/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/230922.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, September 22, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 191
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Green Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Hill Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Honaker Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Jones Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Junkins Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
ALBERTA: Clinical Assistants Sue Over Unlawful Labor Practices
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Reverse Stock Split Okayed After Settlement
AMERICOR FUNDING: Plaintiff Must File Class Cert by April 19, 2024
BGC HOUSING: To Vigorously Defend Homeowners' Class Action
BHP GROUP: Lawyers to Lobby Over $2M Donation to Indigenous Voice
BLENDJET INC: Figueroa Sues Over Defective Portable Blenders
CANDID COLOR: Faces Class Suit Over BIPA Violations
COLOR FACTORY: Fuentes Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Edwards Appeals Summary Judgment to 4th Cir.
CVS PHARMACY: Settles Lidocaine False Advertising Class Action
DATACOMP APPRAISAL: Hajek Suit Alleges Home Lot Rental Price-fixing
DAVID G. FLATT: Castro Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
DESERT FINANCIAL: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Cornell Suit
ELSA'S MEXICAN: Cabrera Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
FORESIGHT ENERGY: Everley Sues Over Miners' Unpaid Wages
FTX TRADING: Seeks to Reclaim Payments to Celebrities, Athletes
GAZON SAVARD: Faces Class Action for Neighborhood Nuisance
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Traverse SUVs
GRANTS PASS, OR: Files Writ of Certiorari with Supreme Court
HOMETOWN FOODS: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Gregori Claims
INOVALON HOLDINGS: Sarasota Firefighters Fund Appeals Bench Ruling
JACK HULLAND: High Court Certifies Students' Isolation Class Suit
LE BILBOQUET: Flores Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
MAPFRE USA: Faces Ma Class Suit Over Clients' Data Breach
MARSH AND MACLENNON: Appellate Court Certifies Data Breach Suit
MEDTRONIC MINIMED: Faces Class Suit Over Patients' Data Breach
META PLATFORMS: Must Face Medical Privacy Class Action
NEW YORK: Class Action Over Nursing Home Deaths Ongoing
PANDORA MEDIA: Flo & Eddie Appeals Summary Judgment to 9th Cir.
PETERBOROUGH, ON: Settles Patients Privacy Breach Suit for $988,550
PHONE LCD: Faces Bilir Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Drummond Suit
QANTAS AIRWAYS: CEO to Step Down Amid Flight Refund Class Action
RITE AID: Faces Gregory Class Suit Over May 2023 Data Breach
ROYAL PROTECTIVE: Bonkoungou Seeks Security Guards' Unpaid Wages
RYAN COHEN: SEC Probes Bed Bath & Beyond Sell-Off Amid Class Action
SHAQUILLE O'NEAL: Faces Class Action Over Botched NFT Project
SOLAR SERVICE EXPERTS: Dismissal of Rosenthal FDCPA Suit Reversed
SRG GLOBAL: Faces Class Suit Over Polluted Drinking Water
SUMO LOGIC: Pomerantz LLP Investigates Investor Claims
SUNDEK NATIONAL: Dillon Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Files 9th Cir. Appeal in Painters Suit
TAMARA LICH: Lawyers to Block Ottawa Residents From Testifying
TD BANK: Gallant Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Circuit
TD BANK: Yatham Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Circuit
TRAIL TAVERN: Craghead Conditional Class Cert Denied w/o Prejudice
UNITED AIRLINES: Class Certification Discovery Due Oct. 6
UNITED WATER: Amended Class Certification Scheduling Order Entered
UNITED WATER: Class Cert Hearing in Knott Set for Sept. 23, 2024
UNIVERSAL CITY: Court Denies Plaintiff's Class Certification Bid
URS MIDWEST: Seeks Reconsideration of Class Cert Order
VETERANS GUARDIAN: Faces Class Action Over Exorbitant Fees
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Dieselgate Suit to Be Dropped Without Compensation
WALT DISNEY: Settles Magic Key Annual Pass Suit for $9.5 Million
WASHINGTON: N.D. Appeals Class Cert., Prelim Injunction Bid Denial
WEST VIRGINIA: Faces Class Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
[*] Data Privacy, Cybersecurity Class Actions Up in New England
[*] Settlement Claims Filing Deadline in U.S. Class Suits Set
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J to Pay $18.8MM in Damages to Talc Victim
*********
3M COMPANY: Green Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Curtis Green, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-04118-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 18, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with prostate
cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Hill Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert P. Hill, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-04120-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 18, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with testicular
cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Honaker Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth D. Honaker, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-04121-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 18,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with prostate
cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Jones Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Jones, as Surviving spouse of Michael Kelly, deceased, and
other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.;
MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC;
MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN
MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC., Case
No. 2:23-cv-04107-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 18, 2023), is brought for
damages for personal injury and death 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,
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
Decedent in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Decedent 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.
Decedent's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS
from Defendant's AFFF products caused Decedent to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Decedent's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Jessica Jones is the Surviving Spouse of, Charles A.
Jones, who regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF
in training and during Decedent's working career in the military
and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a
result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Junkins Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott D. Junkins, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-04122-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 18, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with hypothyroidism
as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
ALBERTA: Clinical Assistants Sue Over Unlawful Labor Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Madeleine Cummings, writing for CBC News, reports that a proposed
class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of clinical assistants and
clinical surgical assistants has been launched against Alberta
Health Services.
A statement of claim filed in Calgary Court of King's Bench on Aug.
12 alleges the health authority has failed to pay overtime and
provide rest periods to clinical assistants since 2016.
The claim alleges AHS breached and continues to breach terms of
employment contracts and its duty of care to the representative
plaintiff and class members.
Robert Erickson, the lawyer for representative plaintiff Julia
Ionina said he and his client are not prepared to comment at this
time.
AHS spokesperson James Wood said AHS cannot comment as the case is
before the courts. On Sept. 6 he told CBC News a statement of
defence had not been filed.
The proposed class action seeks $10 million in general damages, $85
million in special damages and $10 million in punitive damages,
plus costs and interest.
The statement of claim says the plaintiff and class members
discovered they had not been paid the overtime and shift premiums
to which they were entitled when they received an email from AHS on
Dec. 23, 2022.
The email said they would receive a retroactive payment for
overtime they had previously worked and would continue to receive
overtime payments.
"The defendant maintained that the plaintiff and active class
members were not eligible for overtime despite making a partial
retroactive payment and paying partial overtime payments to the
plaintiff and active class members thereafter," the statement of
claim says.
None of the allegations have been proven in court.
Foreign-trained doctors
Clinical assistants and clinical surgical assistants are
foreign-trained doctors who work under doctors' supervision in
Alberta. Base salaries, according to an AHS website about the jobs,
range from about $63,000 to $155,000.
Their duties include conducting physical exams, writing orders,
documenting patient histories and developing treatment plans with
supervising doctors.
Ionina, of St. Albert, Alta., worked as a psychiatrist in Russia
before immigrating to Canada in 2012.
She started working as a clinical assistant for AHS around November
2015 at the Royal Alexandra Hospital in Edmonton.
Since 2017, she has worked as a clinical assistant at the Sturgeon
Community Hospital in St. Albert.
According to the statement of claim, Ionina is regularly required
to work more than 50 hours per week, and one week in April was
scheduled for five 15-hour shifts.
From contractors to employees
Clinical assistants used to be contract workers but are now AHS
employees.
In 2015, Sarah Hoffman, then Alberta's health minister, told CBC
News that AHS had started the transition after the College of
Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta raised concerns about how the
role was being managed.
A group of clinical assistants filed a lawsuit against AHS in 2015
and accused the health authority of discrimination.
Jim McFadyen, a lawyer in Parlee McLaws' Edmonton office, said the
lawsuit was discontinued.
Clinical assistants are not unionized in Alberta. The statement of
claim says their terms and conditions of employment are outlined in
a handbook, which states that "overtime will be paid for any time
worked beyond regular hours of work."
The statement of claim says AHS told clinical assistants, verbally
and in writing, that they are exempt from receiving overtime
payments.
The December 2022 email to the plaintiff and some class members
said according to a different document, which the statement of
claim says has not been provided to the employees, clinical
assistants have not been eligible to receive regular overtime
payments.
The email said the workers would be paid retroactively for overtime
worked since April 1, 2022, and that they would receive overtime
payments going forward.
Lorian Hardcastle, a University of Calgary law professor who
specializes in health policy, said it's possible that AHS changed
its interpretation of legislation or received a legal opinion that
prompted the retroactive payment.
"It is rare that without some change in their understanding of the
law, they would have just simply, as a gesture of goodwill, gone
and paid people in a retroactive manner," Hardcastle said.
The statement of claim says the retroactive payment was only a
partial payment.
Rest periods and shift premiums
The statement of claim also alleges AHS failed to allow clinical
assistants to take two 30-minute rest periods when they worked for
more than 10 hours, that they were not paid shift premiums for
working certain shifts and that they were regularly scheduled to
work shifts beyond 12 hours and sometimes up to 24 hours.
The handbook for non-union employees says shifts are not to exceed
15 hours.
"Regardless of which way this legal claim goes, I think Alberta
Health Services needs to take seriously these concerns that these
workers have -- that they're not receiving sufficient downtime,"
Hardcastle said.
She said there's a large body of literature that suggests tired
health-care workers are a patient safety issue.
The statement of claim says the roughly 228 active claim members
risk losing their jobs if they make individual claims and cannot
match AHS's resources. [GN]
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Reverse Stock Split Okayed After Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard Zamboni, writing for TheStreet, reports that even AMC
Entertainment's most loyal retail shareholders, though, have not
been able to keep the company's share price afloat in the face of
such significant dilution.
Shares in the movie theater chain plummeted almost 40% in the
trading session on September 7, hitting a record low of $8.62 per
share -- equivalent to a pre-reverse-split price of 86 cents per
share. As a result, 1-year losses on AMC shares have now hit 90%.
Let's rewind a bit
During the COVID pandemic, AMC's stock gained "meme stock" status,
and the company was able to leverage the retail shareholder
excitement and issue additional equity. In June 2021, AMC
successfully raised over $587 million by issuing new shares.
However, AMC faced limitations on the total number of new shares it
could issue due to its charter. And changing the charter's bylaws
was a risky proposition, as it could have dampened sentiment among
retail shareholders already worried about dilution. As a
workaround, AMC introduced the AMC Preferred Equity units or
"APEs".
More From TheStreet
A few months later, AMC proposed a shareholder vote to convert the
preferred shares into common stock and execute a 1:10 reverse stock
split. The company's management endorsed these proposals and
secured significant support from Antara Capital, which held about
60 million APE units and agreed to purchase an additional 196
million shares, guaranteeing AMC more than a third of the required
votes.
Although shareholders approved the proposals, the actual conversion
and reverse split were delayed due to a class-action lawsuit
initiated by the Allegheny County Employees' Retirement System,
which held AMC's common stock. The lawsuit alleged that AMC's CEO
and board of directors violated the rights of common stockholders,
who had not supported the proposals.
In a bid to resolve the litigation, AMC opted to settle with the
plaintiffs, leading to a protracted legal process that only
concluded at the end of August. Finally, AMC received approval to
proceed with the APE conversions and the implementation of the
reverse stock split.
Retail investors bear the brunt of massive dilution
AMC's victory in court, which allowed it to implement the APE
conversion and reverse stock split, caused AMC shares to crater.
Over the span of several days, the stock lost about 70% of its
value.
And then, during the September 6 trading session, shares were
walloped again, this time because AMC filed its plans to sell up to
40 million shares of its common stock. This move was allowable
thanks to the company's recent equity distribution agreement, which
permits the company to sell up to 390 million shares of new common
stock (about $3.4 billion worth, at current prices).
Although shareholders were already expecting dilution, the upshot
from this news is particularly bearish. In AMC's latest 8-K filing,
the company's management has clarified all the risks involved in
investing in the company's shares.
"Negative sentiment among AMC's retail stockholder base could have
a material adverse impact on the market price of the Class A common
stock and your investment therein."
Paradoxically, the company's own filing contains a fairly stark
warning to avoid AMC shares, even though AMC will necessarily have
to entice investors to buy more shares through its new equity
offering.
"Under the circumstances, we caution you against investing in our
Class A common stock, unless you are prepared to incur the risk of
losing all or a substantial portion of your investment."
Despite a total share price collapse, AMC may now be safe
Despite the significant drop in AMC's share price, the company is
fundamentally stronger than it has been at any point in the last
three years at least. It's not surprising, then, that several Wall
Street experts have increased their price targets on AMC following
the APE unit conversion.
The 40 million new shares issued by AMC at a market price of $11.21
per share immediately secures $448.4 million in cash for the
company. AMC still has the potential to issue an additional 350
million new shares, though likely at a lower price.
The proceeds from these sales will be utilized to enhance
liquidity, refinance existing debts, and repay loans, as outlined
in the company's filing. With a critical liquidity position and
$9.5 billion in debt and lease obligations, this fundraising effort
could become one of the most significant in the company's history,
enabling AMC to address its financial liabilities and eliminate the
risk of bankruptcy once and for all.
In a sense, the plan -- led by CEO Adam Aron and his team -- to
place AMC on a more stable path seems to be working. However, it's
essential to note that, for this plan to succeed, someone (or
rather, many "someones") had to bear the cost. And in this case, it
fell upon AMC's loyal "ape" shareholders, whose enthusiasm for the
company and its stock played a crucial role in keeping the theater
chain afloat during its most challenging pandemic years. [GN]
AMERICOR FUNDING: Plaintiff Must File Class Cert by April 19, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIVON SCOTT, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERICOR
FUNDING, LLC d/b/a AMERICOR FINANCIAL, Case No. 1:23-cv-02457-VMC
(N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Victoria Marie Calvert entered an order
granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for extension of deadline
to move for class certification.
-- The Plaintiff shall file his motion for class certification on
or
before April 19, 2024.
Americor is a next-generation Finance Technology (FinTech) company
that uses a proprietary online platform designed to provide debt
relief.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rcBYsn at no extra charge.[CC]
BGC HOUSING: To Vigorously Defend Homeowners' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Brookes, writing for WAtoday, reports that BGC Housing Group
says it will vigorously defend any legal action launched by
frustrated customers who claim they have experienced lengthy delays
and cost blow outs while building their new homes with the
construction giant.
On Sept. 7, Morgan Alteruthemeyer Legal Group announced it had
secured funding with Omni Bridgeway Limited to proceed with a class
action on behalf of homeowners who entered into home building
contracts between July 1, 2019 and June 30, 2022.
Up to 5000 homeowners could join the class action seeking
compensation against BGC for losses they have suffered arising from
delays in the construction of their homes.
In a statement, BGC Housing Group blamed the problems plaguing the
housing construction industry on the demand for stimulus grants.
"Like all builders, BGC Housing Group was unaware of the total
take-up (as later revealed by the government) was in the order of
25,000 homes in a market completing 11,000 homes in the prior
twelve months to June 2020," the statement said.
"There simply is not enough capacity in the market. Western
Australia has approximately 22,000 homes currently under
construction while build completions across the state remain at
around 12,000 per annum."
BGC Housing Group management said delays in the industry would
continue until chronic labour shortages were addressed.
"As a result of a severe lack of labour and materials in the
building industry -- something beyond the control of BGC Housing
Group -- we have taken the unprecedented step of ceasing new home
sales until the backlog is cleared," the statement said.
"We are acutely aware of the impact of delays on homeowners, and we
remain focused on finishing all homes we currently have under
construction."
BGC said it had a record production last month, where approximately
70 homes per week were completing roof carpentry, roof cover and
lock up.
Morgan Alteruthemeyer Legal Group Building and Construction Partner
Spencer Lieberfreund said securing funding was a significant step
forward for BGC homeowners who have suffered financially from the
delays in building their homes.
"A class action against BGC offers individuals a way of seeking
financial compensation without being exposed personally to legal
costs," he said.
"We encourage impacted homeowners to join the class action." [GN]
BHP GROUP: Lawyers to Lobby Over $2M Donation to Indigenous Voice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Durkin, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that UK lawyers behind a $70 billion class action against BHP over
the Samarco mine disaster were set to lobby Australian politicians,
super funds and investors ahead of a major shareholder meeting for
the mining giant.
Tom Goodhead, chief executive of London-based law firm Pogust
Goodhead, was in Australia earlier in May, but has returned with
some of his 700,000 claimants, including representatives of the
Brazilian Indigenous community, to intensify pressure on the miner
over its support for the Indigenous Voice to parliament.
BHP and its partner Vale are also facing a £30 billion ($59
billion) claim from Brazilian prosecutors over the Samarco iron ore
mine dam collapse in 2015, which released a torrent of toxic mud
that killed 19 people and wiped out 700 homes.
Local class action lawyers Maurice Blackburn and Phi Finney
McDonald have brought a separate case, which claims BHP breached
continuous disclosure obligations and engaged in misleading or
deceptive conduct, bringing total claims against BHP linked to the
disaster to over $100 billion.
While BHP's annual report last year estimated the damage bill at
$US3.3 billion, its latest annual report admits it cannot quantify
the cost. BHP last month reported a 37 per cent slump in underlying
profit to $US13.4 billion.
The touring party, which includes representatives of Brazil's
Krenak Indigenous community, will meet MPs and crossbenchers in
Canberra and travel to Sydney and BHP's headquarters in Melbourne,
where they will meet unions, super funds and investors, along with
local Indigenous representatives. They will seek to highlight what
they say is the hypocrisy of BHP's $2 million donation to campaign
for the Voice.
