/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231012.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, October 12, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 205
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Bane Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina
3M COMPANY: Bayless Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Carrier Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Cartagena Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film & Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Castor Suit Transferred to S.D. South Carolina
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Haefeli Sues Over Illegal Sales Tax Charges
ALF MANAGEMENT: Hernandez Sues Over Labor Code Violations
AMAZON.COM INC: Court Rejects Class Cert. Bid in Conspiracy Suit
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Salatino Suit Removed to S.D. California
AMOK TIME INC: Kunkle Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AMP LTD: Appeals Ruling in Financial Advisers' Class Action
ANCIENT BRANDS: Court Dismisses Class Suit Over Food Labeling Claim
ASPYR MEDIA: Faces Class Suit Over Cancelled KOTOR 2 DLC
B. DRADDY LLC: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BLOCK INC: Thomas Sues Over Refusal to Comply With Cash App's Terms
BOTTOM LINE: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Robocalls
BRAUNFOTEL & FRENDEL: Brody Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
C3 SURPLUS: Cora Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
CANADA: Court Ok Partial Class Settlement Over Calgary Stampede
CANDID COLOR: Mayhew Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
CANON USA.: Bozyk Sues Over False and Misleading Advertisements
CAPITAL ONE: November 27 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
CARESOURCE: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
CARMAX AUTO: Ruiz Suit Removed to C.D. California
CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Settles Class Action Over COVID Tuition Refunds
DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA: Castanares Appeals Final OK of Maree Suit Deal
DIALAMERICA MARKETING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brittain Says
DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Faces Deller Suit Over COVID-19 Tuition Refunds
DRIVELINE RETAIL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Beck Alleges
ENCORE REHABILITATION: Ritterbeck Sues Over Discriminatory Conduct
FORD MOTOR: Sued Over Defective 360 Degree Cameras
FRESH MARKET: Henchey Sues Over Workplace Discrimination
GILEAD SCIENCES: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Remdesivir Drug
GMRI INC: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Benitez Suit to 9th Cir
GORILLAS TECHNOLOGIES: Vargas Sues Over Supervisors' Unpaid Wages
HEALTH CARE: Faces Stroud Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Illinois
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Dunn, Valentine Sue Over Data Breach
INARI MEDICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Huitron Alleges
INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Ivy Sues Over Tip Credit, Unpaid Wages
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Faces Suit Over August 2023 Cyberattack
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Carrigan Sues Over Mislabeled Decongestants
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Suit Over August 2023 Cyberattack
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Joyner Suit Over Ineffective Decongestants
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Calhoun Alleges
MARLOU CORPORATION: Wheeler Seeks Exotic Dancers' Unpaid Wages
MEDIBANK PRIVATE: Faces Class Action Over Cyber-Hacking Incident
META MATERIALS: N.Y. Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
MGM RESORTS: Faces Class Action Suit in Nevada Over Cyberattack
MID-ATLANTIC YOUTH: Fails to Protect Juveniles in Custody
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Must Face Antitrust Class Action Suit
NEW YORK TIMES: Objection of Settlement Award Class Suit Approved
OTTAWA COUNTY, MI: Burnside Files Suit in W.D. Michigan
PALISADES IMPORTS: Underpays Maintenance Workers, Schanker Claims
PAN PACIFIC: Court Partially Grants Class Cert. in Breach Suit
PORTLAND, OR: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Camping Ban
PROFESSIONAL TOWING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barbett Alleges
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Boaden Alleges
PURDUE PHARMA: Quebec Seeks to Join Opioid Class Action
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Nov. 28
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Southgate Sues Over Drop of Stock Price
RESPONSIBLE ENERGY: Evans, Fields Seek Proper Overtime Wages
RESTIGOUCHE HOSPITAL: Reaches $17M Deal in Patients' Abuse Suit
ROOT INC: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal
SABA UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Sues Over Misleading Advertisement
SAFECO INSURANCE: Fennell Sues Over Improper Business Practices
SENIOR PATH: Flannigan Sues Over Uniform Day Rate Pay Scheme
SIMILASA CORP: Plowden Sues Over Misleading Homeopathic Products
SIMON PROPERTY: Dalton Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota
SM ENERGY: Garvey Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SPECIALIZED LOAN: Simon Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia
SPINNEYBECK ENTERPRISES: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SPORTS AND FITNESS: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
STANDARD INSURANCE: Baker Files Suit in D. Oregon
SUNRUN INC: Sends Unwanted Telemarketing Calls, Strickland Alleges
TENNECO INC: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Parker Suit
TERRAFORM LABS: Plaintiff Voluntarily Withdraws Class Action
TESLA INC: EEOC Files Racial Discrimination Class Action Suit
UNDER ARMOUR: November 27 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
UNICO ENGINEERING: Villalta Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
UNION PACIFIC: Discriminates Against Disabled Workers, EEOC Says
