMBLES TEAM: Sanford Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
SUSHI KATSUEI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chakma Suit Alleges
TAWKIFY INC: Larue Suit Seeks Appropriate Wages for Matchmakers
TD AMERITRADE: Grande Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
TEACHERS INSURANCE: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Uhrich Says
TEACHERS INSURANCE: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Teppler Says
TUFIN SOFTWARE: $2MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 1
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: Martin Sues Over Unauthorized Info Access
VILLAGE OF HILLSIDE: Vacca Seeks Telecommunicators' Unpaid Overtime
WHITE LINE SYSTEMS: Andrews Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Inc. Defends 1,056 PI Lawsuits as of July 31
*********
1051 OGDEN: Faces Zavala Suit Over Cooks' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------
NABOR FIGUEROA ZAVALA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 1051 OGDEN LLC (D/B/A KENNEDY
FRIED CHICKEN and PIZZA), 1956 JEROME LLC (D/B/A KENNEDY FRIED
CHICKEN and PIZZA), 2487 JEROME LLC (D/B/A KENNEDY FRIED CHICKEN),
174 BOSTON LLC (D/B/A KENNEDY FRIED CHICKEN), ABDUL KAYUM, AZIZ
AHMAD, and NAZIR YUSUFZAI, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-07593
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 25, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants
for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and for violations of the New York Labor Law and the
"spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York
Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiff Figueroa worked for the Defendants from approximately
Mid-October 2019, until April 17, 2023 as a cook.
1051 Ogden LLC, d/b/a Kennedy Fried Chicken and Pizza, is a
restaurant based in Bronx, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
2227 SUPERMARKETS: Vidals Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Market Staff
------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTEMIO VIDALS-SANCHEZ and MARIA MERCEDES LAZO TUASA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 2227
SUPERMARKETS INC. DBA BAY MARKET; WAN CHANG MARKET, INC.; and LI
FAI, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06409 (E.D.N.Y., August 28, 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 and overtime wages, failure to provide payroll records
and notices, and failure to provide accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiffs were employed as general helpers and stock persons
at the Defendants' Bay Market in New York from January 6, 2023
until July 30, 2023.
2227 Supermarkets Inc. is the owner and operator of a grocery
business under the name Bay Market, located in Brooklyn, New York.
Wan Chang Market, Inc. is a grocery business owner and operator,
located in Brooklyn, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
60 East 42nd Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 209-3933
Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com
3M COMPANY: Alvord Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Alvord and Daisy Alvord, his wife, 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.; BUCK EYE 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; KIDDIE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDIE 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.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case No. 2:23-cv-04416-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 1,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Daniel Hilling regularly used, and was thereby
directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires
during his working career, and was diagnosed with prostate cancer
and/or other medical conditions as a result of exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-855-6060
Facsimile: 732-726-4860
3M COMPANY: Cornell Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Cornell and Pamela Cornell, his wife, 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.; BUCK EYE 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; KIDDIE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDIE 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.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case No. 2:23-cv-04411-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 1,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Patrick Cornell regularly used, and was thereby
directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires
during his working career, and was diagnosed with kidney cancer,
prostate cancer and/or other medical conditions as a result of
exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-855-6060
Facsimile: 732-726-4860
3M COMPANY: Fox Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Fox and Janice Fox, his wife, 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.; BUCK EYE 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; KIDDIE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDIE 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.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case
No. 2:23-cv-04409-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 1, 2023), is brought for
damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Phillip Fox regularly used, and was thereby directly
exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his
working career, and was diagnosed with prostate cancer and/or other
medical conditions as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-855-6060
Facsimile: 732-726-4860
3M COMPANY: Hilling Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Hilling and Barbara Hilling, his wife, 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.; BUCK EYE 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; KIDDIE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDIE 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.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case No. 2:23-cv-04414-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 1,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Daniel Hilling regularly used, and was thereby
directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires
during his working career, and was diagnosed with prostate cancer
and/or other medical conditions as a result of exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-855-6060
Facsimile: 732-726-4860
A&R CREATIVE: Graham Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB GRAHAM and MAHMUD HASSAN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. A&R CREATIVE GROUP, LLC;
19 EAST 13, LLC d/b/a MIDWAY ON HIGH; and ALI ALSHAHAL, Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-02779-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio. Aug. 25, 2023) is
brought against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt
Pay Act due to their alleged unlawful labor policies and
practices.
The Plaintiffs assert that Defendants have paid their tipped
employees an hourly wage that fell below the applicable Ohio Tipped
Employee Minimum Wage; that Defendants were not entitled to apply a
tip credit towards them and putative class members' minimum wages;
and Defendants failed to inform tipped employees that they took a
tip credit and of other tip credit provisions. The Defendant must
also compensate them and the putative class at one and one-half
times the full minimum wage rate for all overtime hours worked in
excess of 40 in a workweek, say the Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs Graham and Hassan were employed by Defendants at the
Midway Bar as bartenders from approximately 2014 to July 11, 2023
and from approximately mid-2020 to February 2023, respectively.
The Defendants collectively own and operate approximately six bars
and restaurants in the Central Ohio area.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
Rhiannon M. Herbert, Esq
MANSELL LAW, LLC
1457 S. High St.
Columbus, OH 43207
Telephone: (614) 796-4325
Facsimile: (614) 547-3614
E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
Rhiannon@MansellLawLLC.com
ABBOTT LAB: Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Sanchez
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GRACIELA SANCHEZ,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, an Illinois
corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-01436-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an order an amended pretrial
scheduling order.
Abbott is an American multinational medical devices and health care
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 17, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45CeITr at no extra charge.[CC]
ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF BIRMINGHAM RELIEF
AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM and OHIO CARPENTERS' PENSION FUND,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS INC., STEPHEN R. DAVIS, and SRDJAN (SERGE)
R. STANKOVIC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00762-WQH-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
-- Certifying case as class action;
-- Appointing Plaintiffs as class representatives; and
-- Appointing Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP as class counsel.
Acadia is a biopharmaceutical company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 21, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LbqlZq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
William C. Fredericks, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-4565
Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
wfredericks@scott-scott.com
AEGIS MEDIA: Kennedy Wins Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STACEY PARKS KENNEDY,
ANGELA BOZELL and BRITTNEY WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. AEGIS MEDIA AMERICAS, INC., BOARD
OF DIRECTORS OF AEGIS MEDIA AMERICAS, INC., THE PLAN INVESTMENT
COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 1:20-cv-03624-GHW
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gregory H. Woods entered an order
granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for class certification:
"All persons, except Defendants and their immediate family
members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
Plan,
at any time between May 8, 2014 through the date of
judgment."
-- The Plaintiffs Stacey Parks Kennedy, Angela Bozell, and
Brittney
Williams are appointed as Class representatives.
-- Capozzi Adler, P.C. is appointed as Class counsel.
The case is a putative class action brought pursuant to sections
409 and 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA), in which the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
breached their fiduciary duty of prudence to the Benefits Plus
401(k) Profit Sharing Plan.
The Plaintiffs further allege that Aegis and the Board failed to
monitor the Committee’s activities in violation of ERISA.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 17, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sDHhRX at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
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
- and -
Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
2933 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 233-4101
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Rene E. Thorne, Esq.
Ryan M. Tucker, Esq.
Phillip C. Thompson, Esq.
Todd H. Girshon, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
601 Poydras Street, Suite 1400
Louisiana, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 208-1755
Facsimile: (504) 208-1759
E-mail: Rene.Thorne@jacksonlewis.com
Ryan.Tucker@jacksonlewis.com
Phillip.Thompson@jacksonlewis.com
Todd.Girshon@jacksonlewis.com
AEROVIRONMENT INC: Continues to Defend Labor Class Suit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aerovironment Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending July 29,2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 6, 2023, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the labor-related class suit in the
California Superior Court.
On August 9, 2021, a former employee filed a class action complaint
against AeroVironment in California Superior Court in Los Angeles,
California alleging various claims pursuant to the California Labor
Code related to wages, meal breaks, overtime and other
recordkeeping matters.
The complaint seeks a jury trial and payment of various alleged
unpaid wages, penalties, interest and attorneys’ fees in
unspecified amounts.
The Company filed its answer on December 16, 2021. Discovery in
this lawsuit has begun and is ongoing.
The Company continues to mount a vigorous defense.
Aerovironment Inc. designs, develops, produces, delivers and
supports a technologically-advanced portfolio of intelligent,
multi-domain robotic systems and related services based in
Virginia.
AJ INC: Gaudreau Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW B. GAUDREAU on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AJ, INC. d/b/a SUSHI O SUSHI,
RAMEN O RAMEN, INC., KI SOOK LEE, and KYUNG LEE, Defendants, Case
No. 1:23-cv-02202 (D. Colo., Aug. 28, 2023) arises from the
Defendants' failure to pay adequate minimum and overtime wages for
all hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Colorado Minimum Wage Act, and the Colorado Wage Claim Act.
Plaintiff Gaudreau was employed by the Defendants as a sushi chef
from October of 2021 through approximately December of 2022.
AJ, Inc., d/b/a Sushi O Sushi, operates an Asian restaurant with
common ownership and management located in Colorado Springs
shopping center.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew H. Turner, Esq.
MILSTEIN TURNER, PLLC
1490 Lafayette St. #304
Denver, CO 80218
Telephone: (303) 305-8230
E-mail: andrew@milsteinturner.com
ALLIANCE GROUND: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Perry Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Alliance Ground International, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-06444 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 29, 2023) arises
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law
and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for Alliance's alleged failure to pay
Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees all earned
overtime wages.
The Plaintiff was employed by Alliance as a ramp agent from
approximately 2015 through approximately March, 2023. The Plaintiff
asserts that he and other similarly situated employees were not
compensated for all of the time they worked, including all of the
overtime hours they worked over 40 each workweek.
Alliance Ground International provides airline cargo handling
services to 55 airlines at 13 airports.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Telephone: (847) 986-5889
Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
SIMON LAW CO.
11 ½ N. Franklin Street
Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 816-8696
E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com
ALLIUM US HOLDING: Kuczkowski Files Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allium US Holding,
LLC. The case is styled as Jessica Kuczkowski, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Allium US Holding, LLC,
Case No. 1:23-cv-06763-MKV (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 2, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Allium -- https://www.allium-solutions.com/ -- is a certified
Salesforce Consulting Partner.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elliot Singer, Esq.
CONDUIT LAW LLC
2590 Welton St., Suite 200
Denver, CO 80205
Phone: (720) 432-7032
Email: elliot@conduit.law
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Kronenberg Suit Seeks Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT KRONENBERG, et al.,
v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-06899-HG-TAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
-- Granting their motion for class certification;
-- Certifying the proposed class under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3);
-- Appointing Plaintiffs as class representatives; and
-- Appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel.
The Plaintiffs move to certify a class of Allstate policyholders
based on Allstate's use of an unsupported and deceptive condition
adjustment to lower total loss insurance claims payments across the
class.
The Plaintiffs move to certify a class defined as follows:
"All citizens of New York asserting insurance claims pursuant to
an
Allstate private passenger vehicle policy who, from the earliest
allowable time within the statute of limitations to the present,
received a first-party or third-party total loss settlement or
settlement offer based in whole or in part on the price of
comparable vehicles reduced by a "condition adjustment."
Allstate is an insurance company. The Company offers auto, home
life insurances policies.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3P1gWVp at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert Carey, Esq.
John DeStefano, Esq.
Tory Beardsley, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
11 West Jefferson Street, Ste. 1000
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Telephone: (602) 840-5900
- and -
Patricia I. Avery, Esq.
Chet B. Waldman, Esq.
Timothy D. Brennan, Esq.
WOLF POPPER LLP
845 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 759-4600
The Defendant is represented by:
Wendy Enerson, Esq.
Peter J. Valeta, Esq.
Rafael Rivera, Jr., Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
123 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1800
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 382-3100
Facsimile: (312) 382-8910
E-mail: wenerson@cozen.com
pvaleta@cozen.com
RafaelRivera@cozen.com
AMAZON WEB: Court Modifies Case Deadlines in Rivera Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AVELARDO RIVERA and
YASMINE ROMERO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00269-JHC
(W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John H. Chun entered an order
extending and modifying the existing case deadlines in accordance
with the following stipulated motion:
1. Former named plaintiff Jacinda Dorian filed the original
complaint in this case on March 7, 2022.
2. AWS filed a motion to dismiss the original complaint on May
16,
2022.
3. On September 20, 2022, the Court allowed Ms. Dorian to file a
First Amended Complaint (FAC) substituting Plaintiffs as the
named plaintiffs.
4. AWS moved to dismiss the FAC on October 19, 2022.
5. On July 21, 2023, the Court granted the Parties' stipulated
motion to allow Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint
(SAC).
6. On July 24, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel
responses
to certain discovery requests.
7. Plaintiffs filed their SAC on July 26, 2023. That same day,
the
Court denied AWS's motion to dismiss.
8. On August 1, 2023, the Court granted the Parties' stipulated
motion to modify the briefing schedule for Plaintiffs’
pending
motion to compel discovery.
9. Currently, AWS's opposition to Plaintiffs' pending motion to
compel discovery is due on August 21, 2023.
10. Plaintiffs' reply in support of their pending motion to
compel
discovery is due on September 5, 2023.
11. Further, the Plaintiffs' deadline to disclose their experts
and
expert reports regarding class certification issues is August
21, 2023.
12. AWS's deadline to disclose its experts and expert reports
regarding class certification issues is September 25, 2023.
Amazon is a subsidiary of Amazon that provides on-demand cloud
computing platforms and APIs to individuals, companies, and
governments, on a metered, pay-as-you-go basis.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 18, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3L72IkG at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Eli Wade-Scott, Esq.
Schuyler Ufkes, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589-6370
Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
E-mail: ewadescott@edelson.com
sufkes@edelson.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Ryan Spear, Esq.
Nicola Menaldo, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: (206) 359-8000
Facsimile: (206) 359-9000
E-mail: RSpear@perkinscoie.com
NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com
AMERICAN TUNA: Craig Must File Class Cert Reply by Sept. 18
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY CRAIG, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN TUNA,
INC. and WORLD WISE FOODS, LTD., Case No. 3:22-cv-00473-RSH-MSB
(S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Robert S. Huie entered an order
granting joint motion to modify class certification briefing
schedule and deadline to respond to expert discovery:
-- The Plaintiff shall respond to RFP Set 2 Sept. 1,
2023
no later than:
-- American Tuna shall file its opposition Sept. 11,
2023
and to the Motion for Class Certification
no later than
-- The Plaintiff shall file his reply in Sept. 18,
2023.
support of his Motion for Class
Certification no later than:
American Tuna provides high quality responsibly and sustainably
sourced canned albacore tuna.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 17, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PoNry7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
ANECDOTE CANDLES: Jackson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anecdote Candles LLC.
The case is styled as Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Anecdote Candles LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-07773 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 1, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Anecdote Candles -- https://anecdotecandles.com/ -- is making
fragrance a conversation piece.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (917) 796-7437
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com
ASPEN LAWN CARE: Nunez Suit Removed to D. Kansas
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Eric Nunez, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Aspen Lawn Care, Inc., Case No.
23CV03763 was removed from the District Court of Johnson County,
Kansas, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on
Aug. 2, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02338-JWB-ADM to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Aspen Lawn -- https://www.aspenlawnmn.com/ -- offers professional
turf maintenance, landscaping and in winter, snow plowing services
to customers through the Twin Cities area.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Randall W. Brown, Esq.
Stephen C. Thornberry, Esq.
THORNBERRY BROWN, LLC
4550 Main Street, Suite #205
Kansas City, MO 64111
Phone: (816) 531-8383
Email: randy@thornberrybrown.com
steve@thornberrybrown.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Casey P. Murray, Esq.
SPENCER FANE, LLP - KC
1000 Walnut Street, Suite 1400
Kansas City, MO 64106
Phone: (816) 292-8133
Fax: (816) 474-3216
Email: cmurray@spencerfane.com
BACUS FOODS: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Holder Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Michael Holder, Plaintiff v. Bacus Foods Corporation,
et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-23-00763-PHX-JJT (D. Ariz.), Judge
John J. Tuchi of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona:
a. denies the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification
of a Collective Action;
b. denies Defendant BFCJJS106 LLC's Motion to Dismiss for Lack
of Personal Jurisdiction;
c. denies the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and/or Transfer;
d. grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' Motion to
Compel Arbitration; and
e. grants the Defendants' Motion to Defer Ruling on the
Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification.