"I've never fully understood why BHP and Vale have not sought to
resolve these claims of the Indigenous communities at a much
earlier stage - it surprises me with all of their publicly stated
commitments in that context," Mr Goodhead told The Australian
Financial Review.
Mr Goodhead also defended the size of their £36 billion claim (as
calculated by forensic accountants Kroll), which would make it the
largest environmental class action bill the world has ever seen.
"It's a heavy number, but considering the level and scale of the
damage and the context of other large-scale disasters, it's not
surprising at all," Mr Goodhead said.
"If you look at the BP Deepwater Horizon spill or Exxon Valdez in
the early '90s, if you inflation-adjust, that's coming in between
$US60 and $US70 billion. BP came in at over $US50 billion, being
liabilities to governments and individuals -- that's 15 years
ago."
The Brazilian Indigenous groups (the Krenak and Guarani) along with
the descendants of African slaves (Quilombolas) wrote to British
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak about the UK case earlier this year.
"We are bringing a case against the biggest mining company in the
world, BHP, for the damage and devastation it has caused to our
lives and livelihoods," they wrote.
"The dam burst saw 60 million cubic metres of toxic waste
obliterate the land and river below, polluting everything in its
path for over 700 kilometres. The amount of mining waste released
was the equivalent of 16,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools.
"It claimed the lives of 19 of our communities, destroyed villages,
homes and businesses. And it continues to wreak havoc with the
ecosystem and environment -- the river is still polluted and our
way of life beyond repair."
BHP is strongly defending the case and claims that it duplicates
much of the compensation and reparation already paid.
BHP claims this includes more than 6 billion Brazilian real ($1.88
billion) paid through the novel system to more than 68,000
individuals who are claimants in the UK proceedings. In total, more
than 200,000 UK claimants have already received payments in Brazil,
BHP said.
BHP had challenged the jurisdiction of the English Courts, but the
Court of Appeal ruled last year the case can proceed, with a trial
due next October.
"BHP will continue to defend the UK group action and denies the
claims in their entirety," a company spokeswoman said.
"This action is also unnecessary, as it duplicates matters already
covered by the existing and ongoing work of the Renova Foundation
and other legal proceedings in Brazil."
BHP said that the Renova Foundation has spent more than 30 billion
Brazilian real on reparation and compensatory actions, and has made
good progress with paying individual indemnification, including
payments to over 417,000 people and local and indigenous
communities.
"BHP Brasil continues to work closely with Samarco and Vale to
support the reparation and compensation programs implemented by the
Renova Foundation under the supervision of the Brazilian courts,"
she said.
BHP said that resettlement of communities most affect is more than
70 per cent complete, with many families moving into homes in the
new district of Bento Rodrigues.
In July, a new municipal school opened, with just over 130 students
aged from four to 14 starting classes. The River Dolce has been
substantially restored and fishing has recommenced in areas, BHP
said. [GN]
BLENDJET INC: Figueroa Sues Over Defective Portable Blenders
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action claims the BlendJet2 portable blender simply cannot perform
as advertised due to being made with "substandard or inferior
materials."
In particular, the 22-page lawsuit says that the apparent defect
plaguing the BlendJet2 can cause its blades to become disfigured
and break off from the machine. Further, the product's charging
cables are prone to melting, and the blender's battery can overheat
and, at times, catch fire due BlendJet's "shoddy manufacturing,"
the suit claims.
According to the case, BlendJet, despite being aware of the alleged
materials defect, has "take[n] advantage of consumers" by
continuing to misrepresent that the portable blender can "power[]
through anything in 20 seconds flat: ice, frozen fruit, leafy
greens & more," and that its rechargeable battery " [l]asts for 15+
blends."
Because of the BlendJet2's subpar manufacturing, the product
"systemically" fails to blend through ice and other solid foods, or
hold a charge for “anywhere near” the advertised number of
uses, the suit alleges.
"[BlendJet's] failure to meet its representations is hardly
surprising due to the poor design and workmanship of the product,"
the case contends. "Specifically, the product's battery, charging
cable, and blending blade assembly are poorly designed and use
substandard materials -- causing the product to malfunction, and,
in some instances, pose serious hazards."
According to the filing, the manufacturer is aware of the alleged
defect given the scores of "scathing" product reviews posted on the
websites of retailers such as Walmart and Target, and the number of
complaints submitted to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC).
For example, one consumer who filed a complaint with the CPSC
claimed that the tips of the product's blades snapped off and were
potentially swallowed by the user, the lawsuit shares. Another
complainant said that the blender's rechargeable battery caused the
product to explode while charging, the suit relays.
Per the case, even Consumer Reports, a nonprofit advocacy group,
sent a letter to the CPSC outlining the possible hazards associated
with the defendant's "defective" product.
Despite the number of consumer complaints, BlendJet "did nothing
about it" and has instead continued to mispresent the capabilities
of its portable blender while concealing the inferior manufacturing
of the "worthless" product, the filing argues.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who,
during the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased a
BlendJet2 portable blender for personal use. [GN]
CANDID COLOR: Faces Class Suit Over BIPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------
Andy Nghiem of Madison - St. Clair Record reports that a class
action lawsuit alleges an online photo marketplace utilizing a
facial recognition search engine to find people in photographs
invades their privacy in violation of Illinois law.
Plaintiffs Spencer Mayhew and Ashley Reichert, on behalf of minors
X.R. and H.R., filed a class action lawsuit in the St. Clair County
Circuit Court against Candid Color Systems, Inc, TSS Photography,
LLC and TSS Photography of Salem, citing negligence and
carelessness in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act (BIPA).
According to the lawsuit, the defendants provide an online platform
to sell photos taken at school graduation ceremonies, youth
sporting events, and other events as well. The online platform
allegedly uses facial recognition technology that can identify
facial images in a particular photograph and use that information
to locate and match facial images from a gallery.
According to the lawsuit, many of these galleries contain hundreds
of images of Illinois citizens, including images of the plaintiffs
who never consented to or even knew that their biometrics were
being collected by the defendants.
The lawsuit states that BIPA laws require that prior to collecting
biometric data, companies must inform visitors in writing that
biometric data will be collected and stored. It also states that
visitors must be informed in writing of the specific purpose the
biometric data is being collected, how long it will be stored, and
companies must receive a written release from visitors for the
collection of biometric data.
The plaintiffs argue that the defendants invaded their privacy and
the privacy of untold Illinois citizens by collecting and storing
their biometric data without informed consent. They add that the
defendants do not have written, publicly available policies
identifying how long it will store biometric data or information on
a plan for permanently destroying biometric data.
The plaintiffs are demanding a jury trial to seek damages for
themselves and everyone in the class action lawsuit, plus court
costs, attorney fees and any other relief the court deems proper.
They are also requesting injunctive relief requiring the defendants
to comply with BIPA and cease the collection of biometric data
without informed written consent. The plaintiffs are represented in
this case by attorneys John J. Driscoll and Matthew J. Limoli of
The Driscoll Law Firm, P.C.
St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 23LA0826 [GN]
COLOR FACTORY: Fuentes Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
----------------------------------------------------------
JASMINA FUENTES, CAROLINA HENAO, and other-similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs v. COLOR FACTORY, INC., GREAT PAINTING
CORP., BL EXCLUSIVE PAINTING SERVICES CORP, CARLOS C. SAMPAIO,
ALEJANDRA VEGA, and JHOAN BASTARDO LINARES, individually
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-23352 (S.D. Fla., Aug. 31, 2023) is an
action against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act seeking to recover money damages for Plaintiffs' unpaid regular
and overtime wages, and for Defendants' retaliation.
The Plaintiffs were hired by the Defendants as
pre-paint-caulkers/painters, and their primary duty was caulking
before painting. While employed by Defendants, they worked more
than 40 hours every week, but they were not paid for all their
regular and overtime hours worked. Shortly before their employment
was terminated, they made a protected expression by complaining
about the lack of overtime pay, and lack of payments for all hours
paid. As a result of Plaintiffs' protected expressions, Defendants
terminated retaliated by unlawfully terminating their employment,
assert the Plaintiffs.
Color Factory, Inc., Great Painting, and BL Exclusive Painting are
construction contractors providing painting services for
residential and commercial accounts.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are 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
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Edwards Appeals Summary Judgment to 4th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs JIMMY EDWARDS, et al., filed an appeal from the District
Court's Order and Judgment dated July 31, 2023 entered in the
lawsuit entitled JIMMY EDWARDS, ROBERT HUNT, DOLORES HUNT, CLIFFORD
MCKELLAR, JR., and EMMA MCKELLAR, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Case No.
7:18-cv-00169-BO, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina at Wilmington.
In January 2019, the Court consolidated three putative class
actions which alleged claims against CSX Transportation arising
from flooding in and around the City of Lumberton, North Carolina
as a result of Hurricanes Matthew and Florence. The Court dismissed
Plaintiffs' amended complaint on CSX's motion. The Plaintiffs
appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the Court's dismissal
of Plaintiffs' tort claims but reversed its dismissal of
Plaintiffs' single breach of contract claim.
Following remand, CSX answered the amended complaint and the
parties engaged in a period of discovery. CSX then filed a motion
for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' remaining breach of contract
claim and plaintiffs moved to certify Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23
class. The Court subsequently granted CSX's motion to stay or
postpone class certification proceedings pending its resolution of
CSX's motion for summary judgment.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Terrence
W. Boyle entered an Order on July 31, 2023 granting the Defendant's
motion for summary judgment. The Order further stated that the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is denied as moot and the case
is closed.
The appellate case is captioned as Jimmy Edwards v. CSX
Transportation, Inc., Case No. 23-1909, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on Aug. 31, 2023.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants JIMMY EDWARDS, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
Martha Anne Geer, Esq.
Matthew E. Lee, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 West Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
- and -
Jay Jyoti Chaudhuri, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
150 Fayetteville Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: (919) 578-3415
- and -
Greg Frederic Coleman, Esq.
William A. Ladnier, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
First Horizon Plaza
800 South Gay Street
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
- and -
Leslie M. Kroeger, Esq.
Theodore Jon Leopold, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
11780 US Highway One
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33408
Telephone: (561) 515-1400
Defendant-Appellee CSX TRANSPORTATION, INCORPORATED is represented
by:
Matthew Adam Richer Cohen, Esq.
Rachel P. Raphael, Esq.
Ruben Reyna, Esq.
April N. Ross, Esq.
Scott L. Winkelman, Esq.
CROWELL & MORING LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004-2595
Telephone: (202) 624-2831
- and -
Henry Little Kitchin, Jr., Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
300 North 3rd Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
Telephone: (910) 254-3800
CVS PHARMACY: Settles Lidocaine False Advertising Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Claim Form Deadline: November 20, 2023
Estimated Payout: $13.50
Proof required: No
Method of payment: Venmo / Zelle / PayPal / Direct Deposit /
Prepaid MasterCard
**This settlement is available for claimants with or without proof
of purchase**
What is the CVS Pharmacy, Inc. Class Action Lawsuit About?
A $3,800,000 class action lawsuit has been settled with CVS
Pharmacy over allegations that some of its products were falsely
advertised. The original class action lawsuit alleged that CVS
packaged products of lidocaine deceptively, or in a way that led
consumers to believe that the "maximum strength" amount of the
lidocaine products would work from 8 to 12 hours.
Although the class action lawsuit has already been settled, CVS
Pharmacy denies allegations made, and that there was any factual or
legal basis for the false advertising class action lawsuit. It is
also important to mention that the Court has not determined whether
CVS Pharmacy or the class action plaintiffs are correct in their
arguments.
How Do I Qualify?
You may be owed a payment of $13.50 per claim per household without
proof of purchase if you purchased lidocaine products from CVS
pharmacies that qualify as part of the CVS class action settlement.
The settlement will provide for up to $13.50 payments to each
qualified class action member that files a timely and valid claim
form by the deadline of November 20, 2023, until the $3.8 Million
fund is exhausted. Part of the $3,800,000 CVS settlement fund will
be allocated to legal costs, as well as administrative fees such as
Court fees and settlement distribution and notice expenses.
Which Products Qualify for Payment?
You may qualify for a class action payment if you purchased a CVS
branded "maximum strength" lidocaine cream, patch, spray product,
or roll-on at any time in the United States between December 11,
2017, and July 18, 2023. The following product SKU's (Stock Keeping
Units) are listed as qualifying for a class action payment
according the CVS lidocaine class action administrators:
376649, 405343, 977934, 328522, 405623, 250483, 385037, 249024,
235554, 383998, 238921, 197229, 450467, 371271, 188721, 256563,
196728, 256518, 384034, 234274, 834344, 388642.
How Much Can I Get for CVS Pharmacy Class Action Settlement?
The total settlement amount is reported to be at $3,800,000. If you
file a valid claim, and do not have proof of purchase, the class
action will pay up to $13.50 per claim. You will be asked to
provide an approximate date to your best knowledge that you will
claim to have purchased the relevant CVS branded maximum strength
lidocaine products. If you qualify, and you file a claim form by
November 20, 2023.
Please note that in open class action settlements such as these,
the payout may be lower or higher than the originally anticipated
amount of $13.50 according to the CVS Pharmacy class action
administrator. The final payment amounts may be reduced if the
total amount of valid and timely claims submitted is more than
expected when setting the estimated payout initially.
How Do I Find Class Action Settlements?
Find all the latest Class Action Settlements you can qualify for by
getting notified of new lawsuits as soon as they are open to
claims:
How Do I File a Claim?
To be eligible to receive a payment from the $3,800,000 Class
Action Settlement, you must submit a complete, valid, and timely
class action Claim Form fully by November 20, 2023. If you believe
that you qualify according to the requirements above, and wish to
receive a payment estimated to be at up to $13.50 with no proof of
purchase required, you must submit your completed time form online,
or have it postmarked and sent via snail mail by the claim form
deadline date.
Any information submitted on the CVS class action claim form should
include information you deem to be factual and true to your best
knowledge, and can be subject to Court audit, verification, and
review. The claim form submission will ask for a "Class Member ID".
If you did not receive one previously, and believe that you qualify
for the CVS class action settlement, you can request one via email
below or here, then use the Class Member ID to file a claim form.
Claim Form Website: LidocaineSettlement.com
Request Class Member ID
Submit Claim Here
Filing Class Action Settlement Claims
Please note that your claim form will be rejected if you submit a
settlement claim for payout with any fraudulent information. By
providing this information and your sworn statement of its
veracity, you agree to do so under the penalty of perjury. You
would also be harming others that actually qualify for the class
action settlement. If you are not sure whether or not you qualify
for this class action settlement, visit the class action
administrator's website below. OpenClassActions.com is only
providing information and is not a class action administrator or a
law firm. [GN]
DATACOMP APPRAISAL: Hajek Suit Alleges Home Lot Rental Price-fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CARLA HAJEK and GREGORY HAMMERLUND, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DATACOMP APPRAISAL
SYSTEMS, INC.; EQUITY LIFESTYLE PROPERTIES, INC.; HOMETOWN AMERICA
MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.; LAKESHORE COMMUNITIES, INC.; SUN COMMUNITIES,
INC.; RHP PROPERTIES, INC.; YES! COMMUNITIES, INC.; INSPIRE
COMMUNITIES, L.L.C.; KINGSLEY MANAGEMENT, CORP.; and CAL-AM
PROPERTIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06715 (N.D. Ill.,
Aug. 31, 2023) arises from Defendants' conspiracy to fix, raise,
maintain, and/or stabilize manufactured home lot rental prices in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and common law.
The Plaintiffs bring this antitrust class action lawsuit on behalf
of themselves and a nationwide Class of all similarly situated
persons and entities who paid rent for a manufactured home lot
located in a manufactured home community that was included in a JLT
Market Report between August 31, 2019 and the present. Because of
Defendants' violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and common
law, Plaintiffs and members of the Class were injured by paying
significant overcharges on manufactured home lot rents throughout
the United States, says the suit.
If Defendants are permitted to continue their anticompetitive
scheme, Plaintiffs and members of the Class will continue to pay
supracompetitive rents for manufactured home lots. The Plaintiffs
bring this action to seek damages and permanently enjoin
Defendants' ongoing efforts to coordinate their prices by sharing
competitively sensitive information for manufactured home lots.
Datacomp Appraisal Systems, Inc. is an American provider of
manufactured and mobile home data.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
Brian M. Hogan, Esq.
John E. Tangren, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
bhogan@dicellolevitt.com
jtangren@dicellolevitt.com
DAVID G. FLATT: Castro Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
CESAR CASTRO, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DAVID G. FLATT FURNITURE, LTD., DAVID G.
FLATT and FABIAN DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-06524 (E.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 31, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged
unlawful labor policies and practices in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and the Wage Theft
Prevention Act.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensation for wages paid at less
than the statutory minimum and overtime wages; unpaid wages from
Defendant for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime
premium pay as required by law; back wages for overtime work;
unpaid spread-of-hours compensation for shifts worked lasting in
excess of 10 hours from start to finish; unpaid prevailing wages;
unpaid supplemental benefits; and liquidated and statutory
damages.
Plaintiff Castro was employed as maintenance and then as a
carpenter from approximately 2014 until March 20, 2020.
David G. Flatt Furniture Ltd. is a furniture company based in Long
Island City, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Samuel, Esq.
THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
1441 Broadway Suite 6085
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 563-9884
E-mail: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com
DESERT FINANCIAL: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Cornell Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Desert Financial Credit Union filed an appeal from the District
Court's Order dated July 31, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled
Eva Cornell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Desert Financial Credit Union, Unknown Parties, Does 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-00835-DWL, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix.