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: Judge Tosses Professor's Hiring Bias Lawsuit
VALLEY NATIONAL: Allcock Sues Over Data Breach
VALYRIA LLC: Rivera Suit Removed to E.D. California
VIMEO INC: Settlement in BIPA Suit Gets Initial Nod
VIRGINIA NATIONAL: Aubrey Files Suit in W.D. Virginia
WALMART INC: Abdulhadi Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
WAYPOINT RESOURCE: Smith FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Salas Suit Over Defective Refrigerators
XYLEM INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
*********
3M COMPANY: Bane Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Bryan Bane, et al., and others similarly
situated v. 3M COMPANY; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC., ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DU PONT
DE NEMOURS & CO.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MINE
SAFETY APPLIANCE COMPANY LLC; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE
PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; STEDFAST USA, INC.; TEN
CATE PROTECTIVE FABRICS USA D/B/A SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY LLC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, L.P.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES,
INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-01058 was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of South Carolina on Sept. 27, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04821-RMG to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for
Personal Injury.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate operating in
the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer
goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
The Defendants are represented by:
Harlan Irby Prater, IV, Esq.
M. Christian King, Esq.
Wesley B Gilchrist, Esq.
William Larkin Radney, IV, Esq.
LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN AND WHITE LLC
400 20th Street North
Birmingham, AL 35203
Phone: (205) 581-0700
Fax: (205) 581-0799
Email: hprater@lightfootlaw.com
cking@lightfootlaw.com
wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com
lradney@lightfootlaw.com
3M COMPANY: Bayless Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Bayless, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-04373-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 30, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Carrier Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Carrier, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-04833-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 27, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
throat cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: Cartagena Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film & Chemicals
------------------------------------------------------------------
William Cartagena, 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-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:23-cv-04802-RMG
(D.S.C., Sept. 26, 2023), is brought for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per
and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a state police officer and was diagnosed with thyroid diease 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:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: 205-879-5000
Facsimile: 205-879-5901
3M COMPANY: Castor Suit Transferred to S.D. South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ralph Castor, Jr., et al., and others similarly
situated v. 3M COMPANY; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC., ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DU PONT
DE NEMOURS & CO.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MINE
SAFETY APPLIANCE COMPANY LLC; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE
PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; STEDFAST USA, INC.; TEN
CATE PROTECTIVE FABRICS USA D/B/A SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY LLC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, L.P.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES,
INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-01062 was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of South Carolina on Sept. 27, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-04825-RMG to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for
Personal Injury.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate operating in
the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer
goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
The Defendants are represented by:
Harlan Irby Prater, IV, Esq.
M. Christian King, Esq.
Wesley B Gilchrist, Esq.
William Larkin Radney, IV, Esq.
LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN AND WHITE LLC
400 20th Street North
Birmingham, AL 35203
Phone: (205) 581-0700
Fax: (205) 581-0799
Email: hprater@lightfootlaw.com
cking@lightfootlaw.com
wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com
lradney@lightfootlaw.com
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Haefeli Sues Over Illegal Sales Tax Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
NOEMIE HAEFELI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-23676 (S.D. Fla., Sept. 26, 2023) alleges claims against
the Defendant for negligence, unjust enrichment, and for violations
of the Florida Deceptive And Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Plaintiff Haefeli claims that the Defendant engaged in an unfair or
deceptive practice by charging and collecting sales tax on
separately stated and avoidable shipping and handling fees from
customers on its Internet website. In addition, Plaintiff also
claims that the Defendant failed to disclose that any portion of
the sales tax charged was applied to the shipping and handling fee
and failed to disclose that the shipping and handling fee was not
taxable under Florida law.
Headquartered in New Albany, OH, Abercrombie is a Delaware
corporation that owns and operates retail stores for clothing and
accessories. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen A. Beck, Esq.