At issue are several motions filed in the matter. The first is the
Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification of a Collective
Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to which the
Defendants filed a Response and Plaintiff filed a Reply. The next
set of motions is Defendant BFCJJS106 LLC's Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Personal Jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(2), the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and/or Transfer under
Rule 12(b)(3), and the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration, to
which the Plaintiff filed a Response and the Defendants filed a
Reply. The last motion at issue is the Defendants' Motion to Defer
Ruling on the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification, to
which the Plaintiff filed a Response and the Defendants filed a
Reply.
The Plaintiff works as a delivery driver for a Jimmy John's store
in Lincoln, Nebraska. On May 3, 2023, he filed a Class and
Collective Action Complaint, which he amended on May 9, 2023 (First
Amended Class and Collective Action Complaint ("FAC")). As
Defendants, the Plaintiff has named two individuals and two
entities that, he alleges, make up a franchise group that owns and
operates Jimmy John's stores across several states, including the
store in Lincoln where he works.
The individual defendants are brothers Brandt and Jared Bacus, who
sit atop the franchise group and reside in Arizona. The entity
defendants are Bacus Foods Corporation ("BFC") and BFCJJS106 LLC
("Store 106 LLC"). BFC is an Arizona corporation owned and operated
by the Bacus Brothers. The Plaintiff alleges BFC owns and operates
Jimmy John's stores in Arizona, Kansas, Colorado, and Nebraska,
including his store in Lincoln -- Store 106. He alleges Store 106
is also owned by Store 106 LLC, a Nebraska limited liability
company that is, in turn, owned and operated by BFC and the Bacus
Brothers.
According to the Plaintiff, both entities have their principal
place of business at the same address in Mesa, Arizona, which
serves as a consolidated corporate headquarters. He alleges the
Defendants unlawfully pay delivery drivers like himself less than
minimum wage. More specifically, he alleges the Defendants have
failed to adequately reimburse drivers for their work-related
expenses -- principally, delivery-related vehicle expenses --
thereby failing to pay them minimum wage in violation of the FLSA
and the Nebraska Wage and Hour Act. He further alleges the
Defendants have failed to pay all wages due to delivery drivers and
improperly diverted wages from them in violation of the Nebraska
Wage Payment and Collection Act. He likens this case to other
delivery-driver suits alleging violations of the Department of
Labor's anti-kickback regulation, 29 C.F.R. Section 531.35.
On May 9, 2023 - the same day he filed the FAC -- the Plaintiff
filed a Motion for Conditional Certification. He seeks an Order
conditionally certifying this case as an FLSA collective action and
authorizing notice to similarly situated delivery drivers employed
at Defendants' Jimmy John's stores nationwide. On May 30, 2023, the
Defendants filed an Expedited Motion requesting a stay of the
briefing on the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification
or, alternatively, an extension of time in which to respond to it.
The Court declined the Defendants' request for a stay but granted
their alternative request for an extension of time in which to
respond to the Plaintiff's Motion. It permitted Defendants to file
a formal request for the Court to defer ruling on the Plaintiff's
Motion, which they have since filed alongside their Response.
On June 7, 2023, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack
of Personal Jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2), Motion to Dismiss
and/or Transfer under Rule 12(b)(3), and Motion to Compel
Arbitration ("Defendants' Dispositive Motions"). They seek an Order
dismissing the case, transferring it to another district, or
compelling the Plaintiff to participate in arbitration -- prior to
the issuance of notice to the proposed FLSA class. When the
Plaintiff was hired at Store 106, he signed a Dispute Resolution
Procedure & Mutual Binding Arbitration Agreement with BFCNE.
According to Bacus, the Arbitration Agreement was a component of
the Plaintiff's employment agreement. According to Bacus, the
Plaintiff did not choose to opt out.
The Plaintiff does not deny he signed the Arbitration Agreement
with BFCNE. He argues the agreement does not cover this dispute,
however, because he has not named BFCNE as a defendant and those he
has named are neither signatories to the agreement, nor referenced
in it. He disputes that the Arbitration Agreement was part of his
contract for employment at Store 106; he argues it is a standalone
contract. He presents a document from the nonprofit news
organization ProPublica showing that Store 106 LLC received a
Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP") loan for more than $90,000 in
2021. According to ProPublica, Store 106 LLC reported it had 38
employees. The Plaintiff asserts that BFCNE, on the other hand, did
not receive a PPP loan.
With respect to the Defendants' Motion to Defer Ruling on
Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification, while Judge Tuchi
acknowledges the issue of priority in these circumstances is not
fully settled, he joins those courts in this district that have
considered dispositive motions -- including motions to compel
arbitration -- before motions for conditional certification.
Regarding the Defendants' Dispositive Motions, Judge Tuchi holds
that the Plaintiff has met his burden of showing that Store 106
LLC's principal place of business is in Arizona. His evidence and
uncontroverted allegations support the conclusion that Store 106
LLC lists its principal address in Mesa because that is the
location of the nerve center from which the Bacus Brothers direct,
control, and coordinate its activities. Defendants' evidence does
not meaningfully contradict this theory.
Judge Tuchi turns to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and/or
Transfer. Having found Store 106 LLC's principal place of business
is in Arizona, he must disagree. As all named Defendants reside in
Arizona, venue is properly laid in this district.
Judge Tuchi then examines the Defendants' Motion to Compel
Arbitration. He finds that (i) the Plaintiff is estopped from
avoiding his agreement to arbitrate any disputes relating to or
arising from his employment with BFCNE; (ii) he must leave disputes
concerning the scope of the Arbitration Agreement to be resolved in
arbitration; and (iii) the agreement covers employment-related
claims brought by either party.
Having concluded the Defendants may compel the Plaintiff to
participate in arbitration, Judge Tuchi declines at this time the
Plaintiff's request to conditionally certify the case as an FLSA
collective action.
In sum, Judge Tuchi finds the Plaintiff has met his burden at this
stage to show the Court has personal jurisdiction over Store 106
LLC and venue is properly laid in this district. However, he finds
the Defendants have shown they may enforce the Plaintiff's
Arbitration Agreement with BFCNE under an alternative estoppel
theory. He must compel the Plaintiff to participate in arbitration
to address his claims accordingly. For this reason, Judge Tuchi
denies without prejudice the Plaintiff's request to conditionally
certify the case as an FLSA collective action. He exercises
discretion to stay the proceedings pending arbitration, rather than
dismiss the case outright.
Therefore, Judge Tuchi grants the Defendants' Motion to Defer
Ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification; denies
BFCJJS106 LLC's Rule 12(b)(2) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Personal Jurisdiction; denies the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(3) Motion
to Dismiss and/or Transfer; grants in part and denies in part the
Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration; and denies the
Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification of FLSA Collective
Action without prejudice.
The Plaintiff is compelled to participate in arbitration with
Defendants pursuant to the terms of the Arbitration Agreement he
signed with BFCNE Inc. Judge Tuchi does not dismiss this matter at
this time but will enter a stay pending arbitration, which the
parties will pursue diligently and without delay. The parties will
file a joint report no later than March 1, 2024, detailing the
status and progress of the matter in arbitration.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 1, 2023 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2racjfh4 from Leagle.com.
BARILLA AMERICA: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 30
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW SINATRO and
JESSICA PROST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. BARILLA AMERICA, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-03460-DMR
(N.D. Cal.),
Hon. Judge Donna M. Ryu entered a stipulated first amended case
management scheduling order as follows:
Event Current Continued
Deadline Deadline
Deadline to file Plaintiffs' Aug. 16, 2023 Aug. 30,
2023
Motion for Class
Certification/Defendant's
Motion to Strike Class
Allegations, including any
expert reports upon which
Plaintiffs rely in its motion
Deadline to Complete Sept. 15, 2023 Sept. 29,
2023
Depositions & Document
Production of Plaintiffs'
Experts re: Class
Certification
Deadline to file Defendant's Oct. 20, 2023 Oct. 30,
2023
Opposition to Class
Certification/Plaintiffs'
Opposition to Motion to
Strike Class Allegations,
including any counter
expert reports upon which
Defendant relies in its
Motion
Hearing on Class Certification Date Set by Court Feb. 8,
2024
Motion/Motion to Strike after Deadline
Class Allegations for Parties to
Participate in
Private Mediation
Barilla is Family owned Pasta company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 17, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3EmeKTF at no extra charge.[CC]
BAYSTATE HEALTH: Uses Private Data Without Consent, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BAYSTATE HEALTH SYSTEM INC., Defendant, Case
No. _____ (Mass. Super., Aug. 29, 2023) is a class action arising
from the Defendant's systematic violation of the privacy rights of
its patients and website visitors by wiretapping the electronic
communications of visitors to its website,
https://www.baystatehealth.org/ and/or
https://providers.bavstatehealth.org/, and violating patients'
rights to privacy with respect to their medical information.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant
intentionally used various digital marketing tools on its website
that were able to identify the patients and website users on the
Baystate Website, and purposefully and intentionally redirected
patients' and other Baystate Website users' communications
containing Personal Health Information and other sensitive
information to third parties.
The Defendant's use of these re-routing tools caused Baystate
Website users' and patients' Personally Identifiable Information
and the contents of their communications through the website to be
automatically disclosed to third parties in violation of patients'
and website users' reasonable expectations of privacy, of their
rights as patients, of their rights as citizens of Massachusetts,
and of both the express and implied promises of the Defendant, says
the suit.
BAYSTATE HEALTH SYSTEMS INC. is a healthcare services provider. The
Company owns and operates medical centers and hospitals in
Massachusetts. Baystate Health also provides home care and hospice
services, ambulatory services, rehabilitation services, behavorial
health services and orthopedic services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shapiro, Esq.
SHAPIRO & TEITELBAUM LLP
55 Union Street, 4th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
Telephone: (617) 742-5800
Email: jshapiro@jsmtlegal.com
BIG 5 CORP: AliAbdulhadi Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Big 5 Corp. The case
is styled as AliAbdulhadi, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Big 5 Corp., Case No. 2:23-cv-06227-JFW-SK
(C.D. Cal., Aug. 1, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Big 5 Sporting Goods -- https://www.big5sportinggoods.com/ -- is a
sporting goods retailer headquartered in El Segundo,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Sibilia, Esq.
OCEANSIDE LAW CENTER
PO Box 861
Oceanside, CA 92049
Phone: (760) 666-1151
Fax: (818) 698-0300
Email: robert@oceansidelawcenter.com
BREAKTHROUGH TOWING: Robertson Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OLIVIA ROBERTSON, LENG
VANG, TIMOTHY BATES, ASHLEY COLLINS, and JUSTIN KANDAH, KAREN ABKE
on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated, known
and unknown, v. BREAKTHROUGH TOWING, LLC, MAGIC TOWING, LLC
(formerly Breakthrough Towing, LLC), MICHAEL DICKERSON (aka Mike
Jones), individually and as owner/resident agent of Breakthrough
Towing and Magic Towing, MIDTOWN LIQUOR & DELI, THE CITY OF
DETROIT, THE CITY OF HAMTRAMCK, CITY OF HAMTRMACK POLICE DEPARTMENT
JOHN DOES, and CITY OF DETROIT POLICE DEPARTMENT JOHN DOES, Case
No. 2:19-cv-10266-MAG-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order certifying class of claimants pursuant to
FRCP 23(b)(3) on all issues except damages.
The Plaintiffs propose the following class descriptions:
(1) All persons whose vehicles were towed by Breakthrough Towing
whose vehicle information was not entered into the LEIN
system
and who therefore did not receive a Notice of Abandoned
Vehicle
form to protest their tow.
(2) All persons whose vehicles were authorized to be towed by
the
Defendants Detroit or Hamtramck through their respective
police
departments and whose vehicles were then towed by
Breakthrough
Towing from locations in Detroit or Hamtramck that lacked
the
notice and signage requirements pursuant to MCL section
257.252k.
(3) All persons who vehicles were authorized to be towed by the
Defendants Detroit or Hamtramck through their respective
police
departments and whose vehicles were then towed by
Breakthrough
Towing after Breakthrough Towing did not have the authority
to
two vehicles required by the state.
These proposed class members are readily ascertainable given the
spreadsheet and logbooks/tow slips maintained by Detroit and
Hamtramck, as well as the number of individuals who have contacted
Plaintiffs' counsel with potential claims.
This proposed class action is brought on behalf of hundreds of
persons who were subjected to unconstitutional seizures, property
deprivations without notice, as well as denials of the
constitutional right to a prompt hearing pursuant to Breakthrough
Towing towing vehicles from areas within the Cities of Detroit and
Hamtramck.
All class members have the same injury occasioned by the
pre-hearing property deprivations, unconstitutional and illegal
seizure of their vehicles and the subsequent unconstitutional
denial of a prompt post-deprivation hearing in accordance with
constitutionally guaranteed due process, the lawsuit says.
Breakthrough is a towing company owned and operated by Defendant
Michael Dickerson that towed cars from Detroit and Hamtramck from
2008 through at least March of 2019.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 18, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45UDrSD at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hannah R. Fielstra
ERNST LAW FIRM, PLC
645 Griswold St Suite 4100
Detroit, MI 48226
BROCK PIERCE: Bid for Summary Judgment in Rowan Suit Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NATHAN ROWAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BROCK PIERCE, Defendant, Civil No.
20-1648 (RAM) (D.P.R.), Judge Raul M. Arias-Marxuach of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico grants in part and
denies in part the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Pending before the Court is Defendant Brock Pierce's Motion for
Summary Judgment, accompanied by his Statement of Undisputed
Material Facts ("SUMF").
On Nov. 16, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint against former
Independent presidential candidate Pierce. Subsequently, he filed
an Amended Complaint on July 12, 2021. Rowan claims Pierce violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Section
227(b)(1)(A)(iii), by sending pre-recorded messages to promote the
Defendant's campaign to consumers' phone numbers, including his,
without their consent.
The Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on March 24,
2023. Pierce asserted two main arguments: first, that the Plaintiff
lacks standing because he has not presented evidence of any
injury-in-fact, and second, Defendant is not personally liable. The
Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition, accompanied by his
Opposing Statement of Material Facts ("OSMF") and Additional
Statement of Material Facts ("Add'l SMF"), and the Defendant filed
a Reply containing a Reply Statement of Undisputed Material Facts
("Reply SUMF").
As an initial matter, Judge Arias-Marxuach considers issues raised
by the Defendant in his Reply regarding admissibility of evidence.
The Defendant moves to exclude portions of the Plaintiff's Response
as inadmissible. These portions include a WhatsApp chat, the
Plaintiff's discovery responses and declaration, and the expert
declaration of Randall Snyder. The Defendant seeks to exclude a
WhatsApp chat purportedly containing conversations between Pierce
and others on two bases: first, that its veracity has never been
tested and second, that it contains inadmissible hearsay.
Given that Pierce is the named Defendant and Rowan's
party-opponent, Judge Arias-Marxuach holds that the portions of the
WhatsApp chat associated with Pierce's phone number that the
Plaintiff used to support the OSMF and Add'l SMF are no hearsay and
are therefore admissible in the summary judgment context. However,
the Plaintiff also refers to statements made by individuals
speaking about the campaign. Accordingly, the WhatsApp chat
messages sent by persons other than the Defendant are hearsay and
cannot be used to create a genuine dispute of material fact.
The Defendant also objects to inclusion of the Plaintiff's
discovery responses and declaration because he claims they contain
self-serving hearsay statements. After reviewing the materials in
question, Judge Arias-Marxuach holds it is clear most of the
documents contain sufficient specific information based on Rowan's
personal knowledge. To the extent that statements used to support
the OSMF and Add'l SMF were not based on personal knowledge, they
have been excluded from the findings of fact and from
consideration. Finally, the documents in question were not filed
after the motion for summary judgment, and they are therefore
unlikely to be sham affidavits.