In this putative class action filed on May 10, 2021, Cornell
alleges that Desert Financial violated certain federal regulations
that require clear disclosure of a bank's overdraft practices. In
response, Desert Financial has moved to compel arbitration on June
24, 2021 based on an arbitration clause that it added to its
standard terms and conditions several years after the Plaintiff
opened her account.
On July 31, 2023, Judge Dominic W. Lanza signed an Order denying
Desert Financial's motion to compel arbitration.
The appellate case is captioned as Eva Cornell v. Desert Financial
Credit Union, et al., Case No. 23-16144, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Aug. 31, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Desert Financial Credit Union Mediation
Questionnaire was due on September 7, 2023;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by September 29, 2023;
-- Transcript is due on October 30, 2023;
-- Appellant Desert Financial Credit Union opening brief is due
on December 8, 2023;
-- Appellees Eva Cornell and Unknown Parties answering brief is
due on January 8, 2024; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant DESERT FINANCIAL CREDIT UNION is represented
by:
Brian A. Cabianca, Esq.
David Sean Norris, Esq.
SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS, LLP
2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 700
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 528-4160
Plaintiff-Appellee EVA CORNELL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Cindy Albracht-Crogan, Esq.
COHEN KENNEDY DOWD & QUIGLEY, P.C.
2425 East Camelback Rd.
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 252-8400
- and -
Emily J. Kirk, Esq.
MCCUNE LAW GROUP
231 N Main Street, Suite 20
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Telephone: (909) 557-1250
- and -
Richard Dale McCune, Jr., Esq.
David Christopher Wright, Esq.
MCCUNE LAW GROUP, MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO
VERCOSKI KUSEL WECK BRANDT, APC
3281 E Guasti Road, Suite 100
Ontario, CA 91761
Telephone: (909) 557-1250
ELSA'S MEXICAN: Cabrera Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH CABRERA, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ELSA'S MEXICAN ENTERPRISES, INC. and ELSA'S ON THE
BORDER, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00254-MJN-PBS (S.D. Ohio,
Aug. 31, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for their
failure to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees minimum
wages, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Ohio Constitution, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
Plaintiff Cabrera was employed by Defendants as an hourly
server/bartender from approximately April 2022, until August 2022.
Her primary job duties included preparing and/or serving food and
drinks to/for customers.
Elsa's Mexican Enterprises, Inc. engages in the food service
industry and operates several Mexican bar-restaurants throughout
Southwest Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
Tristan T. Akers, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Rd. Suite #126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
takers@mcoffmanlegal.com
FORESIGHT ENERGY: Everley Sues Over Miners' Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
JIM EVERLEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FORESIGHT ENERGY LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-03265-CRL-KLM (C.D. Ill., Aug. 31, 2023) arises from the
Defendant's failure to pay proper overtime in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.
The complaint alleges that Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees were not being paid for all hours worked, as well as
overtime compensation for all of the hours they worked in excess of
40 each workweek.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt hourly
miner in Illinois.
Foresight Energy LLC owns and/or operates several mines throughout
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
1360 East 9th Street, Suite 808
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com
- and -
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7034 Braucher Street, NW Suite B
North Canton, OH 44720
Telephone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
FTX TRADING: Seeks to Reclaim Payments to Celebrities, Athletes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Coghlan, writing for Coin Telegraph, reports that FTX is
probing if it can reclaim the millions of dollars it paid to
celebrity athletes and sports teams that promoted the crypto
exchange before it filed for bankruptcy last November.
In an over-180-page Aug. 31 court filing, FTX's financial advisers
laid out a detailed list of high-profile figures and businesses it
paid in its marketing efforts to see if they're under rules
allowing bankrupt companies to reverse the payments.
The list includes $750,000 made to former basketball pro Shaquille
O'Neal, over $300,000 to tennis pro Naomi Osaka, over $270,000 to
former baseball star David Ortiz and over $200,000 to American
football quarterback Trevor Lawrence.
Also included are nearly $420,000 made to the basketball team the
Golden State Warriors, and over $250,000 to the Miami Heat.
The filing warned, however, that the final amount FTX may recover
from the efforts "may vary materially from the amount reported."
Many of the celebrities named in FTX's recent filing have faced
class-action lawsuits from FTX users seeking damages.
O'Neal, Osaka and the Golden State Warriors have been sued by
groups of FTX customers over allegedly promoting the exchange --
which they claim sold unregistered securities.
The exchange has launched a series of lawsuits to try recover funds
with the most recent on Sep. 9 against cross-chain protocol
LayerZero Labs in a bid to claw back $21 million that FTX alleged
was illegally withdrawn prior to the exchange's bankruptcy in
November last year.
In July it sued co-founder Sam Bankman-Fried and other former top
executives to try to recover more than $1 billion in funds they
allegedly misappropriated. [GN]
GAZON SAVARD: Faces Class Action for Neighborhood Nuisance
----------------------------------------------------------
Nation World News reports that the citizens of Laterriere, angered
by the noise, smell and coming and going of heavy vehicles involved
in the activities of Gazon Savard, turned to the courts in the hope
of regaining their quality of life. A class action lawsuit for
neighborhood nuisance was recently filed in Superior Court against
the company and its majority transportation subsidiary.
This approach comes a year after the group of residents sent a
formal notice to the industrialist to stop its harmful operations.
The couple of plaintiffs, Annie Truchon and Michel Lepine, want to
get permission to represent the citizens who live in approximately
700 residences located near the company's sites as part of this
legal procedure.
Annie Truchon and her husband Michel Lepine filed a class action
lawsuit against Gazon Savard.
"The activities have grown every year and it has really exceeded
our tolerance threshold. We made several complaints to the Ministry
of the Environment, the City of Saguenay and Gazon Savard, but that
did not change. It's getting worsesaid Annie Truchon.
The firm BGA Avocats, which specializes in class action, agreed to
represent the citizens. For us, the evidence is overwhelming. What
struck me was the owner's lack of will. There is no collaboration
to minimize harm and inconveniencelined up attorney David
Bourgoin.
"I invite people to contact us, those who feel concerned about the
problem added the prosecutor.
The sector targeted by the request for authorization of collective
action for neighborhood disturbance consists of approximately
thirty streets. The quadrilateral stretches between the Chicoutimi
River, Saint-Paul Road, Talbot Boulevard and Route 170 in
Saguenay.
Nearly 20 lots and buildings of Gazon Savard and its transportation
subsidiary are located in this area. Various operations take place,
including crushing and composting of organic matter, sludge, septic
tanks and green waste.
Everyday troubles
Neighbors alleged that the heavy vehicular traffic seven days a
week causes recurring disturbances such as noise, vibration and
dust. They also lamented the presence of nauseating smells coming
from the outdoor installations of Gazon Savard as well as the
pollution around them.
Their lawyer believes that the behavior of Gazon Savard violated
the right of residents to peacefully enjoy their property and their
life in general, as stipulated in the Charter of Human Rights and
Freedoms.
"We do not have to tolerate or allow what is abnormal," explained
David Bourgoin. The latter must also prove to the judge that the
inconveniences experienced by the residents of the area exceed the
normal tolerance threshold of the neighborhood in order for him to
authorize the class action.
The company's neighbors are demanding compensation for the damages
suffered. The amount must be determined by the court based on
various parameters, including proximity and the problems
experienced by the residents.
This fee can amount to several thousand dollars per person. If it
lasts over time, 4-5-6 years, if it's $5,000 or $10,000 per year,
it will be multiplied by 4-5-6 years per residence or per resident.
illustrated by David Bourgoin.
"We will provide proof to increase compensation where citizens are
entitled, but we rely on the court's decision." the lawyer
recalled.
In a document filed with the court, the citizens recalled that a
legal action was recently filed by the City of Saguenay against
Gazon Savard. They also pointed out that several notices,
infringement notices and formal notices have been sent to the
company for non-compliance with the regulations in force.
Gazon Savard prosecutors assured that they are aware of this
procedure against their client, but did not want to comment. [GN]
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Traverse SUVs
--------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
Chevrolet Traverse class action lawsuit alleges General Motors sold
model year 2020 Traverse AWD (all-wheel-drive) SUVs that were
really FWD (front-wheel-drive).
According to the two plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit, the 2020
Chevy Traverse vehicles have emblems that clearly say they are AWD,
something that can make a difference in snow compared to FWD
vehicles.
GM says all-wheel-drive "enhances traction and control on slippery
or snow-covered roads."
The Chevy Traverse lawsuit alleges GM knew or should have known the
vehicles were only FWD vehicles that were being advertised as AWD
vehicles.
General Motors allegedly identifies each vehicle with a vehicle
identification number (VIN) which includes an "R" at the fifth
position to designate the Traverse as front-wheel-drive, not AWD.
The Traverse class action further alleges even though GM expressly
represents the 2020 Chevy Traverse as all-wheel-drive when they are
not, the automaker has refused to replace the SUVs.
2020 Chevrolet Traverse Class Action Lawsuit -- The Plaintiffs
The Traverse class action was filed by California plaintiffs Kyle
Buffenmyer and Amanda Herberger. Both plaintiffs allege they
purchased a 2020 Chevrolet Traverse vehicle with an "AWD" emblem
attached to the SUV.
The plaintiffs contend they relied on the factory-applied AWD
emblem attached to the back of the Chevrolet Traverse. The
plaintiffs assert they would not have purchased the vehicle if GM
would have warned them the Traverse was only front-wheel-drive.
Both plaintiffs allege they needed a Traverse AWD vehicle for
driving in snow.
In February 2021 and following 3 to 5 inches of snowfall, the
plaintiffs attempted to drive out of their garage but the vehicle
became stuck in the driveway. The vehicle allegedly could neither
move forward nor backward, and only the front wheels were
spinning.
The plaintiffs had to shovel a track to pull back into the garage
and were then stranded at home.
The 2020 Chevy Traverse was brought to a GM dealership which
allegedly verified the Traverse was FWD, not AWD.
The plaintiffs contend they contacted General Motors and asked for
a replacement vehicle equipped with all-wheel-drive, but GM
allegedly "refused to provide adequate relief."
The Chevy Traverse AWD class action lawsuit was filed in the
Superior Court of San Mateo County California: Buffenmyer, et al.,
v. General Motors LLC, et al.
The plaintiffs are represented by Olivier & Schreiber LLP, and Conn
Law, PC. [GN]
GRANTS PASS, OR: Files Writ of Certiorari with Supreme Court
------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF GRANTS PASS, OREGON, filed a petition for writ of
certiorari in the lawsuit entitled City of Grants Pass, Oregon,
Petitioner vs. Gloria Johnson, et al., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Case No. 20-35752, 20-35881, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
In September 2018, a three-judge panel issued Martin v. City of
Boise, 902 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2018), holding "the Eighth Amendment
prohibits the imposition of criminal penalties for sitting,
sleeping, or lying outside on public property for homeless
individuals who cannot obtain shelter." Approximately six weeks
after the initial Martin panel opinion, three homeless individuals
filed a putative class action complaint against the City arguing a
number of City ordinances were unconstitutional.
In October 2018, approximately six weeks after the Martin opinion,
Debra Blake filed her putative class action complaint against the
City. The complaint alleged enforcement of the City's anti-sleeping
and anti-camping ordinances violated the Cruel and Unusual
Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment, the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment. The complaint was amended to include
additional named Plaintiffs and to allege a claim that the fines
imposed under the ordinances violated the Excessive Fines Clause of
the Eighth Amendment.
The appellate case is captioned City of Grants Pass, Oregon,
Petitioner vs. Gloria Johnson, et al., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Case No. 23-175, in the Supreme
Court of United States, filed on August 25, 2023. [BN]
Defendant-Petitioner CITY OF GRANTS PASS, OREGON, is represented
by:
Theane Evangelis Kapur, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
E-mail: tevangelis@gibsondunn.com
HOMETOWN FOODS: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Gregori Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO GREGORI, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. HOMETOWN FOODS USA, LLC, a/k/a TRIBUTE
BAKING COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-23347 (S.D. Fla., Aug.
31, 2023) is an action against the Defendant to recover monetary
damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a non-exempted,
full-time, hourly employee, from approximately September 1, 2013,
to August 3, 2023, or almost 10 years. He had multiple duties as a
warehouse employee, including shipping and receiving. During his
employment with Defendant, he worked overtime hours not paid to him
at any rate, not even at the minimum wage rate, as required by law,
says the Plaintiff.
Hometown Foods USA, LLC, a/k/a Tribute Baking Company, is a bakery
manufacturing company based in Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
INOVALON HOLDINGS: Sarasota Firefighters Fund Appeals Bench Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF SARASOTA FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND, et al. are taking an
appeal from a July 31, 2023 telephonic bench ruling on the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit entitled City of Sarasota
Firefighters' Pension Fund, et al., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Inovalon Holdings,
Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2022-0698-KSJM, in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware.
According to Bloomberg Law, the lawsuit involves three pension
funds which sued Inovalon Holdings Inc. last year, alleging its
leaders steered the health analytics company into a $7.3 billion
private equity sale that favored insiders while obscuring conflicts
of interest and superior offers. Chancellor Kathaleen St. J.
McCormick heard arguments regarding motions to dismiss the
litigation in early April. The lawsuit initially included former
board member Andre Hoffmann, whose family controls pharmaceutical
giant Roche Holding AG, among the defendants, but the claims
against him were voluntarily dismissed.
The appellate case is captioned City of Sarasota Firefighters'
Pension Fund, et al. v. Inovalon Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No.
23-305, in the Delaware Supreme Court, filed on August 25, 2023.
[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants CITY OF SARASOTA FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND,
et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:
Ned Weinberger, Esq.
Brendan Sullivan, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1510
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 573-2540
Facsimile: (302) 573-2529
- and -
Jeremy Friedman, Esq.
FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D
Bedford Hills, NY 10507
Telephone: (888) 529-1108
- and -
J. Daniel Albert, Esq.
Geoffrey C. Jarvis, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER CHECK LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 822-0276
Defendants-Appellees INOVALON HOLDINGS, INC., et al. are
represented by:
Raymond J. DiCamillo, Esq.
Kevin M. Gallagher, Esq.
RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER PA
920 North King Street, Suite 200
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 651-7700
Facsimile: (302) 651-7701
- and -
A. Thompson Bayliss, Esq.
Eric A. Veres, Esq.
Caleb Volz, Esq.
ABRAMS & BAYLISS LLP
20 Montchanin Road, Suite 200
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 778-1000
Facsimile: (302) 778-1001
- and -
William M. Lafferty, Esq.
Ryan D. Stottmann, Esq.
Alexandra Cumings, Esq.
MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNEL LLP
1001 North Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19899
Telephone: (302) 658-9200
Facsimile: (302) 658-3989
- and -
Blair Connelly, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
1271 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 906-1200
- and -
Kristin N. Murphy, Esq.
Ryan A. Walsh, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
650 Town Center Drive, 20th Floor
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (714) 540-1235
JACK HULLAND: High Court Certifies Students' Isolation Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Kawaja of CBC reports that The Yukon Supreme Court has given
the green light to a class-action lawsuit by students and parents
of Jack Hulland Elementary School in Whitehorse.
The class-action alleges a number of students at the school were
subject to holds, restraints and seclusion between January 1, 2007
and June 30, 2022.
The Yukon Department of Education is named as the defendant.
None of the allegations have been proven in court.
In a decision released this week, Yukon Supreme Court Chief Justice
Suzanne Duncan wrote that there are sufficient common issues in the
plaintiffs' claim to justify the class-action. That means those
common issues will not need to be relitigated for each of the
individual trials.
Duncan wrote a class-action suit is the best path forward, noting
it is more efficient, economical and accessible.
"While the number of class members is unclear at this time, even
nine or 10 are sufficient to justify a class action, especially
when there are vulnerable potential class members, such as
minors."
The Yukon government has declined commenting on the specific
allegations.
Plaintiffs apply to certify class action lawsuit against Whitehorse
school
Yukon gov't files defence in proposed class-action over alleged use
of holds, seclusion at Whitehorse school
Justice department spokesperson Fiona Azizaj, however, said in a
statement on September 7, 2023 the government will continue to
support Jack Hulland as a school community.
"All students and staff have the right to a safe and inclusive
learning environment," she said.
"A range of free-of-charge supports continue to be available to
students, families and staff as we navigate these complex matters."
'A very positive step'
One of the parents who helped launch the initial lawsuit said that
having the class-action certified felt like "a really big victory .
. . because we've finally been heard."
CBC News is not naming her to protect the identity of her child.
"I feel that it is a very positive step in the right direction,"
she said.
"I feel as though we have been seen and someone has heard us…
Because every other action that we tried to take, it just fell on
deaf ears. Nobody seemed to take us seriously."
She also said she hoped other families would be "brave enough to
come forward."
"There's nothing to be ashamed of," she said.
"We have not done anything wrong by telling the truth."
More to come forward
James Tucker -- one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs --
expects the number of plaintiffs will be much higher than 10.
He estimates it could potentially be anywhere from 50 to several
hundred people.
"When you define the class to include people who were subjected to
holds, restraints or seclusion even just once, that might actually
capture a great number of people."
"Right now we have two representative plaintiffs, they're former
students of Jack Hulland Elementary, we have spoken with other
people and we have heard of yet others," Tucker said.
Tucker said cost is a barrier to accessing justice and a
class-action lowers that barrier. Under the guidance of a case
management judge, the plaintiffs' lawyers will advertise and reach
out to current and former students who meet the criteria for the
class-action.