Jonathan L. Wolloch, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Ave., Suite 1420
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
E-mail: sbeck@bursor.com
jwolloch@bursor.com
ALF MANAGEMENT: Hernandez Sues Over Labor Code Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
HERNANDEZ, SANDRA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALF MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., a California
corporation, doing business as GLEN TERRA SENIOR ASSISTED LIVING;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive; Defendants, Case No. 23GDCV02053
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 26, 2023) alleges wage
and hour violations under the California Labor Code and the
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt "sitter"
from approximately March-May 15, 2023. However, the Defendant
allegedly failed to maintain accurate time and payroll records for
Plaintiff. Among other things, the Defendants failed to keep
accurate records of all hours worked for Plaintiff and the
aggrieved employees, and accurate records showing when Plaintiff
and the aggrieved employees received meal periods. Instead, the
Defendants automatically deducted a 30-minute meal periods from
Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees work hours even when they
took no meal period or a shortened meal period. The Defendants also
engaged in unlawful rounding or time shaving of the hours worked by
Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees. Accordingly, Plaintiff and
aggrieved employees seek penalties under Private Attorneys General
Act of 2004 in this class action, says the suit.
ALF Management Group, Inc., is a California Corporation that own
and operates a senior assisted living facility. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake R. Jones, Esq.
BLAKE JONES LAW, PC
355 South Grand Avenue
Suite 2450 - #2052
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (323) 576-3221
E-mail: blake@blakejones.law
AMAZON.COM INC: Court Rejects Class Cert. Bid in Conspiracy Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stikeman Elliott LLP of JD Supra reports that In Difederico v.
Amazon.com, 2023 FC 1156, the Federal Court refused to certify a
proposed class action involving allegations that a collection of
Amazon entities ("Amazon") had breached sections 45 and 46 of the
Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34 (the "Act"). The decision is
a further example of courts exercising their gate-keeping function
at the certification stage to weed out claims that have no prospect
of success.
The Claim
The plaintiffs sought to certify a class action alleging Amazon's
agreements with third-party sellers contravened sections 45 and 46
of the Act, which establish indictable criminal offences for
conspiring, agreeing, or arranging certain anti-competitive
conduct. A contravention of these sections can lead to civil
recovery for loss or damage via section 36 of the Act.
The plaintiffs' claims were based on two allegedly anti-competitive
agreements, namely:
-- A clause in Amazon's Business Solutions Agreement that required
third-party sellers to ensure that prices of products they sold on
Amazon's online retail platform were at least as favourable as the
selling prices of those products on any other e-commerce website;
and
-- Sections of Amazon's Fair Pricing Policy, which allowed Amazon
to take action against pricing practices that harmed customer
trust, including setting a price on a product or service that was
significantly higher than recent prices offered on or off Amazon.
In this case, the plaintiffs alleged that the estimated
inflationary impact of Amazon's alleged anti-competitive practices
to be upwards of $12 billion.
The Decision of the Court
The Court refused to certify the class, finding that the plaintiffs
failed to establish the first requirement for certification,
namely, that the pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action:
-- First, the Court held that the plaintiffs had not pled
sufficient material facts with respect to all of the constituent
elements of sections 45 and 46, for either of the allegedly
anti-competitive agreements; and
-- Second, the Court found it was plain and obvious that neither of
the allegedly anti-competitive agreements is an agreement
contemplated by sections 45 and 46 of the Act, which target
"hard-core" or "naked" cartel agreements (e., agreements that are
generally recognized to have unambiguously harmful effects on
competition and consumers).
To determine whether pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of
action, courts assume the facts pleaded to be true and consider
whether it is "plain and obvious" that the pleadings fail to
disclose a reasonable cause of action. The test is a high standard
and courts err on the side of permitting novel but arguable claims
to proceed.
To bring a successful claim under section 45 of the Act, the
plaintiffs needed to plead and later prove that Amazon had been a
part of a "conspiracy, agreement or arrangement" with a competitor
to engage in certain anti-competitive practices described in the
subsections. As section 45 establishes a criminal offence, the
plaintiffs also needed to plead and later prove the requisite mens
rea element, (i.e., that Amazon subjectively intended to enter into
these agreements and had the objective intention of engaging in the
prohibited anti-competitive practices).
Failure to Plead Sufficient Material Facts
For pleadings to disclose a reasonable cause of action they must
include sufficient material facts to support their allegations.
The Court found that the plaintiffs' Statement of Claim pled
sufficient material facts to support their allegations that Amazon
had entered into agreements with third-party sellers and that
Amazon and at least some third-party sellers were actual
competitors.