The Defendant further objects to any reliance on the expert
declaration of Randall Snyder because it constitutes inadmissible
hearsay. Because Judge Arias-Marxuach did not rely on the expert
declaration for the purposes of evaluating this motion, the
Defendant's request is moot.
After only crediting material facts that are properly supported by
a record citation and uncontroverted, Judge Arias-Marxuach denies
the motion for summary judgment on standing grounds. He finds that
the Plaintiff remains within the zone of interest that the TCPA was
intended to protect, and he has statutory standing.
As to personal liability, the litigants raise and contest several
theories of personal liability under the TCPA -- an area which the
First Circuit has not yet addressed. With respect to direct
liability, a reasonable finder of fact could not reasonably
conclude on the provided record that the Defendant is directly
liable. As such, the motion for summary judgment is granted on this
theory of liability.
With respect to vicarious liability, Judge Arias-Marxuach says the
communications between Anderson, the Campaign, and Pierce could
give the reasonable impression that Pierce impliedly authorized the
Campaign to call Rowan. As a result, a reasonable jury might find
that Pierce and the Campaign were in an agency relationship that
makes Defendant personally liable for violations of the TCPA.
Accordingly, summary judgment on this theory of liability is
denied. But because there is no identifiable statement made by the
Defendant to the Plaintiff in the record that could allow Rowan to
reasonably believe Pierce authorized agents to call him, the motion
for summary judgment on this theory of liability is granted.
Because a reasonable jury could find the Defendant ratified the
actions of the Campaign and Media Mash, summary judgment on
ratification liability is denied.
Regarding control-based liability, Judge Arias-Marxuach opines that
because the Plaintiff has not put forth any evidence in the record
that the Defendant was an officer or employee of the Campaign,
summary judgment is granted on this theory of liability. However,
the Plaintiff stated that he is no longer pursuing an alter ego
theory of liability. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment
on this theory of liability is granted.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Arias-Marxuach grants in part and
denies in part Pierce's Motion for Summary Judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 1, 2023 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5nxkt2ha from Leagle.com.
CARESOURCE: Cooper Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PHI/PII
---------------------------------------------------------
Dwayne Cooper, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CARESOURCE, Case No. 3:23-cv-00256-MJN-PBS (S.D. Ohio,
Sept. 4, 2023), is brought for its failure to secure and safeguard
the personally identifying information ("PII") and personal health
information ("PHI") of over three million people that it was
entrusted to safeguard which resulted to the following types of
personal information are now in the hands of criminal hackers:
names, addresses, birthdates, Social Security numbers, and
sensitive medical information including "health conditions,"
"medications," "allergies," and "diagnosis."
CareSource owed a non-delegable duty to Cooper and Class Members to
implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to
secure, protect, and safeguard their PII/PHI against unauthorized
access and disclosure. It also had an obligation to ensure that any
vendor or third party it selected to offload the sensitive
information it was entrusted with would take reasonable measures to
safeguard that data.
As a result of CareSource's inadequate vendor screening, security
measures and breach of its legal duties and obligations, the
aforementioned data breach occurred, and Cooper's and Class
Members' PII/PHI was accessed and "stolen" by an unspecified "bad
actor." CareSource permitted Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII/PHI
to be held in unencrypted form despite the heightened sensitivity
of such PII/PHI.
The Plaintiff asserts claims against CareSource for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied
contract, breach of contracts to which Plaintiff and Class Members
are intended third party beneficiaries, violations of the West
Virginia Consumer Credit Protection Act, and, alternatively, unjust
enrichment, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff received a letter from CareSource dated August 24,
2023 which stated that "some of your protected health information
was part of the data stolen by the bad actor."
CareSource provides healthcare coverage and is one of the country's
largest Medicaid managed care plans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
Dylan J. Gould, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 E. Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45209
Phone: (513) 651-3700
Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com
dgould@msdlegal.com
- and -
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq.
SHUB & JOHNS LLC
Four Tower Bridge
200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Phone: (610) 477-8380
Email: jshub@shublawyers.com
bjohns@shublawyers.com
sholbrook@shublawyers.com
CELLULAR LLC: Vargas Sues Over Store Attendants' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Endri J. Vargas, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Cellular LLC, The Cell Spot LLC, Jesus E. Dao Sr., and Sohail
Ahmed, individually, Case No. 6:23-cv-01682 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 31,
2023) seeks to recover unpaid regular and overtime wages and
retaliatory discharge under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees on behalf
of the Plaintiff and all other current and former employees
similarly situated to the Plaintiff and who worked more than 40
hours during one or more weeks on or after May 2023.
The Plaintiff performed as a cellular store attendant at three
different locations. The Plaintiff had a wage rate of $12.00 an
hour. Thus, his overtime rate should be $18.00 an hour. The
Plaintiff had an irregular schedule, and he worked seven days per
week from Monday to Sunday, an average of 68 hours per week. The
last three weeks of employment, the Plaintiff worked six days per
week or an average of 58 hours weekly. He did not take bonafide
lunch hours, the suit claims.
The lawsuit asserts that the Plaintiff was not paid timely on the
payday; the Defendants made partial payments to the Plaintiff; and
the Plaintiff was not paid overtime hours worked at the rate of
time and one-half their regular rate. This action is intended to
include every cell phone store attendant, salesman, repaid
technician, and any similarly situated individuals who worked for
Defendants at any time during the past three years.
Plaintiff Vargas was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt,
full-time hourly employee from May 12, 2023, to July 27, 2023, or
11 weeks.
Cellular provides mobile telephone equipment sales and repairs in
Orlando.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
CHEMOURS CO: $1.19MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 14
------------------------------------------------------------
Angeion Group on Sept. 5 disclosed that a settlement has been
reached with Defendants in a product liability class action lawsuit
involving all Public Water Systems in the US that draw or otherwise
collect from any water source that, on or before June 30, 2023, was
tested or otherwise analyzed for PFAS and found to contain any PFAS
at any level; and
All Public Water Systems in the US that, as of June 30, 2023, are
(i) subject to the monitoring rules set forth in the U.S. EPA's
Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule ("UCMR 5") (i.e.,
"large" systems serving more than 10,000 people and "small" systems
serving between 3,300 and 10,000 people), or (ii) required under
applicable state or federal law to test or otherwise analyze any of
their water sources or the water they provide for PFAS before the
deadline of sample collection under UCMR 5.
Public Water System means a system for the provision of water to
the public for human consumption through pipes or other constructed
conveyances if such a system has at least fifteen (15) service
connections or regularly serves at least twenty-five (25)
individuals. A "Public Water System" shall include the owner and/or
operator of that system and any public entity that is legally
responsible for funding (by statute, regulation, other law, or
contract), other than a State or the federal government, a Public
Water System described in such Paragraph or has authority to bring
a claim on behalf of such a Public Water System.
What does the Settlement provide?
The Settling Defendants have agreed to pay $1,185,000,000, subject
to final approval of the Settlement by the Court and certain other
conditions specified in the Settlement Agreement. In no event shall
the Settling Defendants be required to pay any amounts under the
Settlement Agreement above the Settlement Amount. Any fees, costs,
or expenses payable under the Settlement Agreement shall be paid
out of, and shall not be in addition to, the Settlement Amount.
Each Settlement Class Member who has not excluded themself from the
Class will be eligible to receive a settlement check(s) from the
Claims Administrator based on the Allocation Procedures developed
by Class Counsel, which are subject to final approval by the Court
as fair and reasonable and which are under the oversight of the
Special Master.
How do I get a payment from the Settlement?
You must file a Claims Form to be eligible to receive a payment
under the Settlement. You can submit your Claims Form online at
www.PFASWaterSettlement.com, or you can download, complete and mail
your Claims Form to the Claims Administrator at AFFF Public Water
System Claims, PO Box 4466, Baton Rouge, LA 70821. The deadlines to
submit a Claim Forms are illustrated below. Regardless of whether
you file a Claims Form or receive any distribution under the
Settlement, unless you timely opt out as described below, you will
be bound by any judgment or other final disposition of the Released
Claims, including the Release set forth in the Settlement
Agreement, and will be precluded from pursuing claims against the
Settling Defendants separately if those Claims are within the scope
of the Release.
What are my rights?
If you are a Class member and do nothing, you will be bound by the
Settlement and will give up any right to sue The Chemours Company,
The Chemours Company FC, LLC, DuPont de Nemours, Inc., Corteva,
Inc., and E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company n/k/a EIDP, Inc. in a
separate lawsuit related to the legal claims in this lawsuit. If
you want to keep your right to separately sue The Chemours Company,
The Chemours Company FC, LLC, DuPont de Nemours, Inc., Corteva,
Inc., and E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company n/k/a EIDP, Inc. you
must exclude yourself from the Settlement by DECEMBER 4, 2023. If
you do not exclude yourself, you may object to the Settlement
and/or ask for permission to appear and speak at the Fairness
Hearing but only if you do so by NOVEMBER 4, 2023. Complete
information is available at www.PFASWaterSettlement.com.
The Court's hearing.
The Court will hold the Final Fairness Hearing in Hon. Sol Blatt,
Jr., Courtroom of the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, located at 85 Broad Street, Charleston, South
Carolina 29401, on December 14, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. At that time,
the Court will determine, among other things, (i) whether the
Settlement should be granted final approval as fair, reasonable,
and adequate, (ii) whether the Released Claims should be dismissed
with prejudice pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement,
(iii) whether the Settlement Class should be conclusively
certified, (iv) whether Settlement Class Members should be bound by
the Release set forth in the Settlement Agreement, (v) the amount
of attorneys' fees and costs to be awarded to Class Counsel, if
any, and (vi) the amount of the award to be made to the Class
Representatives for their services, if any. The Final Fairness
Hearing may be postponed, adjourned, or continued by Order of the
Court without further notice to the Class.
For more information, visit www.PFASWaterSettlement.com or call
toll-free 1-855-714-4341.
Media Contact:
Angeion Group
Shiri Lasman
(215) 563-4116
CHRISTOPHER WALZ: Dismissal & Judgment Bids in Hardee Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN T. HARDEE, Plaintiff v. CHRISTOPHER WALZ, et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:20cv729 (E.D. Va.), Judge M. Hannah
Lauck of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, Richmond Division:
a. grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and the Motions
for Summary Judgment;
b. dismisses with prejudice Hardee's constitutional claims;
and
c. dismisses without prejudice Hardee's state law claims.
John T. Hardee, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed the 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 action. The matter is
proceeding on Hardee's Third Amended Complaint. Hardee's claims
stem from his infection with COVID-19 while incarcerated in the
Hampton Road Regional Jail ("HRRJ"). Hardee demands monetary
damages and declaratory relief.
Hardee named the following individuals and entities in the Third
Amended Complaint: Superintendent Christopher Walz; Assistant
Superintendent Felicia Cowan; Captain Winston Bhagirath; Sergeant
Mary Cheeseboro; Sergeant T. Jones; Officer Matthew Tillman;
Officer Clark; the Virginia Department of Corrections ("VDOC");
Harold Clarke, the Director of the VDOC; "Correct Care Solutions
and its other name, Well Path"; Nurse Kathryn Topham; and Nurse
Practitioner Jennifer Hodge.
The matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss filed by
Defendants Clarke and the VDOC, and the Motions for Summary
Judgment filed by the remaining Defendants. All Defendants provided
Hardee with appropriate Roseboro notice. Hardee has responded.
Hardee initially filed the action with numerous other inmates at
HRRJ. He purported to bring the suit as a class action. By
Memorandum Order entered on Oct. 16, 2020, the Court informed
Hardee and the other inmate Plaintiffs that the action could not
proceed as a class action. In the ensuing months, the Court
dismissed most of the Plaintiffs because they failed to comply with
the directions of the Court. By Memorandum Order entered on March
23, 2021, the Court ordered that the action would proceed with
Hardee as the sole plaintiff. By Memorandum Opinion and Order
entered on March 10, 2023, the Court granted Hardee's Motion to
Amend and filed his Third Amended Complaint. Hardee's Third Amended
Complaint concerns his infection with COVlD-19 while detained in
HRRJ. In March of 2018, Hardee was incarcerated in HRRJ as a
pretrial detainee.
In Claim 1, Hardee alleges Defendants Walz, Cowan, Bhagirath,
Cheeseboro, and T. Jones are fully responsible as supervisors for
exercising deliberate indifference to his health and safety. In
Claim 2, he alleges Clarke and the VDOC could have and should have
ordered the lockdown and further suspension of new intakes at HRRJ.
The failure to do so violated (a) Hardee's constitutional rights
and (b) amounted to negligence. In Claim 3, Hardee alleges
CorrectCare Solutions/Well Path, Topham, and Hodge protect him from
COVID-19. In Claim 4, all the Defendants failed to adequately
screen incoming new intakes. This lack of action (a) violated
Hardee's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and (b) amounted to
negligence under state law.
As to the Motion to Dismiss, Judge Lauck holds that the VDOC is not
a person for purposes of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Accordingly,
Claims 2(a) and 4(a) against the VDOC are dismissed with
prejudice.
Judge Lauck also holds that Hardee's Third Amended Complaint fails
to state facts that plausibly indicate that Clarke could halt the
intake of new inmates at HRRJ or was responsible for living
conditions at HRRJ. As a pretrial detainee in a regional jail,
Hardee did not enjoy a "constitutional right for state officials to
respond to his letters or to grievances he raises therein."
Accordingly, Claims 2(a) and 4(a) against Defendant Clarke are also
dismissed with prejudice.
Because she ultimately dismisses all of Hardee's federal claims,
Judge Lauck declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his
state law claims. Accordingly, Claims 2(b) and 4(b) against Clarke
and the VDOC are dismissed without prejudice. The Motion to Dismiss
is granted.
With respect to the Motions for Summary Judgment, Judge Lauck
opines that many of Hardee's affidavits and sworn statements fail
to constitute admissible evidence. Because Hardee fails to
demonstrate deliberate indifference by Defendants Cheeseboro,
Clark, Tillman and Jones, Claims l(a)(i), l(b)(i) and l(e)(i)
against them are dismissed with prejudice. Furthermore, on this
record, Hardee fails to demonstrate that any Defendant acted with
deliberate indifference with respect to the general screening
process of new intakes for COVID-19. Accordingly, Claim 4(a) is
dismissed with prejudice.
What remains is that aspect of Claims l(a)(i) and l(b)(i) against
Defendants Walz, Cowan, and Bhagirath wherein Hardee insists these
Defendants acted with deliberate indifference because they
quarantined (lockdown) the new intakes in his pod. While perhaps
not the absolute best course of action with the benefit of
hindsight and what we now regarding the spread of Covid-19, Hardee
fails to demonstrate these Defendants acted with deliberate
indifference. Accordingly, Claim 3(a)(i) is dismissed with
prejudice.
In Claim 3(b)(i), Hardee contends that Nurse Hodge acted with
deliberate indifference when, on or about April 20, 2020, she
ignored his demand to receive a COVID-19 test and appropriate
treatment. There is no evidence that Nurse Topham's actions caused
Hardee to suffer a lifelong handicap, permanent loss, or
considerable pain. Accordingly, Claim 3(b)(i) is dismissed with
prejudice. Because Hardee fails to demonstrate that Nurse Hodge
acted with deliberate indifference, Claim 3(c)(i) is also dismissed
with prejudice.
In Claim l(c)(i), Hardee contends that Defendants Walz, Cowan,
Bhagirath, Cheeseboro, and Jones violated his rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment by depriving me of a shower, access to the
phones, razors, and hygiene, and being unable to exercise, allowing
his muscles to waste away. Judge Lauck holds that Hardee has not
introduced evidence reflecting that he suffered more than a de
minimis injury. Accordingly, Claim l(c)(i) is dismissed with
prejudice.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Lauck dismisses with prejudice Claims
l(a)(i), l(b)(i), l(c)(i), l(d)(i), l(e)(i), 2(a), 3(a)(i),
3(b)(i), and 4(a). She has dismissed all of Hardee's constitutional
claims and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
Hardee's state law. Accordingly, Claims l(a)(ii), l(b)(ii),
l(c)(ii), l(d)(ii), l(e)(ii), 2(b), 3(a)(ii), 3(a)(iii), 3(b)(ii),
3(b)(iii), 3(c)(ii), 3(c)(iii), and 4(b) are dismissed without
prejudice. The Motion to Dismiss and the Motions for Summary
Judgment are granted. The action is dismissed. An appropriate Final
Order accompanies Judge Lauck's Memorandum Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 1, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mufa3vte from Leagle.com.