The plaintiffs applied to the court last winter to certify the
class-action, asking for the case to include students who allege
wrongdoing between 2002 to 2022. However, the court has shortened
the timeframe by five years, based on affidavit evidence. [GN]
LE BILBOQUET: Flores Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUANA FLORES, HECTOR PU, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs v. LE BILBOQUET PALM BEACH LLC, Defendant, Case No.
9:23-cv-81211-DMM (S.D. Fla., Aug. 31, 2023) is an action against
the Defendant to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs allege that they worked for the Defendant in excess
of 40 hours weekly, but they were not paid for all their overtime
hours.
Plaintiff Flores was hired by Defendant in New York to work as a
baker, cook, food prep, and cleaning employee from approximately
May 1, 2018 to July 3, 2023, or five years and two months.
Plaintiff Pu was hired to work as a cook, food prep, and cleaning
employee and to handle take-out orders from January 7, 2021 to July
3, 2023, or 129 weeks.
Le Bilboquet is a French bistro/restaurant located in Palm Beach,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are 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
MAPFRE USA: Faces Ma Class Suit Over Clients' Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit claims MAPFRE USA Corp. and subsidiary Commerce
Insurance Company failed to protect the personal information of
266,142 customers from a "massive" data breach in July 2023.
According to the August 22 notice letter sent by MAPFRE Insurance,
an unauthorized third party used customer information already in
its possession to gain access to additional private data through
MAPFRE's Massachusetts online quoting platform between July 1 and 2
of this year.
The 46-page lawsuit relays that the personal information
compromised in the cyberattack included MAPFRE customers' names,
dates of birth, driver's license numbers, vehicle identification
numbers and their cars' make, model and year.
Even potential customers may have had private data exposed, as the
insurance companies collect certain personal information when
members of the public request a quote, the suit alleges.
The case argues that the Massachusetts-based companies -- which
provide automobile and homeowner insurance, among other insurance
products -- failed to implement adequate cybersecurity measures to
safeguard customer data, which was allegedly maintained in a
"vulnerable" condition.
The complaint also takes issue with the defendants' delayed
notification of data breach victims. As the filing tells it, the
delay between the incident in early July and notification in late
August "directly contributed" to the harm suffered by victims, who
could have used the intervening weeks to mitigate the effects of
their data's exposure.
What's more, the lawsuit charges that the companies should have
understood the risk that they could be targeted by cybercriminals,
not least because MAPFRE Insurance had already experienced a data
breach in 2021.
Though the defendants have offered impacted individuals 12 months
of complimentary identity and credit monitoring services, the case
contests that the gesture fails to compensate for the lifelong
threat of fraud, identity theft and other misuse that victims now
face as a result of the companies' negligence.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone whose personal information
was compromised, stolen or exposed as a result of the data breach
announced by MAPFRE Insurance. [GN]
MARSH AND MACLENNON: Appellate Court Certifies Data Breach Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blair Dawson and Holm Belsheim of McDonald Hopkins report that a
recent decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New
York might mean big consequences for companies experiencing data
breaches. In their August 24, 2023, decision, the court held in
favor of former employees of insurer Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc.
attempting to bring a class action against the insurer. A major
takeaway was the court's statement that "[Nancy] Bohnak's alleged
injuries arising from the risk of future harm are concrete."
In other words, it may be sufficient to allege mere risk of future
injury from a data breach, as well as costs relating to minimizing
the risk, in order to bring an actionable claim to court.
The breach and its aftermath
Marsh & MacLennon Companies, Inc and Marsh & McLennan Agency, LLC
(collectively, "Marsh & McLennan") suffered a data breach in April
2021, including Social Security numbers and other information
belonging to current and former employees. Marsh & McLennan mailed
notifications on June 30, 2021, which included information on
credit monitoring, identity theft services, and other support
typically provided in the wake of a breach. In July of 2021, Nancy
Bohnak and Janet Lea Smith, former employees of Marsh & McLennan,
brought a putative nationwide class action complaint alleging
"state-law claims for (1) negligence, (2) breach of implied
contract, and (3) breach of confidence."[1]
After the district court found for Marsh & McLennan, Bohnak
appealed and the Court of Appeals found in her favor. Specifically,
the 2nd Circuit wrote " [t]he core of the injury Bohnak alleges
here is that she has been harmed by the exposure of her private
information -- including her SSN and other PII -- to an
unauthorized malevolent actor. This falls squarely within the scope
of an intangible harm the Supreme Court has recognized as
'concrete'"[2]
Read another way, plaintiffs may have standing to sue solely on the
basis of their data being accessed in a breach and then received or
acquired by a third party.
A trend favoring plaintiffs
The court's decision in this matter comes after several recent
rulings that have enabled or enhanced the ability of plaintiffs to
sue after a data breach. In 2015, the 7th Circuit found that the
occurrence of a data breach is enough to show a substantial risk of
harm. In 2019, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed an appeals court
decision, holding that "an individual need not allege some actual
injury or adverse effect, beyond violation of his or her rights
under the [Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act], in order to
qualify as an 'aggrieved' person and be entitled to seek liquidated
damages". More recently, in 2021 the U.S. Supreme Court found that
concrete injury can include intangible harm, which the 2nd Circuit
cited in finding for Bohnak.
What does this mean for companies that experience a data breach?
The bar has been seemingly lowered, for the moment, for plaintiffs
to sue in the wake of a data breach. Companies that experience an
incident or breach should expect more attention and be prepared to
engage counsel. While it is difficult to prevent litigation,
companies can limit their liability, as well as be good corporate
citizens, by being responsible caretakers of sensitive data and
their own cybersecurity. Some steps include:
Be vigilant, and help your employees recognize the risks. Threat
actors are always on the lookout for their next targets.
Traditional methods, including phishing emails and social
engineering, are popular with threat actors because they work with
little effort or expense. Train your employees to be attentive,
question things when they receive an unexpected communication, and,
when in doubt, ask IT to look at something.
Use smart security procedures. It is important to keep your
security programs up to date. Change passwords regularly and, when
in doubt, report an incident as soon as possible. MFA (multi-factor
authentication) adds mere seconds to an employee's routine but adds
another step for any threat actor to overcome.
Protect data. Having a consistent data intake and organization
process is key to making sure the data you get goes where it
should. Once data is on your company environment, security measures
like encryption/redaction, restricted access or secure storage add
an extra layer of protection against any threat actor that may gain
access.
Do not collect data you do not use. Minimize the data collected and
stored only to that which is necessary and required by contract or
law. Data costs money to acquire, analyze and store. If your
company has data it does not use, not only is that costing you
costs for upkeep, it is a liability in the event of a data breach.
Avoid adding insult to injury if you are breached and then have to
disclose that you are not even sure why you had some of the data in
the first place.
If you have questions about your company's vulnerability to a
ransomware attack or other breach, or if you want to learn more
about proactive cybersecurity defense, contact a member of McDonald
Hopkins' national cybersecurity and data privacy team.
[1] Bohnak v. Marsh & McLennan Cos., 580 F. Supp. 3d 21, 24
(S.D.N.Y. 2022)
[2] Bohnak v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., 22-319 (2d Cir.
2023). [GN]
MEDTRONIC MINIMED: Faces Class Suit Over Patients' Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Walter of Cardiovascular Business reports that Medtronic is
facing a new class-action lawsuit that alleges the company shared
the personal data of some of its customers with third-party
advertisers.
The lawsuit names both Medtronic and the company's MiniMed
subsidiary as defendants. The lead plaintiff is a Medtronic
customer, A.H., who started using Medtronic's InPen Diabetes
Management smartphone app in July 2020.
According to the lawsuit, A.H., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Medtronic MiniMed Inc. and MiniMed
Distribution Corp, the plaintiff found out in April 2023 that
Medtronic had "made the conscious decision" to transmit the
personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health
information (PHI) of InPen app patients to third-party sites such
as a Google. This included patient names, phone numbers, email
addresses, IP addresses, device identifiers and “other sensitive
medical information."
"Plaintiff reasonably expected that his communications with MiniMed
were confidential and private, and that such communications would
remain confidential," according to the lawsuit. "Under no
circumstance did he expect or anticipate that his confidential and
protected Private Information would be transmitted to and/or
intercepted by Google and other third parties."
The complaint continues, emphasizing the potential impact of this
information being shared with Google.
"MiniMed's disclosures of PII and PHI to Google is particularly
problematic because Google provides web services -- such as YouTube
and Gmail -- that give it access to InPen users' real identity and
device identifiers," according to the lawsuit. "Plaintiff used his
mobile device to access the app, and he also uses it to access his
Gmail account. As a result, his PII and PHI were automatically
linked to his real identity."
The plaintiff's complaint concludes by describing the actions of
Medtronic/MiniMed as "immoral, unethical, oppressive and
unscrupulous."
Medtronic's response to the class-action lawsuit
"Medtronic has not been served and will review the complaint once
we receive it," the company said in a statement sent to
Cardiovascular Business. "It's important to note that protecting
patient information is critically important to Medtronic. We have
strong processes, technologies, and people in place to safeguard
and protect our information and systems, the information of our
business partners, and most importantly, the privacy and safety of
the patients and healthcare providers that use our products." [GN]
META PLATFORMS: Must Face Medical Privacy Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Brady, writing for Verdict, reports that San Francisco US
District Judge William Orrick has said that Meta Platforms should
face a lawsuit alleging that it infringed upon the medical privacy
of patients who were treated at hospitals that used the Meta Pixel
tracking tool.
The Meta Pixel is a snippet of code inserted into websites, used to
decode key performance metrics generated by a particular platform.
The Meta Pixel helps businesses with a Facebook page determine and
improve metrics.
The suit alleges that, when using patient portals, Meta logged
sensitive information about their health. The collected data was
then monetised through Meta's targeted advertising.
The US Federal Judge said plaintiffs could sue Meta for violating
federal wiretap law and California privacy law.
Litigation began in 2020 and lawyers identified 664 hospitals and
other healthcare providers who used Meta Pixel.
Meta has faced a series of privacy lawsuits and fines in recent
months.
In May, the EU fined Meta a record $1.3bn for violating data
privacy rules. The Irish Data Protection Commission (IDPC)
announced that Meta had failed to properly protect EU Facebook
account data from US spy agencies.
Norwegian regulator Datatilsynet imposed a fine against Meta in
August for using behavioural advertising, a model which harvests
user data to tailor advertising. The 1m Krone ($94,313) per day
fine will be imposed until 3 November, unless the injunction is
granted. [GN]
NEW YORK: Class Action Over Nursing Home Deaths Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Molly Bruke, writing for Times Union, reports that three years
after the coronavirus ripped through overwhelmed nursing homes
across New York, killing more than 15,000 people, a wave of civil
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of some of those who died and
allege that top state officials or the facilities where
infection-control measures had already been questionable are to
blame.
Many of the cases, filed on behalf of residents who died as a
result of being infected with COVID-19, have proceeded on a slow
track as pre-trial arguments have focused, in part, on whether
state government officials and the nursing homes are shielded by
immunity from any liability.
In at least one case, former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and high-ranking
members of his administration are accused of negligence for a
controversial directive that his administration issued in March
2020 informing nursing homes that "no resident shall be denied
readmission or admission . . . solely based on a confirmed or
suspected diagnosis of COVID-19."
The facilities were also prohibited from requiring hospitalized
residents who had been deemed medically stable to be tested for the
virus prior to their admission or readmission in nursing homes.
While Cuomo and his administration had blamed the rapid spread of
COVID-19 in nursing homes on infected staff members, some critics
have targeted his nursing home directive for the rapid spread in
the facilities -- a situation that was exacerbated by the failure
of some facilities to quarantine residents. Limited personal
protective equipment and a shortage of coronavirus tests in the
early stages of the pandemic also were factors.
The state Department of Health directive, issued near the beginning
of the coronavirus, stated that nursing homes, as long as they
could properly care for a person, could not deny readmission or
admission to a resident solely on the basis of a confirmed or
suspected diagnosis of COVID-19.
Many nursing homes interpreted the directive to mean that they were
required to accept COVID-positive patients returning from a
strained hospital system. Critics contended the policy led to
rampant infection within highly vulnerable populations.
Other lawsuits, including three against the Teresian House Center
for the Elderly in Albany, have named nursing homes as defendants,
alleging that they failed to prevent the spread of COVID-19 within
the facilities, leading to deaths in some instances.
Many other nursing homes across the state are facing similar
lawsuits, including The Grand Rehabilitation and Nursing at
Barnwell in Columbia County.
Teresian House, which saw high numbers of deaths and infections
early in the pandemic, was investigated by the New York State
Department of Health for its handling of the virus.
Officials with Teresian House and Barnwell did not respond to
requests for comment.
The lawsuits against nursing homes assert that the responsibility
to care for residents fell on those facilities, even as Cuomo's
directive had temporarily sent patients with COVID-19 or who were
untested for the disease back into the nursing homes.
Michael C. Scinta, an attorney in a class-action lawsuit brought
against The Villages of Orleans Health and Rehabilitation Center in
Orleans County, said that the nursing homes were still responsible
for rejecting admission to infected residents if they could not
safely isolate them from others. The Villages of Orleans is also
being sued by the state attorney general's office for allegations
that its residents were improperly drugged, subjected to inhumane
conditions and, in some instances, died as a result of the
mistreatment.
"At the end of the day, a nursing home is required to not accept
patients they could not care for," Scinta said. "That's the bottom
line."
Cuomo's directive, which was later rescinded, also faced scrutiny
in an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice into his
administration's handling of COVID-19 in nursing homes, including
the data released on deaths and infections. That investigation did
not result in any action. An audit released by state Comptroller
Thomas DiNapoli in 2022 found that data released by the state
Department of Health "misled the public" and undercounted deaths in
nursing homes.
Attorney General Letitia James' office also issued a report
following an investigation that found the state health department
undercounted COVID-19 deaths in nursing homes by as much as 50
percent.
The federal lawsuits filed against Cuomo and other former
high-ranking members of his administration were recently
consolidated by U.S. District Judge LeShann DeArcy Hall. In those
cases, the attorneys for the plaintiffs, whose parents died after
contracting COVID-19 in 2020, it is alleged the infections took
place as a result of Cuomo's directive requiring nursing homes to
accept residents who had tested positive for the virus.
Attorneys in the federal cases are seeking class-action status in
order to represent the survivors of others who died in New York
nursing homes during the pandemic.
An amended complaint that was filed in late August in U.S. District
Court in Brooklyn outlines allegations that the directives led to
violations of the rights of the plaintiffs' deceased relatives
under the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act of 1987. That law ensures
that nursing home residents have rights to be free from cruel,
inhumane, or degrading treatment. It also entitles them to safe and
healthy living conditions.
"It's a hideous, despicable, horrendous, suffering death," said
Michael Kasanoff, an attorney for the plaintiffs. "The most
vulnerable sector of society suffered alone because of what
happened here and it didn't have to happen that way."
It's unclear whether the attorneys in the federal cases will obtain
the class-action status they are seeking.
"This is a long road ahead for our clients and for us," said Jonna
M. Spilbor, another lawyer for the plaintiffs.
In a letter filed with the court on March 31 by attorneys for Cuomo
and the other defendants, they argued that the former governor's
directive was not to blame for at least one of the deaths because
the only COVID-positive resident admitted in that facility as
result of the order arrived three weeks after the person who died
had left.
Kasanoff has acknowledged that it's difficult to know with
certainty how many COVID-positive patients were sent to nursing
homes, in part because testing had been limited.
"The plain language of the directives specifically prohibited
testing," Kasanoff said. "They are in no position to question our
pleading."
The lawsuits in the federal case are filed against Cuomo, former
Secretary to the Governor Melissa DeRosa and former state health
Commissioner Dr. Howard Zucker. Kenneth Raske, president of the
Greater New York Hospital Association, and Michael Dowling, chief
executive officer of Northwell Health, are also named as defendants
and accused of influencing the directives.
Zucker resigned in September 2021, a month after Cuomo's
resignation. The former commissioner also faced scrutiny over the
undercounting of nursing home deaths during the pandemic.
Richard Azzopardi, a spokesman for Cuomo, said in a statement that
the claims in the lawsuit are false.
"It's unfortunate that, to this day, people's pain continues to be
politicized and weaponized in order to distort the truth, which is
that the Department of Justice, the attorney general, the Manhattan
district attorney and the Assembly all critically examined this and
found no there, there," Azzopardi said. "These suits are meritless
and we expect any fair hearing in a court of law will also bear
this out."
The case is likely to focus in part on whether the former state
officials are subject to qualified immunity, which shields
government officials from lawsuits unless they knowingly violate a
"clearly established" statutory or constitutional right.
Other lawsuits have gone after nursing homes for their role in the
spread of COVID-19 through the vulnerable populations. Legal
experts said that cases filed against individual nursing homes,
rather than Cuomo and other officials, could be more viable given
the qualified immunity rules.
Attorneys for nursing home operators also contend they have some
immunity from civil lawsuits and criminal prosecutions regarding
their handling of the pandemic due to a state budget provision
passed in April 2020. The immunity measure was later rolled back
and eventually repealed in March 2021.
The attorney general had previously called for that measure to be
repealed in her office's report on the handling of COVID-19 in
nursing homes.