However, the Court found that the plaintiffs had only made bald
allegations that the agreements contravened sections 45 and 46 of
the Act. For instance, the plaintiffs alleged that the agreements
limited price competition, but failed to plead any particular price
or price range that the parties agreed to fix, maintain, or
increase. Likewise, the plaintiffs failed to plead the objective
mens rea element or sufficient material facts to establish the
element for each subsection of section 45.
Not Contemplated by the Act
The Court reviewed the legislative purpose and jurisprudence of
sections 45 and 46 of the Act and found that the provisions were
meant to capture "hard-core" or "naked" cartel agreements. In
establishing criminal offences in which offenders could be
sentenced for up to 14 years in prison, the Court found that the
sections were clearly not intended to capture agreements that may
have the indirect effect of adversely impacting prices.
In this context, the Court held that it was plain and obvious that
sections 45 and 46 were not intended to capture Amazon's agreements
with third-party sellers. The agreements raised by the plaintiffs
were explicitly directed towards favouring customers on Amazon's
platform and did not directly seek to control the prices on other
platforms or harm the consumer.
Key Takeaways
The decision reinforces the importance of pleading material facts
with sufficient particularity. Bald allegations that merely track
statutory language are not sufficient.
The decision highlights the willingness of courts to exercise their
gatekeeping function at the certification stage of a proposed class
proceeding. Here the Court meaningfully engaged with the
legislative purpose and jurisprudence of the Act to determine that
the claim had no reasonable prospect of success.
The decision is a reminder that in cases where civil recovery is
available for criminal offences, the plaintiff will likely need to
plead and later prove not just that the defendants acted in a
certain manner, but also that they intended to do so. [GN]
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Salatino Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Dyan Salatino, an individual on behalf of
herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. AMERICAN
AIRLINES, INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. 37-2023-00025600-CU-OE-CTL was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on Sept. 27, 2023, and assigned Case No.
3:23-cv-01779-JLS-BLM.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff brings claims for, inter alia,
American's alleged failure to pay minimum and overtime wages at the
correct rate of pay, provide meal and rest periods, provide
accurate itemized wage statements, reimburse employees for
employment-related expenditures, provide timely wage payments, and
pay sick wages. Plaintiff also alleges American committed acts of
unfair competition as defined by the California Unfair Business
Practices Act. Based on the allegations in the Complaint and on
behalf of herself and the putative class members, Plaintiff seeks
temporary and permanent injunctions, damages, restitution,
penalties, and attorneys' fees, interest, and costs.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Adam P. Kohsweeney, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 984-8700
Facsimile: (415) 984-8701
Email: akohsweeney@omm.com
- and -
Kelly S. Wood, Esq.
Allan W. Gustin, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
610 Newport Center Drive, 17th Floor
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 823-6900
Facsimile: (949) 823-6994
Email: kwood@omm.com
agustin@omm.com
AMOK TIME INC: Kunkle Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amok Time, Inc. The
case is styled as Frank Kunkle, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Amok Time, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08526
(S.D.N.Y., Sept. 27, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Amok Time Toys -- https://amoktime.com/ -- is an entertainment
company based out of 2949 Hempstead Tpke, Levittown, New York,
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
AMP LTD: Appeals Ruling in Financial Advisers' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Insurance News reports that AMP is appealing against a Federal
Court ruling in a class action lodged by its authorised financial
advisers in relation to changes the listed financial services
provider had made to its buyout program.
The advisers alleged the changes led to them getting less money
from the sale of their practices to AMP Financial Planning (AMPFP)
and Justice Mark Moshinsky ruled in their favour in July.
"AMPFP confirms that it has filed a Notice of Appeal in relation to
the judgment," AMP said in a statement.
"The parties have also agreed to engage in mediation, which will
take place in November 2023."
Justice Moshinsky in his ruling said the changes made to the Buyer
of Last Resort (BOLR) exit program on August 8 2019 were
"ineffective" and "not authorised" under the scheme's "legislation,
economic or product (LEP)" provision.
The BOLR policy formed part of the contractual relationship between
AMPFP and each financial planning practice in its network.
It gave practices that wanted to leave the network the ability to
sell back their register rights to the AMP subsidiary on 12 months'
notice or less in some cases.
One of the changes in August 2019 meant the buyout was calculated
on the basis of 2.5 times the value of ongoing revenue received by
the practice in the prior 12-month period, instead of four times.