CISS MANAGEMENT: Acosta Sues Over Unpaid Proper Compensations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ezequiel Acosta, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved
Employees v. CISS MANAGEMENT GROUP, California Corporation, and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23STCV21244 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 1, 2023), is brought pursuant to the
California Labor Code as a result of the Defendants failure to pay
the Plaintiff proper compensations.
The Defendants failed to provide employment records in violation of
Labor Code; failed to pay overtime and double time in violation of
Labor Code and the applicable Wage Orders; failed to provide rest
and meal periods in violation of Labor Code and the applicable Wage
Orders; failed to pay minimum wage in violation of Labor Code and
the applicable Wage Orders; failed to keep accurate payroll records
and provide itemized wage statements in violation of Labor Code and
the applicable Wage Orders; failed to pay reporting time wages in
violation of California Code of Regulations, failed to pay split
shift wages in violation of California Code of Regulations failed
to pay split shift wages in violation of California Code of
Regulations failed to pay all wages earned on time in violation of
Labor Code; failed to pay all wages earned upon discharge or
resignation in violation of Labor Code; failed to reimburse
necessary, business-related expenses in violation of Labor Code;
failed to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual in violation
of Labor Code employers, and individuals acting on behalf of
employers, violating or causing to be violated a section of the
Labor Code or any Wage Order in violation of Labor Code, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants with the job title of
Security Guard on March 01, 2022.
The Defendants are a Stock Corporation that provide security guard
services for commercial and private property.[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
Phone: 1-818-696-2306
Facsimile: 1-818-696-2307
Email: haig@hbklawyers.com
melissa@hbklawyers.com
CITADEL OF BOURBONNAIS: Underpays Nursing Assistants, Spears Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CLEMENTINE SPEARS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITADEL OF BOURBONNAIS, LLC, and
JONATHAN AARON, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02186-CSB-EIL (C.D.
Ill., August 28, 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 has been employed by the Defendants as a certified
nursing assistant from October 22, 2022 until the present.
Citadel of Bourbonnais, LLC is an operator of a nursing home,
located at 20 Briarcliff Lane, Bourbonnais, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chad W. Eisenback, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Telephone: (630) 575-8180
Facsimile: (630) 575-8188
E-mail: ceisenback@sulaimanlaw.com
CITY NATIONAL BANK: Braun Sues Over Inadequate Data Security
------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Braun, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CITY NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA, Case No. 178671314 (Fla.
11th Judicial Cir. Ct., Miami-Dade Cty., Aug. 1, 2023), is brought
seeking to hold CNBF responsible for the injuries CNBF inflicted on
Plaintiff and 36,306 similarly situated persons ("Class Members")
due to CNBF's impermissibly inadequate data security, which caused
the personal information of Plaintiff and those similarly situated
to be exfiltrated by unauthorized access by cybercriminals (the
"Data Breach" or "Breach") from June 29 to June 30, 2023.
The data that CNBF caused to be exfiltrated by cybercriminals were
highly sensitive. Upon information and belief, the exfiltrated data
included personal identifying information ("PII") like first and
last name, date of birth, bank account number, Social Security
Number, email address, and mailing address. Prior to and through
the date of the Data Breach, CNBF obtained Plaintiff's and Class
Members' PII and then maintained that sensitive data in a negligent
and/or reckless manner. As evidenced by the Data Breach, CNBF
inadequately maintained its network, platform, software, and
technology partners--rendering these easy prey for cybercriminals.
The risk of the Data Breach was known to CNBF. Thus, CNBF was on
notice that its inadequate data security created a heightened risk
of exfiltration, compromise, and theft.
Then, after the Data Breach, CNBF failed to provide timely notice
to the affected Plaintiff and Class Members—thereby exacerbating
their injuries. Ultimately, CNBF deprived Plaintiff and Class
Members of the chance to take speedy measures to protect themselves
and mitigate harm. Simply put, CNBF impermissibly left Plaintiff
and Class Members in the dark—thereby causing their injuries to
fester and the damage to spread. Even when CNBF finally notified
Plaintiff and Class Members of their PII's exfiltration, CNBF
failed to adequately describe the Data Breach and its effects.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to remedy these injuries on
behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals whose
PII were exfiltrated and compromised in the Data Breach, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person and resident and citizen of
Florida.
CNBF is the second-largest financial institution in the state with
over $26 billion in assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Marcio W. Valladares, Esq.
Ra O. Amen, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 223-5505
Fax: (813) 223-5402
Email: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com
MValladares@forthepeople.com
Ramen@forthepeople.com
COASTAL STEEL: Underpays Drivers and Laborers, Thomas Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
CYPRIAN THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COASTAL STEEL, INC. d/b/a COASTAL STEEL, and
ANDERSON RAGPAT, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06499 (E.D.N.Y.,
August 30, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay all wages on a timely basis, failure to timely pay
earned wages upon termination, failure to furnish accurate wage
statements, and failure to furnish accurate wage notices in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York
Labor Law.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a driver and laborer
from in or around 2001 until December 27, 2021.
Coastal Steel, Inc. is a construction company based in New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tenzin Tashi, Esq.
Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 248-5550
Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
COTTAGE HEALTH: Clavecilla Sues Over Website Users' Disclosed PHI
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREEN CLAVECILLA and STEVE CROZIER, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COTTAGE HEALTH and
META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-07173 (C.D.
Cal., August 30, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of common law invasion of privacy, the California
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, the California's Unfair
Competition Law, the Federal Wiretap Act, and for breach of implied
contract.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action complaint on behalf of all
individuals who visited the Healthcare Defendant's website
https://www.cottagehealth.org, whose private health information
(PHI) was disclosed to Facebook without their knowledge or consent.
The website was coded to include Facebook Pixel, a computer code,
which Healthcare Defendant has allowed to operate on its website,
and which results in Healthcare Defendant's sharing of users' PHI
with Facebook. The website's users are not adequately informed
about the dissemination of their PHI. Users are not given an
opportunity to consent to the dissemination of their PHI. As a
result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiffs and Class
members sustained harm and experienced various damages, says the
suit.
Cottage Health is a non-profit hospital system and services
platform doing business in California.
Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc., is a
multinational technology company, with its principal place of
business at 1 Hacker Way, Menlo Park, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN
21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: abacon@toddflaw.com
- and -
Mark S. Reich, 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
DEUTSCHE BANK: $5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Nov. 16
-----------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
If you held or traded Sterling LIBOR-Based Derivatives during the
period from January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2010, your rights
may be affected by a pending settlement and you may be entitled to
a portion of the settlement.
A proposed settlement totaling $5,000,000.00 has been reached with
Defendant Deutsche Bank AG ("Deutsche Bank") in a pending class
action ("Action"). Deutsche Bank denies any liability, fault, or
wrongdoing in connection with the allegations in the Action.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
("Court") authorized this notice and appointed Lowey Dannenberg,
P.C. and Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP as Class Counsel to
represent the Settlement Class.
Who is a member of the Settlement Class?
Subject to certain exceptions, the proposed Settlement Class
includes all Persons or entities that transacted in Sterling
LIBOR-Based Derivatives at any time from January 1, 2005 through
December 31, 2010 ("Class Period").
A more detailed description of the case and this Settlement may be
found by visiting www.sterlingliborsettlement.com.
What is this lawsuit about and what does the Settlement provide?
Representative Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, including
Deutsche Bank, unlawfully and intentionally manipulated Sterling
LIBOR and the prices of Sterling LIBOR-Based Derivatives in
violation of federal and common law during the Class Period.
To settle these claims, Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $5,000,000.00
("Settlement Fund"). If the Settlement is approved, the Settlement
Fund, plus interest earned from the date it was established, less
any taxes, the reasonable costs of Class Notice and administration,
any Court-awarded attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and costs,
and any other costs or fees approved by the Court, will be divided
among all Settlement Class Members who file timely and valid Proof
of Claim and Release forms ("Claim Forms").
Will I get a payment and what are my rights?
If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not opt out, you may be
eligible for a payment under the Settlement if you file a Claim
Form.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not opt out, you will
release certain legal rights against Deutsche Bank and Released
Parties as explained in the detailed Notice and Settlement
Agreement, which are available at www.sterlingliborsettlement.com.
If you do not want to participate in the proposed Settlement, you
must opt out by October 19, 2023. If you want to object to the
proposed Settlement, the Distribution Plan, and/or Plaintiffs'
Counsel's request for attorneys' fees, and payment of litigation
costs and expenses, you must do so by October 19, 2023.
Claim Forms must be postmarked by January 16, 2024, or submitted
online at www.sterlingliborsettlement.com on or before 11:59 p.m.
E.T. on January 16, 2024.
When is the Fairness Hearing?
The Court will hold the Fairness Hearing via telephone using the
dial-in 888-363-4749 and access code 2682448 on November 16, 2023,
at 11:00 a.m. E.T. to consider whether to finally approve the
proposed Settlement, Distribution Plan, and the application for an
award of attorneys' fees and payment of litigation costs and
expenses. You or your lawyer may ask to speak at the hearing, but
you do not have to. Any changes to the time and place of the
Fairness Hearing, or other deadlines, will be posted to
www.sterlingliborsettlement.com as soon as is practicable.
To obtain more information about the Settlement, visit
www.sterlingliborsettlement.com or call toll-free 1-877-495-0835
(from outside the U.S. or Canada, call 1-414-921-2346).
**** Please do not call the Court or the Clerk of the Court for
information about the Settlement. ****
Source(s):
Lowey Dannenberg, P.C.
Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP
DICKS SPORTING: AliAbdulhadi Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dicks Sporting Goods,
Inc. The case is styled as AliAbdulhadi, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Dicks Sporting Goods, Inc., Case
No. 2:23-cv-06233-RGK-JPR (C.D. Cal., Aug. 1, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. -- https://www.dickssportinggoods.com/
-- is an American chain of sporting goods stores founded in 1948 by
Richard "Dick" Stack.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Sibilia, Esq.
OCEANSIDE LAW CENTER
PO Box 861
Oceanside, CA 92049
Phone: (760) 666-1151
Fax: (818) 698-0300
Email: robert@oceansidelawcenter.com
EGS FINANCIAL: Lyle Must File Class Certification Bid by Dec. 11
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY LYLE, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. EGS FINANCIAL CARE, INC.
f/k/a, NCO FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-03014-SCJ
(N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Steve C. Jones entered an order granting
the unopposed motion of Plaintiff for Extension of Time to File
Motion for
Class Certification
-- The Plaintiff shall file his Motion for Class Certification on
or
before December 11, 2023.
EGS is a third-party debt collection agency.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 17, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3P5Z2kx at no extra charge.[CC]
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Civ. No. DLB-21-955 (D. Md.), Judge Deborah L. Boardman
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland grants in
part and denies in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.
Nova Scotia Health Employees' Pension Plan and City of Fort
Lauderdale Police & Firefighter's Retirement System, as the Lead
Plaintiffs, bring the securities class action against Defendant
Emergent and three Emergent officers ("the Individual Defendants").
Emergent is a biopharmaceutical company that was tasked by the
federal government in the early days of the pandemic to develop and
manufacture drug substances for COVID-19 vaccines.
The Lead Plaintiffs, on behalf of a class of shareholders who
acquired Emergent stock between March 10, 2020 and Nov. 4, 2021,
assert violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b), 78t(a) (2018), and
a regulation promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5
(2022). Generally, they allege the Defendants defrauded them by
misrepresenting Emergent's drug substance manufacturing
capabilities at a facility located in Baltimore, Maryland
("Bayview") and, after news broke of a contamination incident at
the facility, by misrepresenting the magnitude of the contamination
and its causes. The disclosures of the alleged misrepresentations
caused the prices of Emergent stock to drop sharply, resulting in
shareholder losses.
Emergent is a Maryland-based biopharmaceutical company that
provides preparedness and response products to address public
health threats. It is comprised of six segments focusing on
different public health threat categories, including a Contract
Development and Manufacturing Organization ("CDMO") segment that
provides "molecule-to-market" offerings such as drug substance
manufacturing for vaccines.
Emergent provides CDMO services to biopharmaceutical companies,
government agencies, and non-governmental organizations. The
company is led by Defendant Robert G. Kramer, who has served as
President since March 2018 and Chief Executive Officer and Director
since April 2019. Defendant Richard S. Lindahl has been Emergent's
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer
since March 2018. Defendant Syed T. Husain was Emergent's Senior
Vice President and Head of the CDMO segment until his resignation,
announced on April 29, 2021.
The Plaintiffs allege that throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants were aware that severe and persistent deficiencies at
the Bayview facility undermined Emergent's ability to produce large
quantities of drug substance for two different clients at once;
that these known problems were not disclosed to the public; and
that the public statements that the Defendants did make were false
and misleading (and drove up Emergent's stock price). They also
allege that once news of contamination and other issues broke, the
Defendants continued to make false and misleading public statements
designed to reassure investors and mute the extent of Emergent's
stock price decline.
The Defendants move to dismiss the amended complaint under Rules
12(b)(6) and 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. A hearing was
held on April 19, 2023.
Judge Boardman addresses two of the Defendants' overarching
challenges to the amended complaint. First, the Defendants argue
that the amended complaint should be dismissed because the
Plaintiffs engaged in impermissible "puzzle pleading." Second, they
argue the CW allegations should be disregarded entirely because
they are unreliable and non-particularized, vague, or conclusory.
Judge Boardman opines that the first argument is unpersuasive.
Though far from a model of clarity, the amended complaint bolds and
italicizes the specific alleged false or misleading statements, an
approach used in other cases without criticism by the Court. And
while some CW allegations are vague or conclusory, others are
specific and well-pled. Hence, the Defendants' request to summarily
disregard all CW allegations as unreliable or vague and unspecific
is denied. Judge Boardman considers the specific, reliable CW
allegations where appropriate.
Fist, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants engaged in a
"business operations" fraud by misrepresenting Emergent's vaccine
manufacturing capabilities, particularly its anticontamination
measures, with the requisite scienter.
Among other things, Judge Boardman holds that finds the Plaintiffs
plausibly allege that, beginning on July 6, 2020, the Defendants
made, with the requisite scienter, material misstatements or
omissions regarding Emergent's capabilities to undertake
large-scale manufacturing at the Bayview facility. The Plaintiffs
also plausibly allege that after news broke on March 31, 2021 of
the contaminated Johnson & Johnson ("J&J") batch and continuing
until May 19, 2021, the Defendants made, with the requisite
scienter, material misstatements or omissions regarding the scope
of Bayview's contamination issues.
Hence, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) business
operations fraud claim against Emergent, Kramer, and Husain for
alleged statements they made between July 6, 2020 and May 19, 2021
is denied. The motion is granted as to the Section 10(b) business
operations fraud claim against Emergent, Kramer, and Husain for
alleged statements they made before July 6, 2020 and after May 19,
2021 and granted as to the business operations fraud claim against
Lindahl.
Next, the Plaintiffs allege that Emergent's Forms 10-Q and 10-K
reported positive quarterly and annual financial results and
operating metrics attributed to its COVID-19 contracts with the
U.S. government, J&J, and AstraZeneca. They allege that these
statements were materially false and misleading under Section 10(b)
because they concealed negative underlying trends in manufacturing
capabilities that eventually required Emergent to reverse $86
million in revenues and lower its reported forecasts and backlog.
Judge Boardman opines that the Plaintiffs do not allege that
Emergent falsely or inaccurately reported its past earnings
statements. This is fatal to their reported results fraud claim.
So, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted as to the
Plaintiffs' alleged reported results fraud claim.
The Plaintiffs then allege that Emergent's Sarbanes-Oxley Act
("SOX")-certified quarterly and annual reports from May 1, 2020
until July 31, 2021, signed by Kramer and Lindahl, contained
materially false and misleading statements and omissions under
Section 10(b). They allege that these statements were misleading
because they omitted the fact that Kramer and Lindahl were aware of
the deficiencies that plagued the Bayview facility and led to
destroyed batches.