"While it is reasonable to provide some protections for health care
workers making impossible health care decisions in good faith
during an unprecedented public health crisis, it would never be
appropriate just for nursing home owners to be given blanket
immunity for causing harm to residents," James said in a statement
at the time. "I applaud the Legislature for taking this critical
action and ensuring that no one can evade potential accountability
for the devastating loss of life that occurred in New York's
nursing homes."
In cases filed against Pine Haven Nursing and Rehabilitation Center
in Columbia County a state appellate court is expected to hear
arguments this fall on whether immunity still applies to nursing
homes for the period the original immunity law was in place — or
whether it was retroactively taken away when the protection was
repealed a year later.
An appellate court in Albany ruled in a similar case that the
immunity continued to apply to nursing homes during the period the
law was in place, overlapping with the height of the pandemic's
impact on nursing home infections and deaths.
Some attorneys also have pushed to have the state Supreme Court
cases filed against nursing homes consolidated, because of the
similar legal questions. Nursing homes have largely opposed that
consolidation effort.
Elizabeth Adymy, an attorney who has defended clients in nursing
home litigation, said that the coordination, started by a plaintiff
in downstate New York, does not make sense given the difference in
injuries, plaintiffs and defendants.
"There are no common parties," Adymy said.
Scinta, the Buffalo attorney, said that the coordination, which is
favored by many firms representing plaintiffs, has allowed for
monitoring of legal developments in similar cases across the
state.
In multiple cases downstate, there have been legal challenges filed
against a litigation coordinating panel's administrative authority
to merge the cases.
Many lawsuits against nursing homes are proceeding slowly as
precedent develops.
One of the plaintiffs in the federal case is married to Janice
Dean, a morning meteorologist on FOX & Friends who has been an
outspoken critic of Cuomo's handling of the pandemic, especially
the nursing home directives. Dean also had called for Cuomo's
administration to release more accurate data on nursing home
infections and deaths.
Kasanoff, the attorney in the federal case, is also arguing a
similar case in U.S. District Court in New Jersey that's filed
against Gov. Phil Murphy, who issued similar directives regarding
COVID-19 in nursing homes. [GN]
PANDORA MEDIA: Flo & Eddie Appeals Summary Judgment to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
FLO & EDDIE, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order granting
the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled
Flo & Eddie, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pandora Media, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:14-cv-07648-PSG-GJS, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Flo & Eddie
Inc. filed a class action suit on October 2, 2014 against Pandora
Media, LLC, the successor to Pandora Media, Inc. (Pandora) in the
federal district court for the Central District of California.
The complaint alleges a violation of California Civil Code Section
980, unfair competition, misappropriation, and conversion in
connection with the public performance of sound recordings recorded
prior to February 15, 1972 (which the company refer to as,
"pre-1972 recordings").
On December 19, 2014, Pandora filed a motion to strike the
complaint pursuant to California's Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against
Public Participation statute, which following denial of Pandora's
motion was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In March 2017, the Ninth Circuit requested certification to the
California Supreme Court on the substantive legal questions. The
California Supreme Court accepted certification.
In May 2019, the California Supreme Court issued an order
dismissing consideration of the certified questions on the basis
that, following the enactment of the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte
Music Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 115-264, 132 Stat. 3676 (2018)
(the "MMA"), resolution of the questions posed by the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals was no longer "necessary to . . . settle an
important question of law."
The MMA grants a potential federal preemption defense to the claims
asserted in the lawsuits. In July 2019, Pandora took steps to avail
itself of this preemption defense, including making the required
payments under the MMA for certain of its uses of pre-1972
recordings. Based on the federal preemption contained in the MMA
(along with other considerations), Pandora asked the Ninth Circuit
to order the dismissal of the Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media,
Inc. case.
On October 17, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a
memorandum disposition concluding that the question of whether the
MMA preempts Flo and Eddie's claims challenging Pandora's
performance of pre-1972 recordings "depends on various unanswered
factual questions" and remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings.
After Flo & Eddie filed its action in 2014 against Pandora, several
other plaintiffs commenced separate actions, both on an individual
and class action basis, alleging a variety of violations of common
law and state copyright and other statutes arising from allegations
that Pandora owed royalties for the public performance of pre-1972
recordings. Many of these separate actions have been dismissed or
are in the process of being dismissed. Sirius XM Holdings believes
that none of the remaining pending actions is likely to have a
material adverse effect on Pandora's business, financial condition,
or results of operations.
On Nov. 18, 2022, Defendant Pandora Media, LLC filed a motion for
summary judgment, which the Court granted through an Order entered
by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez on July 25, 2023. The case was
terminated.
The appellate case is captioned Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media,
LLC, et al., Case No. 23-55741, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on August 25, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Flo & Eddie, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire was due
on September 1, 2023;
-- Appellant Flo & Eddie, Inc. opening brief is due on December
1, 2023;
-- Appellees Does and Pandora Media, LLC answering brief is due
on January 2, 2024; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant FLO & EDDIE, INC., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Henry D. Gradstein, Esq.
KING, HOLMES, PATERNO & SORIANO, LLP
1900 Avenue of the Stars
25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 282-8989
- and -
Maryann Rose Marzano, Esq.
GRADSTEIN & MARZANO, P.C.
6310 San Vicente Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Telephone: (323) 302-9488
- and -
Stephen E. Morrissey, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP
401 Union Street, Suite 3000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 373-7380
- and -
Rohit D. Nath, Esq.
Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
Kalpana Srinivasan, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 789-3100
Defendants-Appellees PANDORA MEDIA, LLC, et al., are represented
by:
Jessica Stebbins Bina, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP
10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (424) 653-5500
- and -
Andrew Michael Gass, Esq.
Joseph Wetzel, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 391-0600
- and -
Carolyn M. Homer, Esq.
Elana Nightingale Dawson, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP
555 11th Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 637-2200
PETERBOROUGH, ON: Settles Patients Privacy Breach Suit for $988,550
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Davis of Global News reports that A judge has approved a
settlement of $988,550 in a class-action lawsuit pertaining to
patient records being wrongfully accessed by former employees at
the Peterborough Regional Health Centre more than a decade ago.
The hospital on September 8, 2023 said the settlement was approved
following a court hearing on Aug. 30 in Peterborough.
"PRHC takes patient privacy very seriously and has a zero-tolerance
policy with respect to inappropriate access to medical records,"
the hospital stated. "Compensation is available to eligible class
members."
The former employees allegedly accessed the personal information of
approximately 280 patients between 2011 and 2012. The hospital in
2015, in response to a Toronto Star article, noted the breaches
included some records for abortion services performed at the
hospital between June 3, 2010 and March 24, 2011.
Seven employees were fired as a result of the alleged patient
record privacy breaches, which were reported to the Information and
Privacy Commissioner.
"This settlement is not an admission of liability, but is a
compromise of the disputed action," the hospital stated.
The hospital initially wanted the class-action lawsuit to be
dismissed, arguing health privacy violations were the
responsibility of the privacy commissioner and fell under the
Personal Health Information Protection Act.
But in 2015, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that patients should
be permitted to sue hospitals and staff members for privacy
breaches and not be restricted to filing a complaint to the
Information and Privacy Commissioner.
In October 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the
hospital's further appeal.
The agreed settlement includes a payment of up to $650 to each
class member who submits a valid online claim to RicePoint, the
claims administrator, on or before Nov. 30, 2023.
A class member is considered any individual, or representative of
an estate of an individual, who was notified in 2011 or 2012 by
PRHC that their health records were inappropriately accessed by one
of four former hospital employees.
Lawyer Lawrence Greenspon with Ottawa-based Greenspon Granger Hill
law firm, which represents the class, told Global News that 280
claimants were identified initially but a list of 1,052 "potential"
claimants was presented to Justice Mark Andrews, who reviewed the
settlement. Greenspon said four individuals have since opted out.
Class members can make a claim for compensation by completing an
online form. [GN]
PHONE LCD: Faces Bilir Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
----------------------------------------------------------
FARUK BILIR, OZKAN KARAVELIOGLU, and ILHAN GOKSU, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
PHONE LCD PARTS LLC, d/b/a Phone LCD Parts, ONDER SAYAR, ONUR
OZBINAR, IHSAN ORUC and KUBILAY HAN BASCAVUS, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-13643 (D.N.J., Aug. 31, 2023) is a class action against the
Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime wages, statutory and
liquidated damages, and other monies pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New Jersey law as well as for retaliation,
assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and
violations of New Jersey's Conscientious Employee Protection Act.
Plaintiff Bilir was employed by the Defendants from approximately
August 1, 2022, to November 28, 2022 as warehouse worker and IT.
Plaintiff Karavelioglu worked for Defendants from approximately
October 17, 2022, to March 22, 2023 as a warehouse worker whose
tasks included packaging and making repairs, warehouse work,
cleaning, and organizing.
Plaintiff Goksu was employed by the Defendants from approximately
February 22, 2022, to approximately January 26, 2023 whose work
included collecting and arranging orders, packaging, and laser
testing, among other tasks.
Phone LCD Parts LLC is a New Jersey domestic business corporation,
licensed to do business and doing business in the State of New
Jersey as a retail store.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Clifford Tucker, Esq.
SACCO & FILLAS LLP
3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor
Astoria, NY 11102
Telephone: (718) 269-2243
E-mail: CTucker@SaccoFillas.com
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Drummond Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO., et al. are taking an appeal
from court orders in the lawsuit entitled Leon Drummond, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Progressive Specialty Insurance Co., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 5-21-cv-04479, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiffs
Leon Drummond and Lee Williams alleged that Progressive violated
insurance contracts between the two Plaintiffs and the company --
as well as the insurance contracts of other insureds who
experienced a total loss -- by applying projected sold adjustments
("PSA") to artificially deflate the value of totaled vehicles and
thereby pay insureds less than the contractually obligated actual
cash value ("ACV") of said vehicles. Additionally, the complaint
noted that Drummond and Williams would seek class certification to
represent all persons who made a first-party claim on an insurance
policy from Progressive where the payout was decreased after the
application of a PSA.
The complaint contained four causes of action. First, the complaint
proposed that Drummond would lead a class asserting a
breach-of-contract cause of action against Progressive Specialty
(First Cause of Action) and Williams would lead a class asserting a
breach-of-contract cause of action against Progressive Advanced
(Second Cause of Action). Moreover, both Drummond and Williams
sought declaratory judgment (Third and Fourth Causes of Action). On
Dec. 17, 2021, Progressive filed an answer, in which it denied that
the use of PSAs constituted a breach of contract and asserted that
the proposed class did not meet the requirements for class
certification.
On June 14, 2022, the Court consolidated the action with Driggins
v. Progressive Advanced Insurance Co., Civ. A. No. 22-1065.
Consequently, on June 29, 2022, Drummond and Williams filed with
Yeshonda Driggins ("Driggins") an amended complaint, the operative
complaint in this case. The amended complaint contains the same
causes of action as the original complaint, except Driggins joins
Williams in leading a breach-of-contract cause of action and
seeking declaratory judgment against Progressive Advanced. On July
22, 2022, Progressive answered the amended complaint, raising
largely the same claims and arguments contained within its first
answer.
Drummond, Williams, and Driggins (collectively the "putative
Plaintiffs") filed a motion for class certification on Oct. 12,
2022. Progressive filed a response in opposition to class
certification on Nov. 21, 2022. On Jan. 18, 2023, Progressive filed
Daubert motions to exclude the expert reports and testimonies of
Jeffery Martin, Jason Merritt, Paul Mlinko, and Kirk Felix. On Feb.
8, 2023, the putative Plaintiffs filed motions in opposition to
these Daubert challenges, arguing exclusion would be premature and
unjustified. Five days later, Progressive filed its replies in
support of its Daubert motions.
On Aug. 11, 2023, the Court denied the Defendants' motions to
exclude expert reports and testimonies and granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification through an Order entered by Judge
Edward G. Smith.
Prior to this, Judge Smith heard oral argument on both the putative
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and Progressive's
Daubert motions on Feb. 14, 2023. Beginning with the three Daubert
motions, he found all relevant expert testimony to be qualified,
reliable, and fit for the purposes of the case. Accordingly, their
respective reports and testimonies are admissible. Turning next to
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, he found that the
Plaintiffs have satisfied all requirements. Specifically, the
Plaintiffs have demonstrated numerosity, commonality, typicality,
and adequacy under Rule 23(a), predominance and superiority under
Rule 23(b)(3), and Rule 23's implicit requirement of
ascertainability.
For these reasons, Judge Smith denied Progressive's motions to
exclude the reports and testimonies of Martin, Merritt, Mlinko, and
Felix. At the same time, he granted the putative Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.
The appellate case is captioned Leon Drummond, et al. v.
Progressive Specialty Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 23-8035, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on
August 25, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Respondents LEON DRUMMOND, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Ruben Honik, Esq.
HONIK
1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (267) 435-1300
Defendants-Petitioners PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO., et al.,
are represented by:
Paul A. Mezzina, Esq.
KING & SPALDING
1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 626-8972
QANTAS AIRWAYS: CEO to Step Down Amid Flight Refund Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Scott, writing for World Socialist Web Site, reports that
Qantas Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Alan Joyce announced that he
would step down immediately, bringing forward his resignation by
two months. The move came after multiple scandals emerged,
involving not just Australia's largest airline and "national flag
carrier," which Joyce had led since 2008, but the federal Labor
government.
On August 21, a class action lawsuit was filed against Qantas,
alleging the airline engaged in a "pattern of unconscionable
conduct" impeding customers from receiving refunds for flights
cancelled due to COVID-19. It was believed at the time that Qantas
held around $400 million in flight credits, subject to strict
conditions, additional fees and imminent expiry.
Despite obfuscation from Joyce, whose initial claim of $370 million
omitted credits held by Qantas internationally and by the airline's
low-cost arm, Jetstar, it soon became clear that the figure was
much higher. Qantas eventually admitted that the total was around
$570 million on August 28, when it was compelled by public outrage
and the legal threat to scrap the credits' December 31 expiry
date.
The same day, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
(ACCC) revealed it would take action against Qantas in the Federal
Court, alleging the airline had "engaged in false, misleading or
deceptive conduct," by continuing to advertise and sell tickets on
more than 8,000 flights that had already been cancelled.
On average, the ACCC claims, Qantas continued to sell tickets "for
an average of more than two weeks, and in some cases for up to 47
days," after the airline had cancelled the flights. Furthermore,
the airline allegedly took an average of 18 days to inform ticket
holders that their flights had been cancelled.
The flights in question were scheduled to depart between May and
July 2022, during which time Qantas cancelled around one in four
scheduled flights, according to the ACCC. At the time, Joyce blamed
customers, not staff shortages caused by the company's mass layoffs
and mass infection of workers with COVID-19, declaring passengers
were "not match-fit."
The ACCC claims that "Qantas made many of these cancellations for
reasons that were within its control, such as network optimisation
including in response to shifts in consumer demand, route
withdrawals or retention of take-off and landing slots at certain
airports."
The maximum penalty for each breach is the larger of $10 million;
three times the total benefit obtained; or 10 percent of the
company's annual turnover.
Joyce's forced departure is emblematic of the broader political and
economic crisis confronting Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's
federal Labor government and the entire political establishment.
A study by SECNewgate last month found that 46 percent of
Australians survey disagree that businesses are "behaving ethically
and doing the right thing," up from 39 percent in April. In
parallel with the growing distrust of corporations, just 36 percent
believe that federal Labor is doing a good or better job, down from
46 percent in April.
Labor has come under fire in recent weeks for its close ties to
Qantas. This included the government blocking international
competition with the airline, under conditions where flight
availability is far below pre-COVID numbers while fares are much
higher.
In July, the federal government denied an application from Qatar
Airways for 28 more flight slots each week into Sydney, Melbourne,
Brisbane and Perth. Qatar is a partner airline of Virgin Australia,
meaning the additional flights stood to benefit the only serious
competitor to Qantas in the domestic market.
Various conflicting explanations, ranging from "human rights," to
carbon emissions, to protecting "secure well-paid jobs" have been
offered up by Transport Minister Catherine King and other
parliamentarians. All were couched in terms of Australia's
"national interest."
But Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones made clear that the
"interest" Labor was motivated by was that of the Qantas bottom
line. Vast profits for Qantas were, he declared, "a good news
story."
Qantas reported a record windfall in the 2022–23 financial year,
with annual net earnings of $1.77 billion from underlying pre-tax
profit of $2.47 billion.
This has been achieved through a combination of inflated ticket
prices and rampant cost-cutting, evidenced by the airline's
increased profit margins compared with 2016-17, from 11.5 percent
to 18.2 percent for domestic flights and 5.7 percent to 11.7
percent for international flights.
Data released in May showed that average international airfares
from Australia were more than 50 percent higher than in 2019,
before the pandemic, while domestic prices were up by around 10
percent.
Meanwhile, Qantas, with the complete cooperation of the aviation
unions, used the COVID-19 pandemic as a pretext to impose a
two-year wage freeze and has this year locked in three years' of
sub-inflationary pay rises across most of its workforce, along with
reduced working conditions.
This followed the standing down of tens of thousands of workers in
the early stages of the pandemic, and the sacking and subsequent
outsourcing of 1,700 ground handling workers in 2020.
While this was found to be "illegal" by the Federal Court, the
workers have still not been reinstated or compensated and Qantas
continues to appeal the decision. The Transport Workers Union
(TWU), which covers the workers, has blocked any mobilisation of
workers across aviation or more broadly to oppose the sacking,
instead dragging the baggage handlers through years of court
proceedings.