Another change related to the multiple for grandfathered commission
revenue. It reduced the multiple from an initial four times to 1.42
and cutting it by 0.8333 per month from September 1 2019 such that
the multiple would be zero by January 1 2021, according to details
in the ruling.
Lead applicant Equity Financial Planners contends that the changes
were not authorised by the LEP provision and that AMPFP "acted in
breach of contract in putting forward BOLR valuations based on
those changes".
Judge Moshinsky ruled Equity Financial Planners has suffered loss
and damage as a result of the "breach of contract" and is entitled
to damages in the sum of $813,560, subject to final adjustments.
Wealthstone, a sample group member in the class action, is entitled
to about $115,533 in damages, subject also to final adjustments.
The Advisers Association (TAA) says it is disappointed that AMP has
decided to appeal the ruling. TAA CEO Neil Macdonald says the court
made a "conclusive judgment" and that Justice Moshinsky "already
took all the matters raised by AMP into consideration".
However, he welcomes the planned mediation in November, saying it
in the interests of all involved that the matter should be resolved
as quickly as possible.
"It has already been a lengthy, expensive, and stressful process
for all our impacted members," he said.
Equity Financial Planners relied on lay evidence from Mr Macdonald,
who was at that time CEO and Company Secretary of ampfpa, an
organisation representing financial planning practices in the AMPFP
network. In February 2020 ampfpa changed its name to The Advisers
Association. [GN]
ANCIENT BRANDS: Court Dismisses Class Suit Over Food Labeling Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin reports that a New York federal judge has dismissed a
class action accusing a bone broth manufacturer of misrepresenting
the amount of digestible protein in its products, ruling the claims
are expressly and impliedly preempted.
On Sept. 15, Judge Lawrence Kahn of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York found the plaintiffs sought to impose
requirements beyond those required by the FDCA, and they
impermissibly rely solely upon FDCA regulations.
Ancient Brands LLC makes bone broth products that are labeled as
containing 20 grams of protein. [GN]
ASPYR MEDIA: Faces Class Suit Over Cancelled KOTOR 2 DLC
--------------------------------------------------------
Liv Ngan of Eurogamer reports that developer Aspyr Media and
publisher Saber Interactive are facing a class action lawsuit
regarding the cancelled DLC for the Nintendo Switch port of Star
Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 2.
The lawsuit was filed on 8th July, as spotted by The Gamer, by a
singular plaintiff on behalf of himself and class members, defined
as "all persons in the State of California who purchased KOTOR for
Nintendo during the relevant statute of limitations period, i.e.
four years prior to the filing of the Complaint until present".
KOTOR 2 released on 8th June 2023 for Switch. It was initially
advertised with plans to add a fan-made mod which restores content
to the original game as DLC. On 3rd June 2023, Aspyr announced it
was cancelling the Restored Content DLC and offered a
"complimentary" key from a selection of other Star Wars games to
those who had pre-purchased KOTOR 2.
In Mickelonis et al. v. Aspyr Media, Inc. and Saber Interactive,
Inc., the plaintiff states he "felt completely duped" by Aspyr's
advertisements claiming the DLC would be released (the filed
complaint can be read on Truth In Advertising). "Plaintiff did not
even play KOTOR after purchasing it," the complaint reads, "instead
choosing to wait until the Restored Content DLC was released."
The filed complaint also makes reference to the fact that refunds
were not offered to pre-purchasers who changed their mind because
of the cancelled DLC. Mickelonis alleges Aspyr Media and Saber
Interactive intentionally deceived consumers "in order to
artificially raise sales revenues by selling more KOTOR games and
being able to market KOTOR at above-market prices based on
qualities and features that the game simply did not possess".