Judge Boardman holds that the SOX certifications of internal
controls over financial reporting cannot be read to include
certifications that Bayview did not have operational deficiencies
related to manufacturing and contamination risks. She grants the
Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted as to the Plaintiffs'
alleged internal controls fraud claim.
Finally, in the second count of the amended complaint, the
Plaintiffs allege secondary liability under Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act against the Individual Defendants. The Defendants move
to dismiss this claim solely on the basis that the Plaintiffs fail
to adequately state a Section 10(b) claim. Hence, the Plaintiffs
have adequately stated a claim under Section 10(b). Further, they
allege that they purchased or otherwise acquired Emergent common
stock during the Class Period. They thus state a plausible claim
for relief under Section 20(a). The Defendants' motion to dismiss
is denied as to the Section 20(a) claim to the extent the Section
10(b) claim proceeds.
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is granted in part
and denied in part. A separate order follows.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 1, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3mw4n2k7 from Leagle.com.
EMERLASS LLC: Barnoski Sues Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------
Joshua Barnoski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Emerlass, LLC d/b/a 1890 Grille & Lounge,
Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01917-D (N.D. Tex., Aug. 28, 2023)
implicates Defendant and the underpayment of wages owed to its
employees, including Plaintiff and other employees, and Defendant's
failure to pay the minimum wage required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Barnoski was employed by Defendant as a server within the
three-year period preceding the filing of this lawsuit.
Emerlass, LLC owns and operates the dining establishment commonly
known as 1890 Grille & Lounge in Granbury, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Telephone: (817) 479-9229
Facsimile: (817) 840-5102
E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com
pamela@herrmannlaw.com
ESSEX PROPERTY: Figueroa Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Bracamonte Figueroa, on behalf of the State of California,
and others similarly situated and aggrieved v. ESSEX PROPERTY
TRUST, INC., a Maryland Corporation; ESSEX PORTFOLIO, L.P., a
California Limited Partnership; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
23STCV21244 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 1, 2023), is
brought pursuant to the California Labor Code as a result of the
Defendants failure to pay the Plaintiff minimum and overtime wages.
The Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiff and Aggrieved
Employees for all hours worked, resulting in the underpayment of
minimum and overtime wages. The Defendants failed to compensate the
Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees for all hours worked by virtue
of, the Defendants' automatic deduction and time rounding policies,
and failed to relieve employees of all duties/employer control
during unpaid meal periods or otherwise unlawful practices for
missed or improper meal periods, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee
with a job title of maintenance technician.
The Defendants are a California Limited Partnership and/or Maryland
Corporation who were authorized to do business within the State of
California.[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
Phone: (866) 276-7637
Fax: (310) 510-6429
Email: zach@crosnerlegal.com
jamie@crosnerlegal.com
bbrouillette@crosnerlegal.com
FORETHOUGHT LIFE: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Thomas Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
HANSA THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FORETHOUGHT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, GLOBAL
ATLANTIC INSURANCE NETWORK LLC, and THE GLOBAL ATLANTIC FINANCIAL
GROUP LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01549-MPB-MJD (S.D. Ind.,
August 28, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, and
violation of the Washington State Consumer Protection Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated customers stored within their
MOVEit transfer servers following a data breach determined
approximately May 29 and May 30, 2023. The Defendants 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, says the
suit.
Forethought Life Insurance Company is an insurance firm, with its
principal place of business located at 10 West Market Street, Suite
2300, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Global Atlantic Insurance Network LLC is a retirement and life
insurance company, with its principal place of business located at
215 10th Street, Suite 110, Des Moines, Iowa.
The Global Atlantic Financial Group LLC is a Bermuda limited
liability company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD
A Professional Corporation
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: (916) 239-4778
Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com
gharoutunian@justice4you.com
- and -
Timothy W. Emery, Esq.
Patrick B. Reddy, Esq.
Paul Cipriani, Esq.
EMERY REDDY, PLLC
600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100
Seattle, WA 98101
E-mail: reddyp@emeryreddy.com
paul@emeryreddy.com
GAMHAM NY: Faces Zamora Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN ZAMORA AMORES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GAMHAM NY CORP., DBA LA RUSTICA
PIZZA; ALMITRA NY CORP., DBA LA VISTA PIZZA; and MOHAMED EL
GAMASSY, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-07615 (S.D.N.Y., August 28,
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 and overtime wages, failure to provide
payroll records and notices, and failure to provide accurate wage
statements.
The Plaintiff was employed as a cleaner, food preparation helper,
and general helper at the Defendants' La Rustica Pizza and La Vista
Pizza in New York from March 2022 until August 11, 2023.
Gamham NY Corp. is the owner and operator of a restaurant under the
name La Rustica Pizza, located in New York, New York.
Almitra NY Corp. is the owner and operator of a restaurant under
the name La Vista Pizza, located in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
60 East 42nd Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 209-3933
Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com
GC LEADER CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bermeo Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BAIRON BERMEO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GC LEADER CONSTRUCTION CORP.; and GRZEGORZ
CZYZEWSKI, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-14114 (D.N.J., Sept. 1,
2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Bermeo was employed by the Defendants as a wood
finisher/painter.
GC LEADER CONSTRUCTION CORP. provides construction, restoration
design services to home owners, businesses, architects and interior
designers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10007
GPS HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barnhart Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
TAMMY BARNHART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GPS HOSPITALITY, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-01182-STA-jay (W.D. Tenn., Sept. 1, 2023) seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Barnhart was employed by the Defendant as a shift
leader.
GPS HOSPITALITY LLC is a privately held company that is primarily a
franchisee for quick service restaurants, including Popeyes
Louisiana Kitchen, Burger King and Pizza Hut. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq.
James L. Holt, Jr. , Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT
OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
jholt@jsyc.com
jleatherwood@jsyc.com
GUITAR CENTER: AliAbdulhadi Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Guitar Center Stores,
Inc. The case is styled as AliAbdulhadi, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Guitar Center Stores, Inc., Case
No. 2:23-cv-06237-JAK-JPR (C.D. Cal., Aug. 1, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Guitar Center -- https://www.guitarcenter.com/ -- is the world's
largest musical instruments retailer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Sibilia, Esq.
OCEANSIDE LAW CENTER
PO Box 861
Oceanside, CA 92049
Phone: (760) 666-1151
Fax: (818) 698-0300
Email: robert@oceansidelawcenter.com
HARTFORD LIFE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Cater Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
KAREN CATER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01160 (D. Conn., Sept. 1,
2023) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members'
personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's
information network.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant
disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class Members by
intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to
take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that
the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was safeguarded, failing to
take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data,
and failing to follow applicable, required, and appropriate
protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the encryption of
data, even for internal use.
As a result, the PII of the Plaintiff and Class Members was
compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third
party—an undoubtedly nefarious third party that seeks to profit
off this disclosure by defrauding Plaintiff and Class Members in
the future, says the suit.
HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY provides insurance
services. The Company offers life, health, home, business, and
accident insurance services to individuals, families, groups, and
businesses. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Erin Green Comite, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
156 S. Main St.
P.O. Box 192
Colchester, CT 06415
Telephone: (860) 537-5537
Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
Email: ecomite@scott-scott.com
-and-
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (215) 789-4462
Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
HELMERICH & PAYNE: Fails to Provide Proper Overtime Pay, Green Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cody Green, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00370-CVE-SH (N.D. Okla., Aug. 25,
2023) is a civil action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Portal-to-Portal Act, seeking damages for Defendant's
failure to pay Plaintiff time and one-half the regular rate of pay
for all hours worked over 40 during each seven-day workweek while
working for Defendant and paid on an hourly basis.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from December 2020 until
December 2022. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a floor
hand in connection with its oilfield drilling business operations.
His primary job duties involve manual labor tasks including
assisting other crew members in the cleaning and operation of
drilling rig equipment.
Helmerich & Payne International Drilling is an American petroleum
contract drilling company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75254
Telephone: (214) 489-7653
Facsimile: (469) 319-0317
E-mail: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com
rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Wedeking Sues Over 3rd Party Access of Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER WEDEKING, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 7:23-cv-07740 (S.D.N.Y., August
30, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence,
violations of New York General Business Law, unjust enrichment, and
declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated customers stored within PSC's
MOVEit transfer file services following a data breach determined on
May 28, 2023. 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, says the suit.
International Business Machines Corporation is a substantial
technology services corporation based in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Israel David, Esq.
Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq.
Madeline Sheffield, Esq.
ISRAEL DAVID LLC
17 State Street, Suite 4010
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 739-0622
Facsimile: (212) 739-0628
E-mail: israel.david@davidllc.com
blake.yagman@davidllc.com
madeline.sheffield@davidllc.com
KINGFISHER MEDIA: Aviles Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jerry Aviles, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Kingfisher Media, LLC, Does 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 30-2023-01313366 was removed from the
Orange County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina on Sept. 1, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-01379-DOC-ADS to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.
Kingfisher Media -- https://www.kingfisher.com/en/ -- is a
multimedia firm that owns and operates community newspapers in the
underserved Black Belt community.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC
4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 706-6464
Fax: (949) 706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Audie J. de Castro, Esq.
Jonathan Elia, Esq.
DE CASTRO PC
701 B Street Suite 1745
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 702-8690
Fax: (619) 702-9401
Email: adecastro@decastropc.com
jelia@decastropc.com
LA SOLAR GROUP: Faces Denson Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
HARVEY DENSON, as an individual and on behalf of those similarly
situated Plaintiff v. LA SOLAR GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-07074 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 28, 2023) arises from the
Defendant's alleged unlawful labor policies and practices in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor
Code, and the California Business and Professions Code.
According to the complaint, these common policies or plans include
failure to pay overtime at the weighted average rate as alleged;
failure to pay wages during falsely recorded meal periods as
alleged, constituting a minimum wage violation; and failure to pay
overtime when the falsely-excluded work hours under the meal period
scheme are included in the hours-worked for each affected employee,
causing such employees to experience unpaid overtime.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant during the time period
of about July 18, 2022 to November 15, 2022 as inspection
coordinator.
LA Solar Group Inc. operates a business that sells and installs
solar panels to customers such as homeowners.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
Joshua H. Watson, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, PC
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: (916) 777-7777
Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
E-mail: jwatson@justice4you.com
LENDINGPOINT LLC: Liantonio Files FCRA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LendingPoint LLC. The
case is styled as Nicola Liantonio, Jr., on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated consumers v. LendingPoint LLC, Case
No. 1:23-cv-05923-HG (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 4, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
LendingPoint -- https://ww1.lendingpoint.com/ -- is a financial
technology platform.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
735 Central Avenue
Woodmere, NY 11598
Phone: (516) 668-6945
Fax: (516) 595-1690
Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
LIFE MANAGEMENT CENTER: Thomas Files Suit in N.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Life Management
Center of Northwest Florida, Inc. The case is styled as Aleatha
Thomas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
Life Management Center of Northwest Florida, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-00199-MW-MAF (N.D. Fla., Aug. 2, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Life Management Center -- https://lmccares.org/ -- provides
comprehensive behavioral and mental health care in Bay, Calhoun,
Gulf, Holmes, Jackson, and Washington Counties, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica Ann Wallace, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP - AVENTURA FL
20200 West Dixie Highway, Suite 902
Aventura, FL 33180
Phone: (786) 244-5660
Email: jwallace@sirillp.com
LLOYD'S OF LONDON: $7.9MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 14
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Summary Notice has been issued in a proposed partial class action
settlement reached in a lawsuit pending in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey known as Lincoln
Adventures, LLC, et al. vs. Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's,
et al. A more detailed version of this Notice is contained in a
Long-Form Notice posted on the Settlement website at
www.SyndicateSettlement.com. You are encouraged to read the
Long-Form Notice for a more in-depth explanation of the proposed
partial settlement and your rights as they relate to the
Settlement.
IF YOU PURCHASED INSURANCE THROUGH CERTAIN SYNDICATES AT LLOYD'S OF
LONDON DURING THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1997, THROUGH JUNE 15, 2023,
YOU COULD GET MONEY FROM A PARTIAL CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT THAT MAY
AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS.
A proposed partial class action settlement has been reached with
some, but not all, of the Lloyd's Syndicates who are Defendants in
the case and sold insurance to policyholders in the United States
(the "Settlement"). Plaintiffs assert causes of action against the
Defendants for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment based on
allegations that Defendants engaged in a deceptive scheme to
conceal the lack of competition in the Lloyd's Market. The Settling
Defendants deny the allegations made against them.
The Syndicates that have settled are Syndicate Nos. 510, 1084,
1096, and 1245 (the "Settling Defendants"). The Syndicates who
remain Defendants in the case, and who have not settled, are
Syndicate Nos. 0727, 1003, 2003, 2020, 2488, and 2791 (the
"Non-Settling Defendants"). The case will continue to be litigated
against the Non-Settling Defendants.
WHAT ARE YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND IMPORTANT DEADLINES
If you do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must
exclude yourself in writing from the Class by November 23, 2023.
The steps you must follow to be excluded are described in the
Long-Form Notice, which is available at
www.SyndicateSettlement.com. You can also obtain a copy of the
Long-Form Notice by mail or email by calling the toll-free number
at 1-877-298-4134 between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Central
Time The email address to request a copy of the Long-Form Notice is
info@SyndicateSettlement.com. It is also available at
www.SyndicateSettlement.com. If you do not exclude yourself, but
instead stay in the Class, you may object or comment on the
Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, the application for attorneys'
fees and expenses, and service awards to the class representatives
by November 23, 2023. The procedure on how to object or comment is
described in the Long-Form Notice at www.SyndicateSettlement.com.
The Court scheduled a Fairness Hearing for December 14, 2023, at
11:30 a.m. Eastern Time, at which the Court will consider whether
to approve the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses, and service awards for the class
representatives. The hearing will take place in Courtroom 5 in the
United States Courthouse located at Martin Luther King Building and
U.S. Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, New Jersey 07101. The
Court may choose to change the date and/or time of the hearing (or
decide to conduct it virtually) without further notice of any kind
other than on the settlement website and the Court's docket
available at http://ecf.njd.uscourts.gov.If you plan to attend the
hearing, you should confirm the date and time by checking the
website at www.SyndicateSettlement.com or by calling the toll-free
number at 1-877-298-4134. The Court at the hearing will consider
objections that have been properly made by Class Members. If the
Court finds the Settlement to be fair, reasonable, and adequate, it
will approve the Settlement. You may choose to attend the hearing,
either in person or through an attorney hired at your own expense,
but attendance is not required. If you choose to attend the hearing
and intend to make a presentation to the Court, you or your
attorney must follow the procedures set forth in the Long-Form
Notice at www.SyndicateSettlement.com.
A NOTICE OF INTENTION TO APPEAR MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE COURT AND
THE COUNSEL IDENTIFIED BELOW NO LATER THAN November 23, 2023.
If the Court approves the Settlement, then the Settling Defendants
will be dismissed from the case. Class Members who have not
properly requested exclusion from the Class will be deemed to have
released the Settling Defendants from all claims related to the
case and will not be able to sue the Settling Defendants for any of
the conduct that was the subject of the case. The full text of the
Release is set forth in the Long-Form Notice at
www.SyndicateSettlement.com.
WHO IS INCLUDED IN THE CLASS
The Settlement affects members of the Class, which are with certain
limited exceptions, all persons and entities in the United States
who, during the period January 1, 1997, through June 15, 2023 (the
"Class Period"), purchased or renewed a contract of insurance (an
insurance policy, not reinsurance) with any of the Defendants. The
complete description of the Class is set forth in the Long-Form
Notice at www.SyndicateSettlement.com.
WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE
The Settling Defendants have agreed to make payments to settle the
claims against them. The total amount of these payments is
$7,900,000. After deducting the amounts approved by the Court for
settlement and claims administration costs, attorneys' fees and
litigation expenses, and service awards for the class
representatives, these funds will be paid to members of the Class.
The Settling Defendants will be entitled to the release and other
provisions of the Settlement.
WHO WILL RECEIVE A PAYMENT
Payments to Class Members will be made according to the Plan of
Allocation, which is included in the Long-Form Notice at
www.SyndicateSettlement.com. To receive a payment, Class Members
must submit a Claim Form by December 21, 2023, as more fully
described in the next paragraph.