TWU National Secretary Michael Kaine has been a leading voice in
the cheer squad of union bosses and corporate media commentators
hailing the departure of Joyce as "welcome news for workers," and
promoting the conception that a change in leadership is all that is
required for Qantas to "bring back good, secure jobs and quality
standards."
Kaine declared, "Alan Joyce is slipping into retirement two months
early with a $24 million pay packet, leaving one of the biggest
messes in corporate Australia's history in his wake."
While there are now calls from Qantas shareholders and others for
the company to withhold some of the bonuses "owed" to Joyce, any
reduction decided will not make a significant dent in the estimated
$125 million he has accrued in his 15-year term.
But Joyce has been handed these vast sums by the Qantas board
because of the job-destruction and cost-cutting he has carried out,
not in spite of it. As Nine's Peter Hartcher wrote on
Sept. 10, "Joyce did what's expected of any private company's
CEO."
This included slashing the airline's workforce from 37,500 in 2010
to 25,000 on Sept. 10, engaged by 38 separate subsidiaries and
labour-hire providers as a means of continually eroding pay and
conditions and undermining workers' legal right to strike in
defence of their coworkers.
It also included grounding the entire airline in 2011 to shut down
limited industrial action, taking advantage of draconian
anti-strike laws in Labor's union-backed Fair Work Act to help the
unions impose an enterprise agreement slashing workers' pay and
conditions.
Joyce's replacement, Vanessa Hudson, played a key role in the
infamous operation, as one of three Qantas executives called as
"witnesses" in the company's Fair Work Commission case seeking to
have the strike terminated.
The union-backed claim that the change of CEO represents a "fresh
start" is utterly false. Hudson has worked at Qantas for almost
three decades and is thoroughly steeped in the machinations of the
airline's board and management, having held a variety of executive
positions.
As chief financial officer (CFO) since October 2019, Hudson was in
charge of the airline's books as it grabbed almost $2.7 billion in
JobKeeper and other government handouts in the early part of the
pandemic, while standing down tens of thousands of workers. She
presided over a three-year plan announced in June 2020 to cut $1
billion a year in costs, including through the destruction of "at
least 6,000" jobs.
In a token gesture aimed at promoting the conception that Joyce's
departure will herald sweeping changes at Qantas, Hudson took an
economy class flight from Melbourne to Sydney the day she took the
helm.
Earlier that day, Hudson had made a video address to staff, hailing
Joyce's "huge contribution over 22 years at Qantas." Speaking as if
workers, not the management team that she has played a leading role
in, were responsible for the airline's flagging reputation, Hudson
said, "Together, we can get through the current challenges and show
our customers why we deserve to be their trusted first choice."
But there is no reason for Qantas workers, customers or the
Australian public to believe that Joyce's departure will reverse
the airline's relentless pursuit of profits at the expense of
workers, safety and service.
The plummeting standards and reputation of Qantas are a direct
product of its privatisation by the Keating Labor government in
1993. This is an example of the fundamental incompatibility of the
capitalist profit system with the needs of ordinary people for a
modern transportation network, including aviation.
This means that what is posed is the need for a political struggle
to establish workers' governments that would implement socialist
policies, including placing the airlines, airports and other vital
industries, along with the big banks, under public ownership and
democratic workers' control. [GN]
RITE AID: Faces Gregory Class Suit Over May 2023 Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that Rite Aid faces a
proposed class action over a May 2023 data breach that reportedly
compromised the personal and health information of approximately
24,000 individuals.
The 87-page case says that despite its legal obligation to keep
consumers' private data confidential and secure from unauthorized
access, Rite Aid "negligently" failed to safeguard the information
entrusted to it.
As a result, an unknown party was able to exploit a vulnerability
in the software of a third-party vendor used by the pharmacy chain
on May 27 of this year and access files that contain current and
former customers' full names, dates of birth, addresses,
prescription information and, in some cases, health insurance
information, the lawsuit alleges.
The complaint claims the cyberattack could have been prevented had
Rite Aid implemented reasonable cybersecurity measures in
accordance with its own representations, federal statutes and
industry standards, such as encrypting sensitive information or
deleting data that is no longer needed.
Although Rite Aid says it was alerted to the breach by its vendor
partner on May 31, the defendant waited until July 19 to notify
victims that their information had been compromised, the suit
shares.
"Omitted from the Notice Letter were the dates of [Rite Aid's]
investigation, the details of the root cause of the Data Breach,
the vulnerabilities exploited, and the remedial measures undertaken
to ensure such a breach does not occur again," the case reads. "To
date, these critical facts have not been explained or clarified to
[the plaintiff] and Class Members, who retain a vested interest in
ensuring that their Private Information remains protected."
The plaintiff, a California resident who received notice that her
information was impacted in the incident, says her unencrypted data
and that of other affected individuals will likely be put up for
sale on the dark web and used for criminal purposes. According to
the filing, Rite Aid data breach victims now face a risk of
identity theft and fraud that will remain for their respective
lifetimes.
"The Data Breach has caused [the plaintiff] to suffer fear,
anxiety, and stress, which has been compounded by the fact that
Rite Aid has still not fully informed her of key details about the
Data Breach's occurrence," the suit says. "As a result of the Data
Breach, [the plaintiff] anticipates spending considerable time and
money on an ongoing basis to try to mitigate and address harms
caused by the Data Breach."
What's more, Rite Aid's negligence is exacerbated by "repeated
warnings and alerts" urging companies in possession of consumers'
private information to prepare for potential cyberattacks, which
have become a growing but preventable threat in recent years, the
case contends.
The lawsuit looks to cover anyone in the United States whose
private information was accessed and/or acquired by an unauthorized
party as a result of the data breach reported by Rite Aid in July
2023. [GN]
ROYAL PROTECTIVE: Bonkoungou Seeks Security Guards' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aboubacar Bonkoungou and Tenga Compaore, on behalf of themselves
and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Royal
Protective Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-06553
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 31, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant
for alleged unlawful labor policies and practices in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and the Wage
Theft Prevention Act.
The Plaintiffs seek to recover compensation for wages paid at less
than the statutory minimum and overtime wages; unpaid wages from
Defendant for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime
premium pay as required by law; unpaid spread-of-hours compensation
for shifts worked lasting in excess of 10 hours from start to
finish; unpaid prevailing wages; unpaid supplemental benefits; and
liquidated and statutory damages.
Plaintiffs Aboubacar and Compaore were employed by the Defendant as
unarmed security guards at New York City public schools from 2021
through June 2023 and from January 2019 through December 2021,
respectively.
RPS Inc. owns and operates a security patrol and service company in
the New York City and metropolitan area.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Samuel, Esq.
THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
1441 Broadway Suite 6085
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 563-9884
RYAN COHEN: SEC Probes Bed Bath & Beyond Sell-Off Amid Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard Zambonin, writing for TheStreet, reports that the U.S. SEC
is investigating Ryan Cohen, the chairman of GameStop, over his
profitable trades in Bed Bath & Beyond and his involvement in the
company's board changes and management shake-up.
Mad Money's Jim Cramer believes that Cohen's actions were not fair
and suggested the SEC should continue to investigate the matter.
Ryan Cohen Bed Bath & Beyond trades scrutinized by SEC
According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is investigating
billionaire Ryan Cohen's ownership and unexpected sell-off of Bed
Bath & Beyond (BBBY).
In March of 2022, Cohen, who also happens to be the current
Chairman at GameStop, announced that he had taken a nearly 10%
stake in Bed Bath & Beyond. He also stated that he was pushing the
company to explore different options, including privatization.
The SEC is said to have asked Cohen for details about his trades
and his discussions with top executives at the now-defunct home
goods retailer. They've also sought records from some of the
company's past and present board members, per sources familiar with
the situation. Thanks to his influence, Bed Bath & Beyond quickly
added three board members appointed by Cohen and replaced its
then-CEO, Mark Tritton.
But here's where things get really interesting -- in August last
year, a regulatory filing showed that Cohen had decided to bail on
his Bed Bath & Beyond position after the stock posted an impressive
rally. For added context, just this April, Bed Bath & Beyond filed
for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. It's no stretch, then, to say this
retail saga has been a rollercoaster ride.
Cohen's legal woes are not limited to the SEC probe. He is also the
defendant in a class-action lawsuit headed by Belgian investment
firm Bratya SPRL. A federal judge ruled that Cohen must face most
of the suit's claims.
The suit claims $1.2 billion in damages to shareholders over an
alleged "pump-and-dump" scheme involving Ryan Cohen and his Bed
Bath & Beyond shares.
The suit also alleges that Cohen colluded with former Bed Bath &
Beyond CFO Gustavo Arnal, who released "fraudulent and misleading
SEC filings." A few months after the claim was filed, Arnal
tragically died by suicide.
In a rare interview last year, Cohen briefly explained why he sold
his position at Bed Bath & Beyond.
Jim Cramer doesn't think Cohen's trades were fair
CNBC's Mad Money Jim Cramer is a well-known "executioner" among
retail investors and meme stock traders. During the meme frenzy,
Cramer's stance against stocks like GameStop, AMC, and Bed Bath &
Beyond earned him this label, which became widespread on social
media platforms.
By taking an incisive pro-SEC stance against Ryan Cohen, Cramer is
once again putting himself into conflict with retail GameStop
shareholders, over whom Cohen exerts massive influence.
Cramer offered his opinion on the newly-announced SEC probe via his
X account.
In August of 2022, just after Cohen sold off all of his BBBY
shares, Jim Cramer made the following comment.
"You see this filing first by Ryan Cohen. He put three people on
the board. And then the company comes out and says they're working
to strengthen the balance sheet."
At the time, he also went on to say that the SEC should be brought
in. He called on Bed Bath & Beyond board members to cooperate with
an inquiry to find out how this all happened and what Cohen's
involvement was.
"If they are at all forthcoming, then I would issue a subpoena to
Ryan Cohen saying I want all documents between you and the three
members on the board that you put on and I want to know if you have
any material nonpublic information about how the company is doing.
Maybe he doesn't. I find that would be highly unusual being he put
three people on the board."
The bottom line
Between the SEC probe and the class-action lawsuit headed by
Bratya, Ryan Cohen finds himself in a delicate position. In the
latter case, the judge found most of the plaintiff's allegations
regarding Ryan Cohen and RC Ventures plausible.
Cohen's defense that he "decided to exit his position when the
price unexpectedly increased to a value that exceeded what he
believed it was worth" may not hold up to court scrutiny.
However, even if the outcome of this lawsuit is unfavorable to Ryan
Cohen, I believe his reputation among retail investors will not be
much diminished. And Jim Cramer's skepticism of Ryan Cohen's
innocence, in this case, probably stands to improve Cohen's
standing in the eyes of his loyal fans. [GN]
SHAQUILLE O'NEAL: Faces Class Action Over Botched NFT Project
-------------------------------------------------------------
Giancarlo, writing for Blockzeit, reports that former NBA superstar
Shaquille O'Neal, known for his decorated basketball career and
various endorsements, is now facing a legal battle over his
involvement in a Solana-based NFT project called Astrals. These
allegations have raised questions about Shaq's role and the
potential violations of securities laws in connection with this
crypto venture.
The Allegations
In a federal class-action lawsuit filed against Shaquille O'Neal at
the Southern District of Florida Miami Division, it is claimed that
he played an active role in the Astrals NFT project before
seemingly abandoning it. The lawsuit claims that the former NBA
player's endorsement and involvement were instrumental in driving
the project's value.
The project consisted of 10,000 metaverse-ready avatars tied to a
DAO and a play-to-earn role-playing game according to the court
filing. Additionally, the lawsuit questions the status of the
project's governance token, $GLXY, suggesting it may be an
unregistered security.
The Lawsuit's Progress
The legal battle took a significant step forward when a district
judge in Florida appointed lead plaintiffs represented by The
Moskowitz Law Firm. This appointment authorized them to represent
all investors in the case.
Managing Partner Adam Moskowitz, who is involved in several other
crypto-related class-action lawsuits, stated that the amended
complaint filed against O'Neal provides a more comprehensive view
of his involvement in Astrals. This includes evidence like
now-deleted videos and tweets gathered from sources like
archive.org based on a Decrypt report.
The complaint also alleges that the retired athlete was in regular
contact with Astral team members.
Disappearance of Shaquille O'Neal from Astrals
A crucial point in the case is O'Neal's apparent disappearance from
the Astrals community. This disappearance occurred not long after
the collapse of the cryptocurrency exchange FTX, which O'Neal had
endorsed previously.
The lawsuit contends that O'Neal's celebrity status was closely
tied to Astrals' value, making his exit particularly impactful.
However, there is a curious twist in the tale -- O'Neal's final
post in the Astrals Discord community featured a GIF from the movie
"The Wolf of Wall Street" with the phrase "I'm not leaving."
Venture Capital Firms in the Mix
Moreover, the lawsuit involves two large venture capital firms,
Cypher Capital and MH Ventures. The mentioned entities allegedly
struck partnerships with Astrals and subsequently traded $GLXY
tokens.
While the said firms are not listed as defendants, they are
expected to be served with third-party subpoenas as the lawsuit
progresses. Their involvement adds another layer of complexity to
the case.
Shaquille O'Neal's Defense
In July, Shaq's legal team attempted to have the class-action
lawsuit dismissed by arguing that the digital assets in question
were intended for gamers and not investors. However, this motion
was denied last month by the district judge overseeing the case.
As a result, O'Neal has until September 29 to respond to the
amended complaint filed against him.
Final Thoughts
The allegations against Shaquille O'Neal regarding his involvement
in the Astrals NFT project and its subsequent collapse have brought
him into a legal battle that could have significant implications.
The lawsuit raises questions about the intersection of celebrity
endorsements, cryptocurrency projects, and securities laws.
As the case progresses, it remains to be seen how O'Neal and the
other parties involved will address these allegations in their
defense. [GN]
SOLAR SERVICE EXPERTS: Dismissal of Rosenthal FDCPA Suit Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Infobytes Blog of Buckley reports that on August 30, a California
Appeals Court (Appeals Court) reversed a lower court's ruling that
a mere alleged debt, whether or not actually due or owing -- as
opposed to a debt that is, in fact, actually due or owing -- is
insufficient to state a claim under the Rosenthal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (Rosenthal Act).
Enacted in 1977, the Rosenthal Act aims "to prohibit debt
collectors from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices
in the collection of consumer debts." Plaintiff purchased a home
with a previously-installed solar energy system. The previous
homeowner and plaintiff reached an agreement whereby the prior
homeowner would purchase the energy produced through the system
through monthly payments. However, the defendant, the provider of
the solar energy system, sent late payment notices to plaintiff
demanding that he make monthly payments. Although plaintiff did not
engage in a "consumer credit transaction" with the defendant, the
Appeals Court found that the plaintiff's receipt of statements and
notices from the defendant constituted money "alleged to be due or
owing," as required to state a claim under the Rosenthal Act.
In holding that the plaintiff's claim "has merit," the Appeals
Court emphasized that the Rosenthal Act was specifically designed
to "eliminate the recurring problem of debt collectors dunning the
wrong person or attempting to collect debts which the consumer has
already paid," and "[i]t is difficult to conceive of a more unfair
debt collection practice than dunning the wrong person". [GN]
SRG GLOBAL: Faces Class Suit Over Polluted Drinking Water
---------------------------------------------------------
Allison Kite of Missouri Independent reports that two counties in
Missouri's Bootheel suffer from cancer mortality rates drastically
higher than the state or national average.
On the border between them lies a manufacturing facility in
Portageville that for more than 50 years has pumped out parts for
cars -- and according to some residents, also released carcinogenic
metals and chemicals into the local drinking water.
SRG Global Coatings LLC, the company that owns the factory, has
denied any misconduct or negligence. But in recent weeks, attorneys
and environmental experts have sought records from the city of
Portageville, which is in both New Madrid and Pemiscot counties,
and held a public forum with residents about possible exposure to
toxic materials.
They filed a lawsuit earlier this year against SRG and asked the
court to grant class-action status for possible plaintiffs.
"SRG has acted with complete indifference and conscious disregard
for the health and safety of…class members who have been exposed
to hazardous chemicals and metals that are carcinogenic and/or
hazardous to human health," says the lawsuit.
While the allegations against SRG are new, southeast Missouri is no
stranger to its biggest industries causing massive environmental
harm.
The region, starting just south of St. Louis and into the state's
Bootheel, encompasses the Missouri's old lead belt, where mining
and smelting operations poisoned children and left waterways
contaminated. An aluminum smelter and coal plant have filled the
air above New Madrid County with triple the limit of sulfur dioxide
set by environmental regulators.
Seven of the 10 Missouri counties with the highest cancer mortality
rates are located in southeast Missouri, including three in the
Bootheel.
Filed in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Missouri in
February on behalf of Portageville resident Michelle Peeler and
other unnamed plaintiffs, the lawsuit against SRG contends that
contaminants have migrated from its manufacturing facility into the
groundwater the town draws from for drinking. Those contaminants
include hexavalent chromium, chromium, nickel and per- and
polyfluorinated substances, or PFAS.
According to a flier from an environmental consulting group that
held a town hall late last month in Portageville, those
contaminants can increase individuals' risk of developing several
types of cancers, increased cholesterol, skin problems and issues
with their respiratory, reproductive or gastrointestinal systems.
Already, New Madrid and Pemiscot counties suffer from cancer
mortality rates 40% and 60% higher than the national average,
respectively, according to the National Cancer Institute.
Peeler and other Bootheel residents allege SRG withheld information
from residents about the extent of the contamination, the lawsuit
says.