Aspyr and Saber now have until 4th October to respond to the
complaint, which seeks a payout covering the plaintiff's legal
fees, and to stop the two companies from "selling and distributing
KOTOR with the deceptive and false advertising" as alleged. [GN]
B. DRADDY LLC: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against B. Draddy, LLC. The
case is styled as Luis Mercedes, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. B. Draddy, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-08534-LGS (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 27, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
B. Draddy -- https://www.bdraddy.com/ -- is a clothing company that
captures an aristocratic bohemian aesthetic with colors and
fabrics.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
BLOCK INC: Thomas Sues Over Refusal to Comply With Cash App's Terms
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHEMICA THOMAS, JAYLEN TALLEY, and NAYSEN EDWARDS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BLOCK,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-05015 (N.D. Cal., September 29,
2023) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of
contract, material breach for failure to pay fees before
arbitration can proceed, and violations of the Electronic Fund
Transfer Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's systematic business practice
of failing to comply with its obligations under its own adhesive
arbitration clause contained in its terms of service. The Defendant
operates Cash App, a mobile payment services provider, which can be
used to execute money transfers between Cash App accountholders. In
setting up an account, the Defendant requires users to enter into
an agreement that includes its terms of service. The Defendant's
terms of service purport to require users to resolve disputes in an
arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association
(AAA) pursuant to the Consumer Arbitration Rules. However, users
who comply with the procedural prerequisites and initiate an
arbitration pursuant to the arbitration clause have been prohibited
from seeking resolution of their disputes by the Defendant's
systematic refusal to engage in arbitration, refusal to pay its
share of the arbitration filing fee. Cash App's refusal to comply
with the terms of its own contract of adhesion causes consumers to
waste time and money and effectively prevents them from resolving
disputes with Cash App in the low cost and efficient process of
consumer arbitration under the rules of the AAA, says the suit.
Block, Inc. is a mobile payment company, with its principal place
of business in San Francisco, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alisa Rose Adams, Esq.
THE DANNLAW FIRM
26100 Towne Centre Dr.
Foothill Ranch, CA 92610
Telephone: (949) 200-8755
Facsimile: (866) 843-8308
E-mail: aadams@dannlaw.com
- and -
Marc E. Dann, Esq.
Brian D. Flick, Esq.
DANNLAW
15000 Madison Avenue
Lakewood, OH 44107
Telephone: (216) 373-0539
Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com
- and -
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 440-0020
Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
BOTTOM LINE: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Robocalls
---------------------------------------------------
Bernadette Giacomazzo, writing for HipHopDX, reports that Snoop
Dogg's voice has been thrust into the center of a class action
lawsuit against a Florida-based company that promises to help small
business owners with obtaining Employee Retention Credit (ERC)
refunds.
According to court documents obtained by HipHopDX, Qiana Martin
filed a class action lawsuit against Bottom Line Concepts on
Wednesday (September 27), in which she alleged that the
Doggfather's voice -- or something similar to it -- was used to try
to entice her into doing business with Bottom Line.
Martin also alleged that she never gave Bottom Line permission to
call her, and that their persistence in using robocalls to try to
entice her to do business with them is a violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
"Most recently, on August 30, 2023 at 3:02pm, Ms. Martin received a
prerecorded call from (800) 728-9015, which left the following
prerecorded message on her voicemail, in the voice of famous rapper
Snoop Dogg," she wrote in Paragraph 20 of the complaint.
"[beginning cut off] . . . you might be sitting on a refund that's
rightfully yours. But, check this out I got a hook up for you."
The voicemail continued: "It's called ERCENROLL.COM and they got
the game on lock. Now here's the kicker. These folks at
ERCENROLL.COM, they got connections like no other. They can have
them funds in your hands quicker than you can roll up your favorite
. . . well, you know what I mean. We're talking just a couple weeks
and BOOM you got that cash flowing back where it belongs. So, if
you're a business owner who's been through the thick of it, don't
miss out on this golden opportunity. Slide on over to
ERCENROLL.COM. Let them know Snoop Dogg sent you and watch the
magic happen. It's all about getting what's yours baby.
ERCENROLL.COM. They're the real deal and they got that fast track
hook up y'all. Snoop Dogg stamp of approval baby. Peace out."
HipHopDX has reached out to the attorneys for Martin and Bottom
Line Concepts' CEO, Josh Martin, as well as representatives for
Snoop Dogg, for comment.
News of this class action lawsuit comes hot on the heels of the
announcement of Snoop Dogg joining other celebrities like Charlie
D'Amelio, Tom Brady, and Paris Hilton in the preliminary launch of
AI chatbots on their behalf for Facebook and Instagram.
"This isn't just gonna be about answering queries," said Mark
Zuckerberg, the CEO of Meta, which is the parent company of
Facebook and Instagram. "This is about entertainment and about
helping you do things to connect with the people around you."
In its initial launch phase, the AI chatbots will only be
responding to queries via text -- in other words, the user won't be
able to hear Snoop Dogg's voice, or his avatar speaking. However,
Zuckerberg promises that this feature is in development, and will
be available sometime in 2024.