HOW DO I RECEIVE A PAYMENT FROM THE SETTLEMENT
To be eligible for a payment, a Class Member must submit a Claim
Form on or before December 21, 2023. Claim Forms are available at
www.SyndicateSettlement.com. Claim Forms can be requested from the
Claims Administrator by calling the toll-free number at
1-877-298-4134 between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Central Time,
or by email at info@SyndicateSettlement.com. Claim Forms can be
completed online at www.SyndicateSettlement.com, emailed to the
Claims Administrator at info@SyndicateSettlement.com, or mailed to
the Claims Administrator at Syndicate Settlement, c/o A.B. Data,
Ltd., P.O. Box 173075, Milwaukee, WI 53217. Each Class Member who
wishes to claim part of the Settlement must submit a Claim Form by
December 21, 2023. It is the responsibility of the Class Member to
provide truthful and accurate information, and to update any
information, including contact and address information, to the
Claims Administrator, when appropriate.
WHO ARE THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE CLASS AND THE SETTLING DEFENDANTS?
The Attorneys for the Class are:
Rachel L. Jensen
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Robert S. Schachter
ZWERLING, SCHACHTER
& ZWERLING, LLP
41 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10010
The Attorneys for the Settling Defendants are:
Matthew M. Burke
ROBINSON & COLE LLP
One Boston Place, 26th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
Email: mburke@rc.com
HOW CAN I OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION?
If you think that you may be a Class Member, you can obtain more
information, including a copy of the Long-Form Notice, the Claim
Form, the Settlement Agreement, and other documents relating to the
Settlement by visiting www.SyndicateSettlement.com or by contacting
the Claims Administrator toll-free at 1-877-298-4134.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK.
M&T BANK: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Wormack Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
DALISA WORMACK, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. M&T BANK CORPORATION, Case No. 1:23-cv-00912-LJV
(W.D.N.Y., Aug. 31, 2023) sues the Defendant for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard the Representative Plaintiff's and
Class Members' personally identifiable information stored within
the Defendant's information network that includes full names, dates
of birth, addresses, bank account information and Social Security
numbers.
The Representative Plaintiff seeks to hold the Defendant
responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause the
Representative Plaintiff and, at least, thousands of other
similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable
cyberattack on August 14, 2023. While the Defendant claims to have
discovered the breach as early as August 14, 2023, the Defendant
did not inform victims of the Data Breach until August 16, 2023,
the Plaintiff alleges. The Representative Plaintiff suffered lost
time, annoyance, interference, and inconvenience because of the
Data Breach and have anxiety and increased concerns for the loss of
privacy, as well as anxiety over the impact of cybercriminals
accessing, using, and selling the Representative Plaintiff's PII,
the lawsuit asserts.
Further, the Representative Plaintiff suffered imminent and
impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of
fraud, identity theft, and misuse resulting from her PII, in
combination with her names, being placed in the hands of
unauthorized third parties/criminals. Accordingly, the
Representative Plaintiff has noticed a recent influx of spam phone
calls and spam emails, says the lawsuit.
The Representative Plaintiff is an adult individual and a resident
and citizen of the State of New Jersey.
The Defendant provides insurance to individuals and businesses
across the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elizabeth A. Brehm, Esq.
Mason Barney, Esq.
Tyler Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: ebrehm@sirillp.com
mbarney@sirillp.com
tbean@sirillp.com
- and -
Daniel Srourian, Esq.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 474-3800
Facsimile: (213) 471-4160
E-mail: daniel@slfla.com
MAXLINEAR INC: Faces Securities Suit Over 44% Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------------
WATER ISLAND EVENT-DRIVEN FUND, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. MAXLINEAR, INC., KISHORE SEENDRIPU, and
STEVEN LITCHFIELD, Case No. 3:23-cv-01607-LAB-WVG (S.D. Cal., Aug.
31, 2023) is a securities class action brought on behalf of
purchasers of the American Depositary Shares of Silicon Motion from
June 6, 2023 through July 26, 2023, inclusive, arising out of the
Defendants' omission of material facts in connection with public
statements made by the Defendants concerning the MaxLinear and
Silicon Motion Merger.
The Plaintiff seeks to pursue remedies against MaxLinear and two of
MaxLinear's senior executives under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the
Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule
10b-5 in that they: employed devices, schemes, and artifices to
defraud; made untrue statements of material fact or omitted to
state material facts necessary in order to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not
misleading; or engaged in acts, practices, and a course of business
that operated as a fraud or deceit upon the Plaintiff and others
similarly situated in connection with their purchases of Silicon
Motion ADSs during the Class Period, the Plaintiff alleges.
On May 5, 2022, MaxLinear and Silicon Motion announced the two
companies had entered into a merger agreement pursuant to which
MaxLinear would acquire Silicon Motion.
On July 26, 2023, regulatory approval for the Merger was granted by
China's SAMR. The price of Silicon Motion ADSs nearly doubled from
the prior day's close of $52.20 per ADS to an intraday high of
$95.33 per ADS on July 26, 2023.
Near the close of trading on July 26, 2023, MaxLinear shocked the
market by announcing in a press release, as described in a Form 8-K
filed with the SEC that day, that MaxLinear was unilaterally
terminating the Merger.
In response to the news, between the market open on July 26, 2023
and the market close on July 27, 2023, the price of Silicon Motion
ADS declined from $94.20 per ADS to $52.51 per ADS, representing a
decline of more than $41 per ADS (or 44%).
As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions,
and the precipitous declines in the market value of Silicon Motion
ADSs, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages for which they seek redress through
this action.
MaxLinear is a provider of fabless radio frequency ("RF"), analog,
and mixed-signal integrated circuits ("ICs") often referred to as
chips, microchips, or semiconductors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
Darren j. Robbins, Esq.
Richard W. Gonnello, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101-8498
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
rgonnello@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq.
Robert N. Cappucci, Esq.
ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
230 Park Avenue, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 894-7200
Facsimile: (212) 894-7272
E-mail: vcappucci@entwistle-law.com
rcappucci@entwistle-law.com
MDC STEEL: Fails to Pay Welders' Proper Wages, Amarante Says
------------------------------------------------------------
YEFFERSON AMARANTE, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MDC STEEL SERVICES, INC.; MICHAEL
D. CHEPENIK; and SHALA D. EGAN, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-14276-KMM (S.D. Fla., Sept. 1, 2023) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Amarante was employed by the Defendants as a welder.
MDC STEEL SERVICES, INC. is a special contractor serving in Fort
Pierce, FL area. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
MEDTRONIC MINIMED: Illegally Sends Personal Info to Google
----------------------------------------------------------
A.H., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. MEDTRONIC MINIMED, INC. and MINIMED DISTRIBUTION
CORP., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-07154 (C.D. Cal., August 30,
2023) is a class action against the Defendants for common law
invasion of privacy - intrusion upon seclusion, breach of
confidence, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, breach of implied
contract, breach of implied covenant & fair dealing, unjust
enrichment, and violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and the New York
General Business Law.
The case arises from MiniMed's transmission and disclosure of the
Plaintiff's and Class members' personally identifiable information
(PII) and protected health information (PHI) to Google LLC and
other third parties via tracking and authentication technologies
installed on MiniMed's website and/or mobile applications,
including the InPen Diabetes Management iOS and Android mobile
applications. Based on MiniMed's solicitations and representations,
the Plaintiff and Class members used the InPen System to treat
diabetes and communicate with their care providers as part of their
ongoing medical care and treatment. Yet, despite MiniMed's
unquestionable obligation to protect the confidentiality and
security of patients' PHI/PII, it used tracking tools to
disseminate the private information to third parties such as Google
without express and informed consent. As a result of MiniMed's
conduct, the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered numerous
injuries, including: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) loss of benefit
of the bargain; (iii) diminution of value of the private
information; (iv) statutory damages; and (v) the continued and
ongoing risk to their private information, the suit alleges.
Medtronic MiniMed, Inc. is a healthcare company, with its principal
place of business and headquarters located at 18000 Devonshire
Street, Northridge, California.
MiniMed Distribution Corp. is a healthcare company, located at
18000 Devonshire Street, Northridge, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
280 S. Beverly Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (858) 209-6941
E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com
- and -
Jonathan T. Deters, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 East Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com
jdeters@msdlegal.com
- and -
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-7300
E-mail: bbleichner@chesnutcambronne.com
pkrzeski@chesnutcambronne.com
METRO TRANSPORT: Fugate Sues Over Dispatchers' Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY FUGATE, CHAD CHAMBERS, and GIDGET THOMAS, individually, and
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. METRO TRANSPORT GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00189
(E.D. Tenn., Aug. 25, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act for Plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and former
employees classified as dispatchers.
The Plaintiffs were employed as dispatchers by Defendant within
this district during all times material herein. They assert that
Defendant failed to pay them and those similarly situated at the
applicable FLSA overtime rates of pay within weekly pay periods.
Metro Transport Group, LLC provides freight forwarding services in
Tennessee.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
jholt@jsyc.com
jleatherwood@jsyc.com
MIDTOWN HOME: Filing for Class & Collective Cert Bid Due Nov. 13
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AYONNA HEARD, v. MIDTOWN
HOME HEALTH CARE LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-02553-WB (E.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Wendy Beetlestone entered a scheduling order as
follows:
1. All fact discovery shall be completed Oct. 30, 2023
by:
2. Any motion for class/collective Nov. 13, 2023
certification shall be filed by:
The Defendant provides care for the elderly and disabled.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 17, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3La0ykm at no extra charge.[CC]
MIKE BLOOMBERG: Seeks to Oppose Class Certification Bid by Oct. 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wood et al. v. Mike
Bloomberg 2020, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02489-LTS-GWG (S.D.N.Y.),
the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order setting the
following briefing schedule with respect to Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification:
-- Opposition Due: October 2, 2023
-- Reply Due: November 1, 2023
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 17, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47Wf2hn at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Elise M. Bloom, Esq.
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
Eleven Times Square
New York, NY 10036-8299
Telephone: (212) 969-3410
Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
E-mail: ebloom@proskauer.com
MOOTSIE & TOMCAT'S: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Demus Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SIDNEY DEMUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MOOTSIE & TOMCAT'S ENTERTAINMENT, LLC d/b/a
ROXY'S SHOWGIRLS; and DOUGLAS ERNEST, Defendants, Case No.
4:23-cv-00888-Y (N.D. Tex., Aug. 28, 2023) alleges that Defendants
have misclassified Plaintiff and similarly situated exotic dancers
as independent contractors rather than employees; have failed to
pay them minimum wage and overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 a week; and have required dancers to pay fees and
tip-outs, which constitute unlawful kick-backs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Demus worked as an exotic dancer at Mootsie & Tomcat's
Entertainment from approximately December 2016 until July 2023.
Mootsie & Tomcat's Entertainment, d/b/a Roxy's Showgirls, is an
establishment where live topless, semi-nude or nude dance
entertainment is presented to adult members of the general
public.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Telephone: (817) 479-9229
Facsimile: (817) 887-1878
E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com
pamela@herrmannlaw.com
- and -
Harold Lichten, Esq.
Matthew Thomson, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
mthomson@llrlaw.com
NAPCO SECURITY: Zornberg Sues Over 45.04% Drop of Securities Price
------------------------------------------------------------------
RANDY ZORNBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NAPCO SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RICHARD
L. SOLOWAY, and KEVIN S. BUCHEL, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06465
(E.D.N.Y., August 29, 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 NAPCO's business, operations,
and prospects in order to trade NAPCO securities at artificially
inflated prices between November 7, 2022 and August 18, 2023.
Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) NAPCO
failed to address any material weaknesses with internal controls
regarding COGS and inventory; (2) NAPCO downplayed the severity of
material weaknesses regarding their internal controls; (3) NAPCO's
unaudited financial statements from September 30, 2022 to the
present included "certain errors" such as overstating inventory and
understanding net COGS, resulting in overstated gross profit,
operating income and net income for each period; (4) as a result,
NAPCO would need to restate its previously filed unaudited
financial statements for certain periods; and (5) 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, says the suit.
When the truth emerged, NAPCO's share price fell $17.30, or 45.04
percent, to close at $21.11 on August 21, 2023, the next trading
day, damaging investors.
NAPCO Security Technologies, Inc. is a manufacturer of security
products, headquartered in Amityville, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Fails to Issue SPC, Class Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE VONNIEDA-LAGRASSA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; ASHLEY MONROE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated; and JOANNA MCKENNA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, d.b.a. RIGHTPATH SERVICING, Case No.
5:23-cv-03407 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 31, 2023) contends that Nationstar's
improper refusal or failure to issue Standalone Partial Claim (SPC)
and each Partial Claim Class members' loans despite such
individuals having sufficient partial claim funds available to
reinstate their loans, constitute fraudulent or deceptive conduct
which would create the likelihood of confusion or of
misunderstanding in relation to the loans in violation of the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.
As COVID-19 Recovery Options are not incentivized as other loss
mitigation options permitted by the regulations of the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary, it is
possible that Nationstar is steering borrowers away from options
such as SPCs in order to obtain incentives for placing borrowers in
other loss mitigation options, the lawsuit alleges. Nationstar's
conduct has caused Ms. VonNieda-LaGrassa, Ms. Monroe, and Partial
Claim Class members to suffer significant pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damages, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs and Partial Claim Class members seeking to obtain
other loss mitigation relief, will have to incur costs, expenses,
and lost time in further requesting loss mitigation that otherwise
would not have been and should not have been necessary. Plaintiffs
VonNieda-LaGrassa and Monroe and Partial Claim Class members have
further been caused to suffer severe emotional distress driven by
Nationstar's actions and by the tangible fear that Nationstar's
failure to properly issue SPCs as required by the regulation of the
HUD Secretary, would result in the loss of their homes to
foreclosure sale. As a result of Nationstar's conduct, Nationstar
is liable to Ms. VonNieda-LaGrassa, Ms. Monroe, and Partial Claim
Class members for actual damages, supra, as well as treble damages,
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection
with this action, the suit alleges.
Ms. VonNieda-LaGrassa, Ms. Monroe, and each Partial Claim Class
member were impacted, directly or indirectly, by the
Presidentially-Declared COVID-19 National Emergency, fell
delinquent on their mortgage. They sought and obtained conditional
approval for assistance through the Pennsylvania Homeowner
Assistance Fund.
Nationstar is the servicer of the Plaintiffs' Loans as well as the
notes, and mortgages on real property that secure the notes of the
members of the Partial Claim Class, the HAF Partial Claim Class,
and the NOE Subclass.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph M. Adams, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH M. ADAMS
200 Highpoint Drive, Suite 211A
Chalfont, PA 18914
Telephone: (215) 996-9977
E-mail: josephmadamsesq@verizon.net
- and -
Brian D. Flick, Esq.
Daniel M. Solar, Esq.
DANN LAW
15000 Madison Ave.
Lakewood, OH 44107
Telephone: (216) 373-0539
Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com
NEW YORK, NY: Brennan's & Aboubakar's Bids to Certify Class Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, DOMINICK BRENNAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE CITY OF
NEW YORK, et al., Defendants. ALALEKAN ABOUBAKAR, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants, Case Nos.
19-CV-02054 (NGG) (CLP), 20-CV-01716 (NGG) (CLP) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge
Nicholas G. Garaufis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York denies without prejudice the motions to
certify the classes in each case.
Pending before the court are motions for class certification in
Brennan and Aboubakar. The Plaintiffs allege in each case that the
conditions of confinement at Brooklyn Central Booking ("BCB"), a
New York City Police Department ("NYPD") holding facility located
at 120 Schermerhorn Street, Brooklyn, New York, have deprived them
of their rights to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. In
both cases, the Plaintiffs seek to certify a class representing all
detainees at the facility from "April 8, 2017, to the date on which
Defendants are ordered to remedy the unconstitutionally inhumane
conditions in BCB, or otherwise remedy those conditions" (the
"Class Period").