Initially, the lawsuit sought damages on three counts, but the
judge assigned to the case dismissed a charge. It requests class
action status, compensatory and punitive damages and orders from
the judge requiring that SRG disclose any studies or reports it has
performed related to the contamination and that SRG resolve the
problem.
Neither the plaintiffs' attorneys nor SRG and its attorneys
immediately responded to requests for comment on September 7, 2023
afternoon.
The lawsuit against SRG claims the company was negligent in failing
to sample soil and drinking water for contamination, warn
plaintiffs, prevent migration of the contamination plume and
characterize and remediate the pollution. It also claims the
facility has created a nuisance in the community.
SRG denied the allegations in its answer to the lawsuit, filed in
April.
The company said in its filing that it did not cause any damages to
the plaintiffs, has always followed regulations governing its
operations, used state of the art technology and acted "reasonably,
in good faith," and with "skill prudence and diligence."
"Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the
injuries and damages alleged were not known to SRG, nor did SRG
have reason to know of the alleged risk of harm," the company's
response says.
Plaintiffs' attorneys have issued a subpoena to the city of
Portageville for a number of records, including documents related
to the contamination and communications with SRG and state
environmental regulators.
According to a case management order filed by Senior U.S. District
Judge Stephen Limbaugh Jr., the case is expected to be in discovery
for more than a year and go to trial in October 2025. [GN]
SUMO LOGIC: Pomerantz LLP Investigates Investor Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Sumo Logic, Inc. ("Sumo Logic" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SUMO).
Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.
The investigation concerns whether Sumo Logic and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.
On February 9, 2023, Sumo Logic announced that its board of
directors ("Board") had approved the sale of the Company to
Francisco Partners, pursuant to a merger agreement ("Merger
Agreement"). On April 5, 2023, Sumo Logic and its officers caused a
proxy statement on Schedule 14A ("Proxy") to be filed with the SEC
and disseminated to Sumo Logic stockholders. The special meeting of
Sumo Logic stockholders to vote on the Merger was held on May 10,
2023. 84,039,824 of the 124,088,187 outstanding shares of Sumo
Logic common stock voted to approve the Merger, which closed on May
12, 2023. A class action complaint has been filed alleging that the
Proxy disseminated in connection with the Merger was materially
false and misleading, in violation of the federal securities laws,
and deceived Company shareholders into voting to approve the Merger
at an unfair price.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members.
See www.pomlaw.com.
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]
SUNDEK NATIONAL: Dillon Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Mike Dillon, Kimberly Hardy, Joseph Odom, Robert
Mastromarino, Sharon Moody and William Lavoice, individually and on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. Sundek National Accounts d/b/a CGI Commercial, Barefoot Resort
Yacht Club Villas Condominium Association, Sto Corp., Jenkins
Hancock & Sides Architecture Interiors Engineering, Inc. f/k/a
Jenkins Hancock & Sides Architects and Planners, Inc., and Randy L.
Sides, Defendants, Case No. 2023-CP-26-04672, was removed from the
Court of Common Pleas in Horry County, South Carolina, to the
United States District Court for the District of South Carolina,
Florence Division, on August 31, 2023.
The Clerk of Court for the District of South Carolina assigned Case
No. 4:23-cv-04410-JD to the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs allege they have suffered damages as a result of the
tortious acts, breach of warranties, breach of fiduciary duties
allegedly committed by the Defendants. The Complaint alleges
"Plaintiffs have suffered injuries and damages in an amount equal
to the extraordinary repair, maintenance, and reconstruction costs
required and to be required over the expected life of the
structures, loss of use, depreciation in value and punitive damages
as may be appropriate." The complaint further alleges "Defendant
Sto Corp.'s actions have forced and/or will force Plaintiffs to
have the project inspected to determine the existence and extent of
damage, to remove Defendant Sto Corp.'s stucco system, to install
new exterior finishing or siding and to repair or retrofit damaged
property."
Sundek National Accounts provides services for commercial projects
with concrete solutions.[BN]
Defendant Sto Corp. is represented by:
Derek M. Newberry, Esq.
Connor E. Johnson, Esq.
HALL BOOTH SMITH, P.C.
111 Coleman Boulevard, Suite 301
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (843) 720-3460
E-mail: dnewberry@hallboothsmith.com
cjohnson@hallboothsmith.com
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Files 9th Cir. Appeal in Painters Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LIMITED, et al. have filed an appeal
in the lawsuit entitled Painters & Allied Trades District Council
82 Health Care Fund, et al., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Takeda Pharmaceutical
Company Limited, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-07223-JWH-AS,
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
This putative class action was originally filed as part of a
multi-district litigation pending in the Western District of
Louisiana, MDL No. 6:11-md-2299. The MDL Court consolidated various
claims asserted across the country related to the drug Actos. This
case differs from the MDL cases because Plaintiffs here do not
assert personal injury or product liability claims. Rather, they
allege that Takeda and Lilly conspired to market Actos fraudulently
by concealing the association between its use and its users'
subsequent development of bladder cancer. In September 2017, the
MDL Court ordered this case transferred to this district. Three
months later, Plaintiffs filed the presently operative pleading --
the Amended Complaint -- in which they assert claims for relief
under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and
state consumer fraud laws.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District Court
unsealed an order on May 24, 2023, that certified a national
multi-billion dollar class action against Takeda Pharmaceutical and
Eli Lilly and Company. The Hon. John W. Holcomb appointed R. Brent
Wisner and Michael L. Baum of Wisner Baum, LLP and Christopher L.
Coffin of Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP as national class counsel.
The class consists of third-party payers in the United States that
purchased Actos prescriptions between July 1, 1999 and September
17, 2010.
On June 30, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for order for
approval of class notice plan, which the Court denied without
prejudice through an Order entered by Judge John W. Holcomb on Aug.
25, 2023. This case and all proceedings in the Court were stayed to
allow the resolution of the Defendants' appeal under Rule 23(f) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Any party may move at any
time to modify or vacate the stay, for good cause shown. The
parties were directed to file no later than December 15, 2023, and
every 90 days thereafter, a Joint Report that advises the Court
regarding the status of the appeal. The Clerk was directed to close
the case administratively.
The appellate case is captioned Painters & Allied Trades District
Council 82 Healt, et al. v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited,
et al., Case No. 23-55742, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, filed on August 25, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants Eli Lilly and Company, Takeda Pharmaceutical
Company Limited and Takeda Pharmaceuticals U S A Inc Mediation
Questionnaire was due on September 1, 2023;
-- Appellants Eli Lilly and Company, Takeda Pharmaceutical
Company Limited and Takeda Pharmaceuticals U S A Inc opening brief
is due on December 4, 2023;
-- Appellees Sylvie Bigord, Marlyon K. Buckner, John Cardarelli,
Painters & Allied Trades District Council 82 Health Care Fund,
Rickey D. Rose and Annie M. Snyder answering brief is due on
January 4, 2024; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees PAINTERS & ALLIED TRADES DISTRICT COUNCIL 82
HEALTH CARE FUND, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:
Monique Amanda Alarcon, Esq.
Michael Baum, Esq.
Pedram Esfandiary, Esq.
R. Brent Wisner, Esq.
WISNER BAUM, LLP
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1750
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 207-3233
(310) 820-6231
- and -
Christopher L. Coffin, Esq.
COFFIN LAW, LLC
1311 Ave. Ponce de Leon, Suite 504
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (787) 961-9988
Defendants-Appellants TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LIMITED, et
al., are represented by:
Darryl Anderson, Esq.
Geraldine Young, Esq.
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 McKinney Street, Suite 5100
Houston, TX 77010
Telephone: (713) 651-5562
(713) 651-5437
- and -
Jonathan S. Franklin, Esq.
Peter Bert Siegal, Esq.
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
799 9th Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 662-0466
(202) 662-4663
- and -
Michael X. Imbroscio, Esq.
Andrew James Soukup, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP
850 10th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 662-5066
TAMARA LICH: Lawyers to Block Ottawa Residents From Testifying
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that the lawyers defending two of the
most prominent organizers of the "Freedom Convoy" protests were
expected to make their case on Sept. 11 to block nine Ottawa
residents and business representatives from taking the stand.
Tamara Lich and Chris Barber are on trial for criminal charges
related to their role in the demonstration, which blockaded Ottawa
city streets for weeks last year as protestors railed against
COVID-19 public health measures.
The Crown plans to call five Ottawa residents as witnesses in the
case, including Zexi Li, who filed a class-action lawsuit against
the organizers on behalf of people who live and work in downtown
Ottawa.
The Crown also intends to call the owner of a women's clothing
boutique, and employees from the National Arts Centre, the Fairmont
Chateau Laurier hotel, and the local public transit operator.
Lich's lawyer Lawrence Greenspon says he would argue on Sept. 11
that those witnesses should not be allowed to testify.
Lich and Barber have already filed signed admissions to the court
acknowledging the protest interfered with public transit, and the
lawful use and enjoyment of property and businesses. [GN]
TD BANK: Gallant Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Circuit
------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Brian Gallant filed an appeal from the District Court's
Order dated July 18, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled Brian
Gallant, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TD BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:22-cv-05476-KMW-EAP, in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, this complaint was
brought on September 9, 2022 as a class action on behalf of
Plaintiff and thousands of similarly situated TD Bank
accountholders who have been deceived into using the Zelle money
transfer service by TD Bank's misrepresentations and omissions, in
marketing and contract materials, regarding the true operation and
risks of that service. These risks include the real and repeated
risk of insufficient funds fees or overdraft fees imposed by TD
Bank as a result of Zelle transfers from consumers' checking
accounts. TD Bank markets Zelle to its accountholders as a way for
consumers to send money they have in their account fast and "free,"
and that the service "won't cost you any extra money for the
transaction," says the suit.
On October 11, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
case which the Court granted on July 18, 2023 through an Order
signed by Judge Karen M. Williams. The Plaintiff's class action
complaint was DISMISSED in its entirety WITH PREJUDICE.
The appellate case is captioned as Brian Gallant v. TD Bank NA,
Case No. 23-2495, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, filed on Aug. 31, 2023.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant BRIAN GALLANT, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Rachel N. Dapeer, Esq.
DAPEER LAW
3331 Sunset Avenue
Ocean, NJ 07712
Telephone: (305) 610-5223
Defendant-Appellee TD BANK NA is represented by:
Susan M. Leming, Esq.
BROWN & CONNERY
360 N Haddon Avenue
P.O. Box 539
Westmont, NJ 08108
Telephone: (856) 854-8900
TD BANK: Yatham Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Gautham Yatham, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Order dated July 18, 2023 entered in the lawsuit
entitled GAUTHAM YATHAM and ROBERT WALTERS, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. TD BANK, N.A., Case No.
1:22-cv-04161, in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint is brought
on June 21, 2022 on behalf of the Plaintiffs and thousands of
similarly situated customers of TD Bank who have signed up for the
Zelle money transfer service and who have been the victim of fraud
on the Zelle service; who have incurred losses due to that fraud
that have not been reimbursed by TD Bank; and who were entitled by
the marketing representations of TD Bank regarding the Zelle
service and by the TD Bank's contract promises to a full
reimbursement of losses caused by fraud on the Zelle service.
On October 17, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
case which the Court granted on July 18, 2023 through an Order
signed by Judge Karen M. Williams. The Plaintiff's class action
complaint was DISMISSED in its entirety WITH PREJUDICE.
The appellate case is captioned as Gautham Yatham, et al v. TD Bank
NA, Case No. 23-2494, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, filed on Aug. 31, 2023.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants GAUTHAM YATHAM, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by:
Rachel N. Dapeer, Esq.
DAPEER LAW
3331 Sunset Avenue
Ocean, NJ 07712
Telephone: (305) 610-5223
Defendant-Appellee TD BANK NA is represented by:
Thomas J. Scrivo, Esq.
KING & SPALDING
1185 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
TRAIL TAVERN: Craghead Conditional Class Cert Denied w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANELL CRAGHEAD, v. TRAIL
TAVERN OF YELLOW SPRINGS, LLC, et al., Case No.
3:22-cv-00308-MJN-PBS (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Michael J. Newman
entered an order:
(1) Denying without prejudice the parties' joint motion for
approval of their joint stipulation for conditional class
Certification (doc. No. 13); and
(2) Directing the parties to submit, by September 15, 2023, a
joint
motion or additional briefing in light of clark v. A&l
homecare
and training center, LLC, 68 f.4th 1003 (6th Cir. 2023).
The case arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29
U.S.C. section 206(a), 207(a), is before the Court on the parties'
joint motion for approval of their joint stipulation for
conditional class certification, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section
216(b).
The parties jointly "move to conditionally certify, and to
authorize the publication of notice to, the FLSA collective class,
"whom they define as, "all current and former employees of
Defendants who were paid on an hourly basis and worked more than 40
hours in any workweek between October 28, 2019, and [the date this
Court approves the Parties' joint Stipulation."
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug.28, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZnkDcL at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED AIRLINES: Class Certification Discovery Due Oct. 6
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID SAMBRANO, ET AL., v.
UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-01074-P (N.D. Tex.), the
Hon. Judge Mark T. Pittman entered an order resetting the class
certification discovery and briefing deadlines as follows:
1. Class certification discovery shall Oct. 6, 2023
be completed on or before:
2. The Parties shall transmit their Sept. 7, 2023
final document production on or
before:
3. The Plaintiff's opening brief in Oct. 27, 2023
support of class certification
shall be filed on or before:
4. The Defendant's response in Nov. 10, 2023
opposition to class certification
shall be filed on or before:
5. The Plaintiff's reply shall be Nov. 17, 2023
filed on or before:
United Airlines is a major American airline.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 30, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48kNjHB at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED WATER: Amended Class Certification Scheduling Order Entered
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Knott, et al., v. United
Water System Inc., et al., Case No. 6:23-cv-00401 (W.D. La., Filed
March 29, 2023), the Hon. Judge David C. Joseph entered an order
granting joint motion for amended class certification scheduling
Order.
-- An Amended Class Certification Scheduling Order issued by the
Court will follow.
The nature of suit states environmental matters.
United Water provides residential and commercial water treatment
solutions.[CC]
UNITED WATER: Class Cert Hearing in Knott Set for Sept. 23, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Knott, et al., v. United
Water System Inc., et al., Case No. 6:23-cv-00401 (W.D. La., Filed
March 29, 2023), the Hon. Judge David C. Joseph entered an order
setting class certification Hearing on Sept. 23, 2024.
The nature of suit states Environmental Matters.
United Water provides residential and commercial water treatment
solutions.[CC]
UNIVERSAL CITY: Court Denies Plaintiff's Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Conor Woulfe, et al., v.
Universal City Studios LLC, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00459-SVW-AGR
(C.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order denying the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
patently inadequate. Rule 23 "does not set forth a mere pleading
standard." Rather, the party seeking certification must
affirmatively prove that they comply with action must actually
prove -- not simply plead -- that their proposed class satisfies
each requirement of Rule 23(b)(3)."
Universal is an American film production and distribution company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug.28, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/44KarMw at no extra charge.[CC]
URS MIDWEST: Seeks Reconsideration of Class Cert Order
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISRAEL RODRIGUEZ,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee pursuant to the
private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), v. URS MIDWEST, INC., a
Delaware corporation; UNITED ROAD SERVICES, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
5:20-cv-02365-JWH-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants move the Court to
reconsider the Court's order granting the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.
On August 15, 2023, the Court entered an order granting Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification.
URS asks that the Court reconsider its Order because the Order
failed to consider material facts URS presented to the Court
relevant to certification of Plaintiff's claims that URS
(1) failed to pay minimum wages for all hours worked by forcing
car haulers to perform work off the clock (the
off-the-clock
claim), and
(2) failed to reimburse car haulers for necessary business
expenses they incurred, including expenses incurred based
on
the work-related use of their cell phones, the purchase of
safety gear and tools, and the care and maintenance of
uniforms URS provided (the expense reimbursement claim).
Urs Midwest is a DOT registered motor carrier.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 29, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/469OasB at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher J. Eckhart, Esq.
Jared S. Kramer, Esq.
SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
10 West Market Street, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 637-1777
Facsimile: (317) 687-2414
E-mail: ceckhart@scopelitis.com
jskramer@scopelitis.com
VETERANS GUARDIAN: Faces Class Action Over Exorbitant Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Victor Skinner, writing for The Livingston Parish News, reports
that a U.S. Army veteran from Texas has filed a federal class
action lawsuit against a North Carolina-based business she says has
overcharged thousands of veterans.
Army veteran Jennifer Ford contends the VA claims consulting
business Veterans Guardian, based in Pinehurst, has used deceptive
practices and charged exorbitant fees to help thousands of veterans
in North Carolina and beyond to increase their disability benefits
in violation of state and federal laws.
Ford filed a class action lawsuit and demand for a jury trial on
Sept. 1 in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina with the help of attorney Jeff Osterwise, senior counsel
with the Philadelphia-based law firm Berger Montague.
The lawsuit, which was referred to mediation on Sept. 5, seeks
"actual damages, statutory damages of not less than $500 but no
more than $4,000 for each violation, declaratory and injunctive
relief, and attorney's fees and costs." A summons was issued for
Veterans Guardian on Sept. 8.
The complaint reads in part, "This case is about illegal fees
charged to disabled United States Military veterans by an
unaccredited North Carolina-based company, Veterans Guardian. The
fees are extracted from victims' Disability Compensation benefits
paid through the United States Department of Veterans Affairs."