Questions are being raised about the viability -- and ethics --
around such ventures. Snoop himself expressed skepticism about the
possibility of an AI album of Biggie/2Pac duets earlier this year.
"I don't really know about that, with the AI," he said at the time.
"Because, that's kinda like, computerized voices. You know? [But] I
think if they can find some old tracks with their vocals, and put
them together, that sounds better to me." [GN]
BRAUNFOTEL & FRENDEL: Brody Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Braunfotel & Frendel,
LLC. The case is styled as Yisroel Brody, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Braunfotel & Frendel,
LLC, Case No. 7:23-cv-07763-PMH (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 31, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Braunfotel & Frendel, LLC -- https://braunfotelandfrendel.com/ --
is a law firm in New City, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Arthur Jay Sanders, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ARTHUR SANDERS
30 South Main Street
New City, NY 10956
Phone: (845) 499-2990
Fax: (845) 499-2992
Email: asanders@arthursanderslaw.com
C3 SURPLUS: Cora Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Jose Cora, and those similarly situated v. C3 SURPLUS, LLC, and
VERNON MCCOY, JR., Case No. 180922068 (Fla. 11th Judicial Cir. Ct.,
Miami-Dade Cty., Aug. 31, 2023), is brought to recover money
damages for unpaid overtime wages under the laws of the United
States and for retaliation under Florida Statutes pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("the Act").
The Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week
without being compensated at a rate of not less than one- and
one-half times the regular rate at which he was employed.
Specifically, on average, Plaintiff worked 48 hours per week, 6
days per week. Plaintiff was paid approximately $27 per hour. He
was not paid overtime. Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendants
and not an independent contractor of the Defendants, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a covered employee for purposes of the Act.
The Defendant is a Florida limited liability company duly organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Martin Saenz, Esquire
THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Phone: (305) 482-1475
Email: martin@legalopinionusa.com
CANADA: Court Ok Partial Class Settlement Over Calgary Stampede
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alesia Fieldberg, Mark Villani and The Canadian Press of CTV News
report that an Alberta court justice has approved a partial
settlement in a class-action lawsuit involving decades-long sexual
abuse within The Young Canadians at the Calgary Stampede by an
adult supervisor.
The settlement agreement was announced on July 26, pending Justice
Alice Woolley's approval, which she gave on September 25, 2023.
The settlement agreement will see the Calgary Stampede accepting
liability and paying out damages.
A two-day mediation is set for Dec. 14 and 15 to determine what the
dollar amount will be.
Stampede will not, however, have to pay additional punitive damages
-- the class members have opted to let those go.
"It is a good first step that is in the best interest of the class
and is fair and reasonable," Woolley said in court on September 25,
2023 morning.
Woolley called the settlement agreement "a comprehensive admission
of liability" and said there were "extremely meaningful confessions
here."
Woolley took no issue with the exclusion of punitive damages in the
settlement agreement.
On September 25, 2023 afternoon, the Calgary Stampede released the
following statement:
"In July 2023, the Stampede accepted responsibility with the filing
of this settlement on liability. September 26, 2023's approval by
the courts is an important step in the process to reach a final
settlement agreement, which we hope will help the victims and their
families begin to heal."
The proceedings stem from the actions of Phillip Heerema.
Heerema was sentenced to 10 years in prison in 2018 for sexually
exploitative acts related to six members of the Young Canadians, a
performing arts group that stars nightly in the Calgary Stampede's
Grandstand Show.
Heerema was convicted for incidents that took place for more than
two decades between 1992 and 2014.
Documents filed in the lawsuit, which was launched in 2017, also
allege that Heerema's abusive behaviour may have stretched back as
far as 1987.
In a statement to CTV News on July 26, after the settlement
agreement was first presented, the Stampede said it takes "full
responsibility in the hopes of helping victims to heal."
"We can't change the events of the past, but we are deeply sorry
for how the victims have been affected," read the statement.
"Our commitment to those impacted is to do everything possible to
guard against anything similar ever happening again, and we have
taken meaningful steps to enhance the safety and wellness of our
youth participants."
One class member calls this a step in the right direction, but not
the end of the road.
The class member would like the matter to move along faster than it
has.
"There's still no end in sight for victims. This has been a long,
drawn-out process for many years," the class member said.
"I came forward 10 years ago and there's been nothing done by the
Stampede since then. So this continues to drag on."