BCB is a pre-arraignment holding facility for detainees arrested in
Brooklyn. The Named Plaintiffs are former detainees at BCB who were
held at BCB between 2016 and 2019, each for less than 36 hours. The
Plaintiffs allege that while detained at BCB they experienced
"inhumane conditions of confinement" in violation of their rights
under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Specifically, they allege the following conditions at BCB: (1)
overcrowding; (2) unsanitary toilets; (3) scattered garbage and
inadequate sanitation; (4) vermin infestation; (5) a lade of
toiletries and hygienic items; (6) inadequate nutrition and water;
(7) extreme temperatures and poor ventilation; (8) crime and
intimidation; and (9) sleep deprivation.
These are the same general conditions that the Second Circuit held
could support a due process claim against BCB in Darnell v.
Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2017). The Plaintiffs allege that the
conditions reviewed in Darnell have persisted despite the
Defendants being put on notice of the conditions by that case,
letters, and news reports. They allege that because these inhumane
conditions persisted, the Defendants deprived the entire Proposed
Class-every detainee at BCB since April 8, 2017-of their due
process rights.
The Defendants are the City of New York and officers and employees
of the NYPD and the Department of Citywide Administrative Services.
The Plaintiffs allege that the officer-Defendants, acting under
color of law at all relevant times, oversaw BCB and were
responsible for maintaining BCB's conditions. They also allege that
these individuals were aware of BCB's inhumane conditions of
confinement due to personal observation, official documents, news
reports, complaints, and prior lawsuits. Further, they allege that
despite being on notice, the Defendants did not take remedial
measures to correct these conditions and otherwise failed to act,
thereby "tacitly authorizing" the facility's inhumane conditions.
Brennan, along with six others, filed the first Complaint in this
case on April 9, 2019. They filed the operative Third Amended
Complaint on Nov. 17, 2020. Aboubakar, along with additional
Plaintiffs, brought suit against the same Defendants on April 7,
2020 in a separate case, alleging the same constitutional
violations relating to the conditions at BCB. The Plaintiffs in
both cases now seek certification of the same class of individuals
held at BCB since April 8, 2017, alleging that as detainees of BCB
they were deprived of their due process rights.
The Plaintiffs bring multiple claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983,
including violation of due process, supervisory liability, and
failure to intervene, seeking both damages and injunctive relief.
They also bring a due process claim under the New York State
Constitution. Because the issues in both cases, Brennan and
Aboubakar, are "substantively identical" and the Defendants are the
same, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' request to consolidate the
cases for discovery purposes on Jan. 25, 2021.
Briefing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
completed on Feb. 9, 2023. The Plaintiffs seek certification of
both a damages class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)
as well as an injunctive class under Rule 23(b)(2). In the event
the Court denies certification of a 23(b) (3) class, they
alternatively seek certification of an issue class under Rule
23(c)(4) to determine liability.
The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class composed of "all persons who
were detained in BCB from April 8, 2017, to the date on which the
Defendants are ordered to remedy the unconstitutionally inhumane
conditions in BCB, or otherwise remedy those conditions" (the
"Proposed Class"). This is essentially all detainees at BCB between
April 8, 2017 and the present. The Plaintiffs seek both monetary
damages under Rule 23(b)(3) and injunctive relief under Rule
23(b)(2). As an alternative to certification of a Rule 23(b) (3)
class, they seek to certify an "issue class" to determine liability
pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4).
Judge Garaufis reviews each of the Rule 23 requirements necessary
to certify the Proposed Class. He starts with the Rule 23(a) and
ascertainability requirements, and then turns to the requirements
for each type of class under Rule 23(b)(2), Rule 23(b)(3) and
Rule 23(c)(4).
Judge Garaufis opines that the Plaintiffs meet the four
requirements -- numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy
of representation -- under Rule 23(a), as well as the implied fifth
requirement of ascertainability. To certify a class, however, the
Plaintiffs must also meet one of the requirements under Rule 23(b)
or be an appropriate vehicle to resolve particular issues under
Rule 23(c)(4). He next turns to these issues.
For injunctive relief to be appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2), the
Plaintiffs must show that an injunction would be an indivisible
remedy and that at least one Named Plaintiff has standing to seek
the relief requested.
Judge Garaufis finds that the Plaintiffs do not demonstrate that an
injunction addressing future conditions at BCB would provide an
indivisible benefit to a class comprised almost entirely of prior
detainees. Therefore, they do not meet Rule 23(b)(2)'s requirement
that the requested relief applies generally to the Proposed Class.
Even if injunctive relief applied generally to the Proposed Class,
it is unclear whether the Plaintiffs could demonstrate standing to
seek injunctive relief, which could also prevent certification
under Rule 23(b)(2).
Despite multiple prior arrests, demonstrating standing is
challenging for the Plaintiffs without a greater discussion of the
likelihood of re-arrest and how this likelihood may be due to the
Named Plaintiffs' continuing to engage in illegal activity.
However, because the Plaintiffs do not meet the indivisibility
requirement under Rule 23(b)(2), Judge Garaufis need not rule that
the Named Plaintiffs lack standing.
To certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3), the Plaintiffs must show
that (1) "questions of law or fact common to class members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members";
and (2) "a class action is superior to other available methods for
fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy."
Judge Garaufis holds that the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that
the Proposed Class meets the predominance requirement under Rule
23(b)(3). And while not necessary to decide superiority because
predominance is also not met, it is unlikely the Plaintiffs would
be able to demonstrate that the proposed class action is superior
to other forms of adjudication.
Lastly, the Plaintiffs also seek to certify an issue class under
Rule 23(c)(4) for liability purposes as an alternative to
certifying a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3), arguing that doing
so would "advance the litigation in a meaningful way." Judge
Garaufis finds that it would be inappropriate to proceed as an
issue class and declines to separate the issue of liability for
class treatment under Rule 23(c)(4).
Having found that the Plaintiffs are unable to meet the
requirements under Rule 23(b)(2), Rule 23(b)(3) or Rule 23(c)(4),
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied without
prejudice. In the interests of justice, the Plaintiffs may amend
their class certification motion to address the problems discussed
in this Memorandum and Order. Any new motion for certification
should include an amended class definition as well as further
briefing addressing the impact of any redefinition on the analysis
of the Rule 23(b) and Rule 23(c)(4) requirements.
Before proceeding under a new class definition, the Plaintiffs and
their counsel should carefully consider how to craft a class
appropriate for the claims they raise. A proposed class that is too
large, covers too long a time period, and has too many
individualized issues among class members is unmanageable and
inappropriate for certification. Proceeding with such a class would
create serious doubts that the Plaintiffs could reasonably litigate
their case -- i.e., prove that the inhumane conditions at BCB
persisted for over six years such that they deprived all class
members (hundreds of thousands of detainees) of their due process
rights.
While Judge Garaufis recognizes the severity of the claims raised
by the Plaintiffs, this alone does not make class certification
appropriate. The class definition must also allow for manageable
resolution of the claims. Ignoring certification requirements only
disadvantages the class members that the Plaintiffs and their
counsel seek to represent.
For these reasons, Judge Garaufis denies the Plaintiffs' motions to
certify the classes in each case without prejudice. He orders the
Plaintiffs to inform the Court within 60 days whether they will
proceed on individual claims or whether they intend to amend their
motion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 1, 2023 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/26ed5ban from Leagle.com.
NEW YORK: Bid to Dismiss Mirvis v. Quay and MDC Partly Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RUSLAN MIRVIS, Plaintiff v. HERMAN QUAY, Warden;
ELEAZAR GARCIA, Associate Warden; JONATHAN WHITE, Captain; "JOHN"
POE, Lieutenant; "JOHN" METZGER, Lieutenant; "JOHN" CALIXTE,
Correction Officer; "JOHN DOE" #1-3, Correction Officers; "G."
GONZALEZ, Correction Officer; "JANE DOE," Correction Officer; AND
MAURY "DOE," Counselor, Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-2573 (LDH) (VMS)
(E.D.N.Y.), Judge LaShann Dearcy Hall of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York grants in part and denies in
part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
The Plaintiff brings the instant action asserting Bivens claims
against former Warden Herman Quay, Associate Warden Eleazar Garcia,
Captain Jonathan White, former Lieutenant Thomas Pope, Lieutenant
Veronica Metzger, Senior Officer Specialist Pierre Calixte,
Correctional Counselor Lawrence Murray, and former Correctional
Officer George Gonzalez for violations of his rights, privileges,
and immunities under the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments
of the United States Constitution. The Defendants move pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of
Narcotics, the Supreme Court, for the first time, recognized a
constitutional cause of action for damages against federal
officers. Specifically, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff may
sue federal officers in their individual capacities for violating
her Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and
seizures. In doing so, it held that courts must 'adjust their
remedies so as to grant the necessary relief' when 'federally
protected rights have been invaded.'
Consistent with its holding in Bivens, the Supreme Court later
found implied rights of action and granted Bivens remedies in two
additional contexts: one where a plaintiff alleged gender
discrimination in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process
Clause, Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979), and the other where
a plaintiff complained of deliberate indifference to medical needs
in violation of the Eighth Amendment, Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14
(1980). It has not explicitly extended Bivens to other contexts in
the ensuing 40 years.
The Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at Metropolitan Detention
Center ("MDC") Brooklyn. On a daily basis, between June 6, 2017,
and July 7, 2017, he was sexually threatened, abused, and assaulted
by two inmates in the J-72 housing area. During this period, the
two inmates frequently used objects to sexually assault him.
Typically, one inmate would restrain the Plaintiff while other
would beat him and insert an object into his anus. During this
time, the same inmates demanded that the Plaintiff direct his
family to deposit money into their respective MDC Brooklyn
commissary accounts. The Plaintiff acquiesced to their demands out
of fear, and, over time, he directed his family to deposit
thousands of dollars into the inmates' accounts. Eventually, the
Plaintiff refused because his family could no longer afford any
payments.
According to the amended complaint, the two inmates who assaulted
the Plaintiff were known by the Defendants to be violent gang
members who were involved in other incidents while at MDC Brooklyn
and no remedial action was taken. Specifically, the Defendants were
aware the two inmates extorted and sexually abused another inmate
assigned to the J-72 unit. Nonetheless, no action was taken against
the inmates.
From about Jan. 27, 2019, through Feb. 3, 2019, MDC Brooklyn
underwent a power outage. During that time, MDC Brooklyn did not
have heat, hot water, or electricity and the Plaintiff was
repeatedly denied medical care by the MDC staff. On Feb. 5, 2019,
the Plaintiff reported to the Defendants C.O. Calixte and Lt.
Metzger that he was experiencing numbness to his left side and that
he had vomited blood. In response, Defendant Lt. Metzger told the
Plaintiff he was sick in the head. The Plaintiff was eventually
taken to the hospital and diagnosed with a hole in his stomach and
pinched nerve. He was confined to the hospital for at least three
days.
The Defendants urge the Court to dismiss the amended complaint on
the grounds that the Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies as required by the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1995
("PLRA").
Judge Hall declines to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims for failure
to exhaust. She says the Plaintiff's amended complaint does not
itself contain any allegations that would make it clear that the
PLRA exhaustion requirement was not satisfied. Rather, the amended
complaint alleges the Plaintiff sent at least 85 emails to
Defendants Warden Quay, Captain Garcia, Captain White, and numerous
other MDC Brooklyn staff. The Plaintiff further alleges the staff
provided inadequate responses, failed to investigate, and failed to
separate him from his two attackers.
Having determined that the Plaintiff can bring a Fifth Amendment
claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs
under Bivens, Judge Hall must consider whether the Plaintiff has
sufficiently alleged a constitutional violation. She finds that the
Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a claim for deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs as to Defendants Lt.
Metzger, Lt. Pope, and C.O. Calixte.
In addition to his claims for deliberate indifference to his
serious medical needs, the Plaintiff also brings a claim for
failure to protect or deliberate indifference to his safety. The
Defendants challenge this claim on the basis that it arises in a
new Bivens context not recognized by the Supreme Court. Judge Hall
believes there exists special factors counseling hesitation and,
accordingly, she dismisses the Plaintiff's deliberate indifference
to safety claim.
The Defendants maintain that to the extent the Plaintiff's amended
complaint challenges the conditions of confinement during the
blackout at MDC, such a claim would arise under a new Bivens
context. The Plaintiff does not substantively respond to the
Defendants' legal argument. Because the Plaintiff's opposition is
devoid of any response to the Defendants' arguments, Judge Hall
need not address the Defendants' arguments on the merits as the
Plaintiff's claims are deemed abandoned.
In a footnote, the Defendants argue they are entitled to dismissal
because their actions were protected under the doctrine of
qualified immunity. As to medical indifference claims specifically,
Judge Hall says to establish their qualified immunity defense,
defendants must show that it was objectively reasonable, for them
to believe that they had not acted with the requisite deliberate
indifference. On the face of these pleadings, the facts of which
are accepted as true, she is unwilling to draw such a conclusion.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Hall grants in part and denies in
part the Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim. Specifically, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's deliberate indifference as to his safety claim is
granted. Their motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's deliberate
indifference as to his medical needs claims against Defendants Quay
Garcia, White, Gonzalez, and Maury is granted. The Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's deliberate indifference as to his
medical needs claims against Defendants Pope, Metzger, and Calixte
is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 1, 2023 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/577xuh9t from Leagle.com.
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Allen Sues Over Unprotected Health Info
----------------------------------------------------------
MEAGHAN ALLEN and CRYSTAL KENNEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-11984-NMG (D. Mass., Aug.
28, 2023) is a class action against Defendant for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information
and personal health information including, but not limited to,
Plaintiffs and Class Members' names, Social Security numbers,
birthdates, demographic information, insurance policy numbers, and
other financial information.
According to Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, "On June 1, 2023, the
County became aware of a software vulnerability in MOVEit, which is
a popular file transfer tool owned by Progress Software and used by
the County to send and receive data. This vulnerability was
exploited by a group of cybercriminals known as "Clop," and allowed
them to access and download files belonging to the County between
May 28, 2023-May 29, 2023." Hackers such as Clop can and do offer
for sale unencrypted, unredacted private information to criminals.
The exposed private information of Plaintiffs and Class Members
can, and likely will, be sold repeatedly on the dark web, says the
suit.
As a result of Defendant's unreasonable and inadequate data
security practices that resulted in the Data Breach, Plaintiffs and
Class Members are at a current and ongoing risk of identity theft
and have suffered numerous actual and concrete injuries and
damages, the suit alleges.
The Plaintiffs seek to remedy these harms on behalf of themselves
and all similarly situated individuals whose private information
was accessed during the data breach. The Plaintiffs seek remedies
including, but not limited to, compensatory damages, reimbursement
of out-of-pocket costs, future costs of identity theft monitoring,
injunctive relief including improvements to Defendant's data
security systems, and future annual audits.
Progress Software Corporation is a Massachusetts based software
company that offers a range of software products and services to
corporate and governmental entities throughout the United States
and the world.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
1 Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 482-3700
Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
E-mail: kristen@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Sean R. Matt, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
sean@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (513) 345-8291
Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
- and -
Charles Schaffer, Esq.
Nicholas J. Elia, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
nelia@lfsblaw.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
- and -
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: JBrown@LeedsBrownLaw.com
MTompkins@LeedsBrownLaw.com
- and -
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Telephone: (845) 244-5595
E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Daniels Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLEE DANIELS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION and
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION d/b/a IBM, Defendants,
Case No. 1:23-cv-12015 (D. Mass., August 30, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of third-party
beneficiary contract, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and
declaratory and injunctive relief.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and
personal health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly
situated customers stored within their MOVEit file transfer
services following a data breach determined on May 28, 2023. The
Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly
situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the
PII/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.
Progress Software Corporation is a software company, with its
principal place of business located at 15 Wayside Road, Suite 4,
Burlington, Massachusetts.
International Business Machines Corporation, doing business as IBM,
is a software company based in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
1 Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 482-3700
Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
E-mail: kristen@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Sean R. Matt, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
sean@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (513) 345-8291
Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
- and -
Charles Schaffer, Esq.
Nicholas J. Elia, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
nelia@lfsblaw.com
RIVERSIDE, CA: Riverside All Files Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Riverside, et
al. The case is styled as Riverside All of Us or None, an
unincorporated association, Melinda Fobes, Bryan Yost, Marilu Paez,
Shawn Yost, individual and on behalf of similarly situated class
representatives v. City of Riverside, Larry V. Gonzales, in his
official capacity as Chief of the Riverside Police Department, Case
No. 5:23-cv-01536-SPG-SP (C.D. Cal., Aug. 2, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights
Act.