And, "Despite its name, Veterans Guardian in fact preys on disabled
veterans by unfairly and deceptively taking tens of millions of
dollars of their disability benefits in violation of Federal law,
the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trades Practices Act, and
the North Carolina Debt Collection Act."
Ford, who lives in Texas, was honorably discharged from the Army in
2009 and received a 60% disability rating and monthly payment from
the VA before contacting Veterans Guardian in 2022 for help to
increase her claim by including post-traumatic stress disorder.
PTSD is a condition arising from shocking, dangerous or terrifying
experiences including war, disasters, physical or sexual assault or
abuse, fires, car crashes, etc.
Veterans Guardian drafted her VA claim and coached her for a
private medical exam and VA Compensation and Pension Examination,
successfully increasing her monthly benefit payment, according to
Ford.
The fee Veterans Guardian charged for the services was $1,800, or
five times the $360 monthly increase. A second claim in 2022 for
high blood pressure was also approved by the VA with Veterans
Guardian's help, resulting in another $300 per month in benefits
and a $1,500 fee, according to the lawsuit.
Federal law prohibits accredited agents or attorneys from charging
fees based on increasing a veteran's monthly disability
compensation, allowing them to charge only a maximum of one-third
of back pay or past due benefits, according to the lawsuit. The
litigation asserts Veterans Guardian is not accredited as required
by law to process claims.
The suit includes an email from Veterans Guardian that linked Ford
to online VA claim forms that were fully prepared by Veterans
Guardian, as well as another email suggesting the company has done
the same for 25,000 other claims over a two-year timeframe.
Veterans Guardian, which has faced similar accusations from the
American Legion and questions from federal lawmakers, responded to
a request for comment from The Center Square with a link to a
prepared statement on the company's website.
"Veterans Guardian categorically denies the false accusations of
the lawsuit recently filed against us by attorneys who benefit from
a broken Department of Veteran Affairs and a clogged veterans
benefits system," the statement read in part. "Contrary to the
baseless claims of wrongdoing, Veterans Guardian provides ethical
and transparent assistance that veterans can choose to use to
obtain benefits to which they are entitled, but often have
difficulty accessing through other available means due to a
complicated and bureaucratic process."
At time of publication on Sept. 8, The Center Square's messages to
Osterwise had not been returned. [GN]
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Dieselgate Suit to Be Dropped Without Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to swissinfo.ch, Swiss VW drivers come away empty-handed
in the so-called Dieselgate scandal. The class action lawsuit filed
in Germany by 2,000 owners of Volkswagen diesel vehicles with
manipulated engines will be dropped without compensation.
The French-speaking Swiss consumer protection organisation
Fédération romande des consommateurs (FRC) issued a statement on
Sept. 9 to Swiss public broadcaster RTS on the matter. The
plaintiffs were hoping for compensation of between 1,600 and 5,000
euros (CHF1,530-CHF4,780 at current rates), according to the FRC.
It is a scandal that, given those responsible who have been
criminally convicted, the Swiss are practically the only ones who
cannot be compensated in the VW affair, Sophie Michaud Gigon, FRC
secretary general told RTS.
By the end of 2017, more than 2,000 people had assigned their
rights to myRight for a class action lawsuit brought against the
car manufacturer in Germany by a Berlin law firm.
After a first failure by a German-speaking owner, the platform
decided not to fight for the Swiss because the advance costs were
also very high, as Sophie Michaud Gigon further noted.
According to the FRC, the VW Group has already spent almost CHF30
billion on compensation and legal costs. In 2018, the lawsuit filed
by the German consumer association VZBV led to a settlement in
favor of 260,000 customers. The compensation ranged from 1,350 to
6,257 euros per person. [GN]
WALT DISNEY: Settles Magic Key Annual Pass Suit for $9.5 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Petski, writing for Deadline, reports that The Walt Disney
Co. has agreed to pay $9.5 million to settle a class-action lawsuit
over the Magic Key annual pass program at Disneyland, according to
a court filing on Sept. 7.
The lawsuit, filed in 2021 by Jenale Nielsen and other pass holders
in Orange County Superior Court, alleged that after Nielsen bought
the $1,399 annual pass in September 2021, she found she was not
able to reserve a ticket for much of November, despite tickets
still being available for that month.
The lawsuit alleged that Disneyland artificially limited Magic Key
reservations and the number of Magic Key holders who could visit on
any given day. The case was removed to federal court in April
2022.
"After purchasing her pass, plaintiff learned that she was unable
to use the Dream Key pass to make a reservation on some days, even
when the parks were not at capacity and general admission park
reservations were listed as available on Disney's website,"
according to the proposed settlement.
"As alleged in her operative complaint, on numerous occasions,
plaintiff was unable to use her pass to make reservations because
her desired dates were `unavailable,' despite Disney's website
listing plenty of availability for daily ticket reservations."
The proposed settlement filed on Sept. 7 covers 103,435 Dream Key
pass holders from Aug. 15-Oct. 25, 2021. The preliminary agreement
estimates each class member will receive about $67.41.
A hearing on the motion to settle the lawsuit is scheduled for
October 16 in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.
City News Service contributed to this report. [GN]
WASHINGTON: N.D. Appeals Class Cert., Prelim Injunction Bid Denial
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs N. D., et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's
August 31, 2023 Order entered in the lawsuit entitled N.D. et al.,
on behalf of a class of those similarly situated, v. CHRIS REYKDAL,
in his capacity as the SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION and
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, a Washington
State agency, Case No. 2:22-cv-01621-LK-MLP, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle.
The Plaintiffs filed this suit on November 11, 2022 challenging the
State of Washington's generally applicable practice of ending
special education prior to age 22 in clear violation of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act under long-standing
Ninth Circuit law. They seek to enjoin OSPI from allowing the
school districts it supervises to deny ongoing or compensatory
special education services to similarly situated persons on that
ground.
On May 10, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for provisional
certification and preliminary injunction.
The Plaintiff then asked the Court on July 10, 2023 to enter an
order certifying a class defined as: "All individuals who turned 21
during or after the 2019-2020 school year and had not yet turned 22
by two years before the filing of this action or will turn 21
during the pendency of this action who are provided or were
provided a FAPE under the IDEA by any school district in Washington
and who but for their turning 21 would otherwise qualify or would
have qualified for a FAPE because they have not or had not yet
graduated from high school with a "regular high school diploma" as
defined at 34 C.F.R. Section 300.102(a)(3)(iv)."
On August 31, 2023, Judge Lauren King signed an Order denying
Plaintiffs' motion for provisional class certification and
preliminary injunction.
The appellate case is captioned as N. D., et al. v. Chris Reykdal,
et al., Case No. 23-35580, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, filed on Sept. 1, 2023.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants N. D. and T. D., on behalf of a class of
those similarly situated, are represented by:
Ian B. Crosby, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP
401 Union Street, Suite 3000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 516-3880
- and -
Alexander Frank Hagel, Esq.
Lara Rebecca Hruska, Esq.
CEDAR LAW, PLLC
113 Cherry Street PMB 96563
Seattle, WA 98104-2205
Telephone: (206) 607-8277
Defendants-Appellees CHRIS REYKDAL, in his capacity as the
Superintendent of Public Instruction, et al., are represented by:
Brian Hunt Rowe, Esq.
Stephen Todd Sipe, Esq.
AGWA - OFFICE OF THE WASHINGTON ATTORNEY
GENERAL (SEATTLE)
800 5th Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98104-3188
Telephone: (206) 389-3888
WEST VIRGINIA: Faces Class Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury of West Virginia Record reports that a class-action
lawsuit was filed against the West Virginia United Health System
alleging they were wrongfully not paid overtime pay.
West Virginia University Hospitals, Community Health Association,
United Hospital Center, The Charles Town General Hospital, Camden
Clark Memorial Hospital, City Hospital, Potomac Valley Hospital
Grant Memorial Hospital, Reynolds Memorial Hospital, the West
Virginia Health Care Cooperative, Braxton County Memorial Hospital,
St. Joseph's Hospital of Buckhannon, Wetzel County Hospital,
Wheeling Hospital, WVUHS Home Care, West Virginia University
Hospitals East, Camden-Clark Health Services, United Summit Center,
United Physicians Care, Camden-Clark Physician Corp., Fayette
Physician Network, Thomas Health System, Princeton Community
Hospital Association, Barnesville Hospital Association, Uniontown
Hospital, Harrison Community Hospital, Wheeling Ambulatory Surgery
Center, Garrett County Memorial Hospital and Allied Health
Service.
Dominque Heard, Amanda Luzader and Kenneth Miklich are current or
former employees of WVUHS and/or its affiliates and believe the
defendants violated state and federal law, owing them and other
class members back pay and liquidated damages, according to a
complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
West Virginia.
"The Proposed Class is readily ascertainable from payroll records
maintained and kept by WVUHS and/or the other defendants," the
complaint states.
All members of the proposed class are and were at all times subject
same pay policies and processes maintained by WVUHS and/or the
other defendants.
"All members of the Proposed Class have in the last three years
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek for one or more
defendants and was denied the rights and protections provided under
the WV Standards, including overtime pay at the rate of one and
one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in
excess of the hourly standards set forth in the WV Standards," the
complaint states.
The plaintiffs claim the proposed class consists of more than
10,000 individuals.
The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages. They are
represented by Arthur R. Traynor and Lauren McDermott of Mooney,
Green, Saindon, Murphy & Welch in Washington, D.C.; and Samuel B.
Petsonk of Petsonk PLLC in Morgantown.
The case was assigned to District Judge John Preston Bailey.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia case
number: 5:23-cv-00230 [GN]
[*] Data Privacy, Cybersecurity Class Actions Up in New England
---------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie A. Conroy, Esq., of Pierce Atwood LLP, in an article for
Mondaq, disclosed that earlier in 2023, we launched our New England
and First Circuit Class Action Tracker, as a tool to analyze class
action litigation trends in Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire,
and Rhode Island. In July, we updated our tracker to include data
through the second quarter of 2023. A review of new filings
submitted during that latest quarter reinforces the trends that we
recently observed in our client alert on the enforcement of U.S.
Consumer Data Privacy laws through private litigation. Namely, we
are seeing record-high levels of data privacy and cybersecurity
class action filings, particularly in Massachusetts courts, in the
first half of 2023.
Data privacy and cybersecurity class action suits continue to
represent the largest share of annual class action filings in New
England to date. Although the healthcare sector continues to
represent the largest share of defendants, other sectors, such as
tech, retail and manufacturing, and financial and professional
services industries are also experiencing high rates of
cybersecurity and data privacy class actions. In this post, we
highlight two major trends that we see based on a review of the
actions included in our most recent update.
Cyber Attacks Resulted in Copycat Complaints
Second quarter filings provide further evidence that a single
cyber-attack can result in a barrage of class action complaints for
affected businesses. Of the eighty actions filed in or removed to
the District of Massachusetts in the second quarter, twenty-six (or
33% of the total) correspond to five cyber-attacks against five
separate entities, three of which operate in the healthcare sector.
One cyber-attack in particular, against a large Boston-based health
insurer, is the source of eleven separate class action complaints.
There are striking similarities in the structure, content and
allegations within these related complaints. Nearly every complaint
includes a breach of duty under a negligence theory as the first
count; many include negligence per se as a second count. The source
of the duty is often grounded in the relationship between the
affected individual and the defendant (for example, insured and
insurer). In every case, the section relating to breach includes a
reference to the Federal Trade Commission's position, famously
litigated in LabMD, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, that the
failure to adopt reasonable cyber security measures is an unfair
trade practice. In many cases, additional references can be found
to the HIPAA Security and Breach Notification Rules (where
applicable), to state security and data breach notification laws,
to state consumer protection acts, and to industry standards such
as the NIST Cybersecurity Framework.
Additional claims align to those often seen in other cybersecurity
and privacy class action complaints, including breach of contract,
breach of implied contract, and violations of state unfair and
deceptive trade practice acts, especially where such acts allow for
a private right of action. However, some complaints include less
common theories for relief such as unjust enrichment, breach of
third-party beneficiary contract, bailment, and negligent
misrepresentation. Thus, these cases provide helpful guidance to
potential defendants about the types of claims they are likely
face.
Alleged Harms Likely to Encounter Continued Article III Challenges
Most complaints define the harm to affected individuals as a
heightened risk of fraud and identity theft and costs and time
incurred to protect against such theft through credit monitoring,
reports, freezes and other protective measures.
As we discussed in a November, 2021 post regarding a case in the
District Court of Massachusetts, Webb v. Injured Workers Pharmacy,
LLC, many courts have been skeptical towards the idea that the
costs incurred and time spent to protect oneself against the
potential future misuse of compromised personal information are, in
themselves, sufficient to establish concrete injury for purposes of
Article III standing. However, the First Circuit's reversal of the
District Court's decision in Webb may be the first sign that such
skepticism is waning. In our most recent post, we discussed the
First Circuit's decision in detail. The First Circuit held that
actual misuse of personally identifiable information is in itself a
concrete injury, even absent monetary or other direct harm.
Further, the First Circuit agreed with the plaintiffs that lost
professional time expended to monitor accounts to protect against
future identity theft constitutes a concrete injury.
By potentially expanding the scope of concrete injury within the
context of a cyber-attack to include scenarios short of economic or
direct harm and preventative measures such as lost professional
time or monitoring costs, the First Circuit may have created a
wider opening for plaintiffs to survive an initial motion to
dismiss for lack of standing. Nonetheless, the precise scope of
non-economic harms and preventative expenditures that satisfy
standing has yet to be determined; accordingly, cases in the
interim will likely continue to be decided on a fact-specific
basis, with defendants mounting challenges based on Article III
standing.
We will continue to monitor these cases for further developments
and publish an update to our New England and First Circuit Class
Action Tracker at the close of the third quarter of 2023. [GN]
[*] Settlement Claims Filing Deadline in U.S. Class Suits Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeta Ranxburgaj, writing for The U.S. Sun, reports that
several open settlements could give eligible Americans the chance
to score money this month and one of them could leave claimants
$5,000 richer.
These five open settlements range in compensation and
qualification, but millions of people could be covered by them.
The following are open-class settlements with eligibility
information and their deadlines, according to The US Sun and
Lifehacker.
CASH EXPRESS, LLC
People could have the chance to score up to $5,000 from this
financial services provider.
Cash Express, LLC agreed on an $85 million settlement after private
information was potentially leaked following a supposed
cyberattack.
The incident happened between January 29, 2022, and February 26,
2022.
Eligible customers would have received a letter that lists them as
a class action member.
People could receive $150 in pro rata cash but this could change
based on the amount of money left in the fund.
Up to $5,000 is available for people who can provide documentation
for out-of-pocket cash losses due to the cyberattack.
Additionally, people can claim money for time lost by attempting to
resolve issues caused by the attack.
$25 an hour, up to $125, could be claimed.
Class action members must file an online form and provide their
"unique ID" listed in their letter.
DELTA AIR LINES
A class-action settlement against Delta has agreed to pay people
for their supposed breach of ticket contracts.
Delta Airlines allegedly refused to refund flights that were
canceled during the pandemic, so eligible customers must have a
Delta ticket that was canceled due to COVID-19.
The flight must have been from March 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021,
and the customer must have requested a refund for the flight and
not received it, or have unused or partially used credit as of
January 13, 2023.
Eligible members could be refunded any unused credit and the claim
must be submitted by September 15, 2023.
DOLE
This settlement claimed that Dole falsely advertised their fruit
cups by claiming that they contained "100% juice."
The $4.3million settlement is eligible for people who bought a
mislabeled fruit cup between January 12, 2017, and June 27, 2023.
The deadline to submit a claim for this settlement is
September 25, 2023.
INSTAGRAM
People who were residents of the state of Illinois and used
Instagram between August 10, 2015, and August 16, 2023, are
eligible for their share of a $68.5million Meta payout.
Claimants do not need to provide proof and all eligible claimants
will receive an equal share of the settlement, and must submit
their claim by September 27, 2023.
The settlement alleged that Instagram violated Illinois' Biometric
Information Privacy Act (BIPA).
INVENTURE FOODS (TGI FRIDAY'S)
This $900,000 settlement alleged that a TGI Friday's advertisement,
which claimed that their Mozzarella Sticks Snacks had real
mozzarella cheese, was false.
Eligible people could claim up to $6 per household which is
calculated at $0.30 per purchase, but must state how many sticks
were bought and where.
The deadline to submit a claim is September 25, 2023. [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J to Pay $18.8MM in Damages to Talc Victim
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Whitmer, writing for Asbestos.com, reports that a jury has
ruled that Johnson & Johnson must pay $18.8 million in monetary
damages to a California man who developed mesothelioma after
long-time exposure to the company's talc-based baby powder.
The decision was made following a six-week trial, the first
centered around talcum powder that J&J has encountered in nearly
two years. This comes as the company continues to settle thousands
of other similar suits.
Emory Hernandez Valadez said he had been using talc-based Johnson's
Baby Powder since childhood. Because of Valadez's failing health,
the case was cleared for trial. It was an exception to the court
order putting all litigation on hold following J&J's Chapter 11
filing in 2022.
During closing arguments, Johnson & Johnson's lawyers claimed there
was no evidence that Valadez's mesothelioma, which developed in the
lining of his heart, was caused by talc contaminated with asbestos.
Erik Haas, J&J's vice president of litigation, released a statement
calling the decision "irreconcilable with the decades of
independent scientific evaluations confirming Johnson's Baby Powder
is safe, does not contain asbestos and does not cause cancer." Haas
said the company plans to appeal.
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***