Riverside -- https://riversideca.gov/ -- is a city in and the
county seat of Riverside County, California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brooke Alyson Weitzman, Esq.
Allison Nicole Greenberg, Esq.
Andrea L. Smith, Esq.
ELDER LAW AND DISABILITY RIGHTS CENTER
1535 East 17th Street Suite 104
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Phone: (714) 617-5353
Email: bweitzman@eldrcenter.org
agreenberg@eldrcenter.org
asmith@eldrcenter.org
- and -
Carol A. Sobel
Weston C Rowland
LAW OFFICE OF CAROL SOBEL
2632 Wilshire Boulevard No 552
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Phone: (310) 393-3055
Email: carolsobellaw@gmail.com
rowland.weston@gmail.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Sean Broderick Murphy
RIVERSIDE CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE
3750 University Avenue Suite 250
Riverside, CA 92501
Phone: (951) 826-5567
Fax: (951) 826-5540
Email: smurphy@riversideca.gov
STORYBUILT LLC: Terminates Employees Without Notice, Plante Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA PLANTE, BRITTANY GONZALEZ, and GERARDO URBINA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
STORYBUILT, LLC, and PSW REAL ESTATE LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-01021 (W.D. Tex., August 30, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification (WARN) Act and for breach of contract.
According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the WARN Act by
terminating the Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees as part
of a mass layoff without providing sufficient (or any) advance
written notice after failing to pay their wages for nearly two
months. Instead, the Defendants simply notified the Plaintiffs and
Class members that their terminations would be effective that same
day. The Plaintiffs and Class members seek recovery of damages in
the amount of 60 days' compensation and benefits.
Plaintiffs Plante, Urbina, and Gonzalez worked for the Defendants
as graphic designer, phase manager, and customer care manager,
respectively, until their termination on July 31, 2023.
StoryBuilt, LLC is a real estate development, commercial
development, urban infill, and architecture company based in
Austin, Texas.
PSW Real Estate LLC is the real estate investment arm of
StoryBuilt, LLC based in Austin, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Caitlin Boehne, Esq.
Ryan Estes, Esq.
Austin Kaplan, Esq.
KAPLAN LAW FIRM
3901 S. Lamar Blvd., Ste. 260
Austin, TX 78704
Telephone: (512) 814-7348
Facsimile: (512) 692-2788
Email: cboehne@kaplanlawatx.com
restes@kaplanlawatx.com
akaplan@kaplanlawatx.com
SUMBLES TEAM: Sanford Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSH SANFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE SUMBLES TEAM, INC., d/b/a KELLER
WILLIAMS, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00791-KGB (E.D. Ark., August
28, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in the
practice of placing telephone calls on consumers' numbers
registered in the National Do Not Call Registry in an attempt to
market its services without obtaining prior express consent. As a
result, the privacy of the Plaintiff and Class members has been
violated, they were subject to annoying and harassing calls that
constitute a nuisance, and/or they were charged for incoming calls,
says the suit.
The Sumbles Team, Inc., doing business as Keller Williams, is a
real estate company based in Arkansas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kelli LaPorte-Jenner, Esq.
LAPORTE-JENNER LAW, PLLC
300 S. Spring Street, Suite 920
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 515-1692
E-mail: kelli@laportejcnnerlaw.com
- and -
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South, 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-7300
Facsimile: (952) 336-2940
E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com
SUSHI KATSUEI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chakma Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
RUPAN CHAKMA; SULOY TRIPORA; TAPAN KANTI TANCHANGYA; TIYANIT
KAEWPAN; and PRAMITA CHAKMA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SUSHI KATSUEI, INC. d/b/a
SUSHI KATSUEI PARK SLOPE; ROYAL KATSUEI, INC. d/ba SUSHI KATSUEI
WEST VILLAGE; AYE AYE SWE, and AUNG KO WIN, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-07804 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 1, 2023) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as servers.
SUSHI KATSUEI, INC. owns and operates the restaurant Sushi Katsuei
located in Park Slope, Brooklyn. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
Josef Nussbaum, Esq.
JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
32 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 688-5640
Facsimile: (212) 981-9587
TAWKIFY INC: Larue Suit Seeks Appropriate Wages for Matchmakers
---------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIANELLY LARUE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAWKIFY, INC. and KELLIE AMMERMAN,
Defendants, Case No. 0:23-cv-61686 (S.D. Fla., August 30, 2023) is
a class action against the Defendants for their failure to pay
appropriate minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a matchmaker and
misclassified as an independent contractor from approximately
November 2019 through January 2023.
Tawkify, Inc. is an online matching company, with its corporate
office located in San Francisco, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noah E. Storch, Esq.
RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
10368 W. State Road 84, Suite 103
Davie, FL 33324
Telephone: (866) 344-9243
Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com
TD AMERITRADE: Grande Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
---------------------------------------------------------
Francis Grande, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TD Ameritrade, Inc, Defendant, Case No.
8:23-cv-00385-JFB-CRZ (D. Neb., Aug. 29, 2023) seeks to redress
Defendant's unlawful, willful and wanton failure to protect the
personal identifiable information(PII) of approximately 61,160
individuals that was exposed in a major data breach of Defendant's
files saved on the MOVEit server in violation of its legal
obligations.
Between May 28, 2023 and May 30, 2023, an unknown actor gained
access to TD Ameritrade's files that were saved on its MOVEit
server. As a result, Plaintiff and the Class Members have had their
personal identifiable information exposed. It is believed that the
well-known Russian cybergang, CL0P is the source of the attack.
According to Defendant, the PII exposed in the Data Breach includes
names, Social Security numbers, financial account information,
dates of birth, government identification numbers, and other
personal identifiers.
The Plaintiff brings this action, individually, and on behalf of
all others whose PII was compromised as a result of Defendant's
failure to adequately protect consumers' PII, timely discover the
breach and warn its current and former customers of its inadequate
information security practices, and effectively monitor its
platforms for security vulnerabilities and incidents.
TD Ameritrade, Inc. provides investment advisory and brokerage
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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
TEACHERS INSURANCE: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Uhrich Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KATHARINE UHRICH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEACHERS INSURANCE AND ANNUITY
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-06408 (N.D.
Ill., August 29, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for
negligence, breach of confidence, invasion of privacy, breach of
contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and
declaratory judgment/injunctive relief, violations of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the
Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated customers stored within its
network systems following a data breach on or about May 31, 2023.
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, says the suit.
Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America is a
retirement service provider based in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan Paul Thompson, Esq.
Robert W. Harrer, Esq.
CHICAGO CONSUMER LAW CENTER, P.C.
650 Warrenville Road, Suite 100
Lisle, IL 60532
Telephone: (312) 858-3239
Facsimile: (312) 610-5646
E-mail: bryan.thompson@cclc-law.com
rob.harrer@cclc-law.com
TEACHERS INSURANCE: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Teppler Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN TEPPLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TEACHERS INSURANCE AND ANNUITY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
(TIAA), Case No. 1:23-cv-07758 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 31, 2023) alleges
that the Defendant has inadequate data security, which caused the
personal information of the Plaintiff and approximately 2.4 million
similarly situated persons to be exfiltrated by unauthorized access
by cybercriminals on May 29, 2023.
Accordingly, the cybercriminals who perpetrated the breach are part
of the Clop crime group. The exfiltrated data included personal
identifying information ("PII") like individuals' names and Social
Security numbers.
On July 14, 2023, TIAA notified the public that its customers' data
had been compromised in a Data Breach suffered by Progress Software
Corporation (PSC) and Pension Benefit Information, LLC. The TIAA
failed to provide timely notice to the affected the Plaintiff and
Class Members -- thereby exacerbating their injuries. Ultimately,
the TIAA deprived the Plaintiff and Class Members of the chance to
take speedy measures to protect themselves and mitigate harm, the
suit contends.
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, emotional distress, and the value of their time
reasonably incurred to mitigate the fallout of the Data Breach. The
Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensatory damages, treble
damages, punitive damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs,
and injunctive relief -- including improvements to TIAA's data
security systems, future annual audits, and adequate credit
monitoring services funded by TIAA.
Mr. Teppler is a citizen of Florida, residing in Jacksonville,
Florida, and has no intention of moving to a different state in the
immediate future.
The Defendant is a Fortune 100 financial services organization that
provides financial services in the academic, research, medical,
cultural and governmental fields.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Sedgh, Esq.
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Ra O. Amen, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
850 3rd Ave, Suite 402
Brooklyn, NY 11232
Telephone: (212) 738-6839
Facsimile: (813) 222-2439
E-mail: jsedgh@forthepeople.com
JYanchunis@forthepeople.com
Ramen@forthepeople.com
- and -
Tim Semelroth, Esq.
RSH LEGAL
425 Second Street SE, Suite 1140
Cedar Rapids, IA 52401
Telephone: (319) 365-9200
Facsimile: (319) 365-1114
E-mail: tsemelroth@fightingforfairness.com
TUFIN SOFTWARE: $2MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 1
-----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., and Pomerantz LLP on
Sept. 4 disclosed that the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York has approved the following
announcement of a proposed securities class action settlement that
would benefit purchasers of Tufin Software Technologies Ltd. Common
Stock (NYSE: TUFN):
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED TUFIN SOFTWARE
TECHNOLOGIES LTD. ("TUFIN") COMMON STOCK PURSUANT AND/OR TRACEABLE
TO TUFIN'S REGISTRATION STATEMENTS ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH
TUFIN'S APRIL 11, 2019 INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING ("IPO") AND/OR
TUFIN'S DECEMBER 2, 2019 SECONDARY PUBLIC OFFERING ("SPO") (THE
"SETTLEMENT CLASS"): 1
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, that a
hearing will be held on December 1, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. before the
Honorable Gregory H. Woods, United States District Judge of the
Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S.
Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 12C, New York, NY 10007 for
the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of
the claims in the above-captioned Action for $2,000,000 should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2)
whether the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds is
fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of
Plaintiffs' Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of up to
one-third plus interest of the Settlement Amount, reimbursement of
expenses of not more than $150,000, and an Award to Plaintiffs of
no more than $15,000 in total, should be approved; and (4) whether
this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the
Settlement Stipulation. The Court reserves the right to hold the
Settlement Hearing telephonically or by other virtual means.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Tufin Software Technologies,
Ltd. ("Tufin" or the "Company") common stock in or pursuant and/or
traceable to the Registration Statements issued in connection with
Tufin's April 11, 2019 IPO and/or the December 2, 2019 SPO, your
rights may be affected by this Settlement, including the release
and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your
ownership interest in Tufin common stock. If you have not received
a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class
Action ("Long Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release
Form, you may obtain copies by writing to or calling the Claims
Administrator: Tufin Software Technologies Ltd. Securities
Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N.
Jackson St., Ste. 205, Media, PA 19063; (Tel) (866) 274-4004; (Fax)
(610) 565-7985; info@strategicclaims.net. You can also download
copies of the Long Notice and submit your Proof of Claim and
Release Form online at www.strategicclaims.net/Tufin. If you are a
member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of
Claim and Release Form to the Claims Administrator, either
electronically no later than 11:59 p.m. EDT on November 3, 2023 or
by first class mail postmarked no later than November 3, 2023,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a
written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment
rendered in the Action whether or not you make a claim.
If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that
it is received no later than November 10, 2023, in the manner and
form explained in the Notice. All members of the Settlement Class
who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be
bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the
Settlement Stipulation.
1 All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the
same meanings as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement, dated July 7, 2023 (the "Settlement Stipulation").
Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses and Award to Plaintiffs must be in the manner and form
explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than
November 10, 2023, and must be mailed to each of the following:
Clerk of the Court United
States District Court
Southern District of New
York Daniel Patrick
Moynihan U.S. Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL:
LEVI & KORSINSKY
Nicholas I. Porritt
Adam M. Apton
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
Phillip Kim
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
POMERANTZ LLP
Patrick V. Dahlstrom
Christopher P.T. Tourek
10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS
WHITE & CASE LLP
Kimberly A. Havlin
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Plaintiffs' Counsel:
LEVI & KORSINSKY
Nicholas I. Porritt
Adam M. Apton
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Email: nporritt@zlk.com
Email: aapton@zlk.com
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.
Dated: August 10, 2023
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: Martin Sues Over Unauthorized Info Access
------------------------------------------------------------------
JASMYN MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, Defendant, Case No.
0:23-cv-02665-WMW-ECW (D. Minn., August 29, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, violation
of Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, invasion of privacy,
and declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated faculty, staff, and students
stored within its network systems following a data breach
determined on July 21, 2023. 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, says the
suit.
University of Minnesota is a public research university. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
Carey R. Johnson, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
crjohnson@locklaw.com
- and -
Jon Tostrud, Esq.
Anthony Carter, Esq.
TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 278-2600
Facsimile: (310) 278-2640
- and -
Blaine Finley, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
4725 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 789-3960
Facsimile: (202) 589-1813
E-mail: bfinley@cuneolaw.com
VILLAGE OF HILLSIDE: Vacca Seeks Telecommunicators' Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN VACCA, NEELY ZUHN, CLAUDIA MENDOZA, MARYA VAZQUEZ-DELGADO,
IRIS PEREZ, ANGEL HUERTA, JARIKSSA HERNANDEZ, RACHEL COSTA, AMBER
CORTES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. VILLAGE OF HILLSIDE and PROVISO CENTRAL
DISPATCH CENTER, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06532 (N.D. Ill.,
August 30, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.
The Plaintiffs have worked as 911 dispatchers or telecommunicators
for the Defendants in Illinois.
Village of Hillside is a municipality and public agency located in
Cook County, Illinois.
Proviso Central Dispatch Center is a public agency in the Village
of Hillside, Cook County, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond G. Garza, Esq.
KARLSON GARZA McQUEARY LLC
235 Remington Boulevard, Suite 5B
Bolingbrook, IL 60440
Telephone: (708) 761-9030
E-mail: rgarza@kgmlawyers.com
WHITE LINE SYSTEMS: Andrews Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
KODY ANDREWS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WHITE LINE SYSTEMS, LLC; DRIVEN 2 DRIVE
LEASING, LLC; RICK ALLRED SYSTEMS INC. dba ALLRED SYSTEMS
Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01258-SI (D. Ore., Aug. 28, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and Oregon wage and hour laws.
This action stems from the Defendants' policies and practices of:
(1) failing to pay all overtime wages owed to Plaintiff, Class and
Collective Members; (2) failing to provide and make available meal
periods to Plaintiff and Class Members, or pay premium wages in
lieu thereof; (3) failing to authorize or provide rest periods to
Plaintiffs and Class Members; (4) failing to provide true and
accurate itemized wage statements to Plaintiff and Class Members;
and (5) failing to timely pay Plaintiff and Class Members all wages
due upon separation from employment.
Plaintiff Andrews was employed by Defendants as a driver from
approximately February 2023 to March 3, 2023. Plaintiff drove
between Oregon and Washington.
White Line is a trucking delivery company that operates throughout
Oregon. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Whitney Stark, Esq.
ALBIES, STARK & GUERRIERO
1 SW Columbia Street, Suite 1850
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 308-4770
Facsimile: (503) 427-9292
E-mail: whitney@albiesstark.com
- and -
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
David C. Leimbach, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com
rmorelli@schneiderwallace.com
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Inc. Defends 1,056 PI Lawsuits as of July 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GMS Inc., from time to time, is involved in lawsuits that is
brought against the Company in the normal course of business,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Since 2002 and as of July 31, 2023,
approximately 1,056 asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits have
been filed, and we vigorously defend against them. Of these, 1,006
have been dismissed without any payment by us, 36 are pending and
only 14 have been settled, which settlements have not materially
impacted our financial condition or operating results. See “Risk
Factors—Risks Relating to Our Business and Industry—We are
exposed to product liability, warranty, casualty, construction
defect, contract, tort, personal injury, employment and other
claims and legal proceedings related to our business, the products
we distribute, the services we provide and services provided for us
by third parties.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mr3bfbem
*********
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 ***