Stampede paying out damages is "definitely the right thing," the
class member believes, as is taking steps to prevent such a thing
from happening again.
But the class member also believes it shouldn't stop there:
"We are going to continue to deal with this throughout our lives.
This is not something that's just, you know, going to be done," the
class member said.
"I think there's more to be done." [GN]
CANDID COLOR: Mayhew Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Spencer Mayhew, Ashley Reichert, as next friend
of H.R. and X.R., minor children, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Candid Color Systems, Inc., Case No.
23-LA-0826 was removed from the Circuit Court for The 20th Judicial
Circuit St. Clair County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois on Aug. 30, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-02964-DWD to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Candid Color Systems -- https://www.candid.com/ -- was established
in 1972 and has been the leader in special events photo finishing
and photography for over 25 years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Driscoll, Esq.
DRISCOLL FIRM, LLC
1311 Avenida Juan Ponce de Leon, 6th Floor
San Juan, PR 00907
Phone: (618) 444-6049
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: john@jjlegal.com
- and -
Matthew Joseph Limoli, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C.
301 Fayetteville Street, Ste. 1825
Raleigh, NC 27601
Phone: (919) 404-9510
Email: matthew@thedriscollfirm.com
CANON USA.: Bozyk Sues Over False and Misleading Advertisements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Bozyk, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CANON U.S.A., INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-06554
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 31, 2023), is brought against the Defendant's
representations regarding the Canon "All-in-One" Printers which
contain false and misleading advertisements.
Throughout its marketing and advertising, including on the product
packaging for the All-in-One Printers, Canon represents that the
Printers are multifunction "all-in-one" devices that can
purportedly print, copy, scan, and in some cases, fax documents. As
opposed to the "single function" printers it sells, Canon calls
these multifunction printers as "3-in-1" or "4-in-1" devices, as
they purportedly provide three or four functions.
However, the All-in-One Printers do not scan or fax documents when
the devices have low or empty ink cartridges (the "Design Defect").
When the ink is low, these functions are inexplicably restricted.
As such, the printers do perform as "all-in-one" devices, and
Canon's advertising claims are false, misleading, and reasonably
likely to deceive the public.
Canon does not represent or warn consumers that ink is a necessary
component in order to scan or fax documents. Nor would reasonable
consumers have such an expectation, as ink is not necessary for
scanning or faxing. As a result, consumers are forced to incur
unexpected and unnecessary burden and expense in the form of ink
purchases or in the alternative be unable to scan or fax documents
using the so-called "all-in-one" device. There is no legitimate
reason why scanning or faxing documents should be restricted when
the printer's ink level is low or empty. No ink is used when
scanning or faxing documents.
Canon knew, or should have known, that its representations and
advertisements regarding the All-in-One Printers were false and
misleading, and that they failed to disclose material information,
namely, that the copying, scanning, and printing functions would be
disabled when the printers have low or empty ink cartridges.
If Plaintiff knew that the All-in-One Printers suffered from the
Design Defect, he would not have purchased an All-in-One Printer on
the same terms, if at all. Purchasers of All-in-One Printers have
been harmed as a result of Canon's false representations and
omissions. In addition to monetary damages, Plaintiff seeks
injunctive relief requiring Canon to immediately cease the
misleading advertising and marketing campaign and engage in a
corrective campaign to inform consumers of the use of misleading
advertising, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased a Canon Pixma printer from Walmart in
Massachusetts.
Canon is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Canon, Inc., a Japanese
corporation, through which it designs, manufactures, and/or
distributes consumer electronics products, including the All-in-One
Printers at issue as well as ink cartridges for the All-in-One
Printers at issue.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ndeckant@bursor.com
CAPITAL ONE: November 27 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mahesh, writing for RajNeetPG, reports that in July 2019, an
unauthorized hacker obtained access to 106 million applicants' and
Capital One Class Action Settlement credit card users' personal
data in the US and Canada. Millions of people were concerned about
the security of their personal data due to the significant breach.
Payments are scheduled to start on September 28, 2023, however, the
settlement administrator claims that the process has already
started. Click the "Claim Payment" link in any "EpiqPay" email to
get your funds website is capitalonesettlement.com/. But bear in
mind that November 27, 2023, is the deadline.
Capital One Class Action Settlement
Regarding a data breach that Capital One disclosed in July 2019
(the "Data Breach"), a class action settlement has been proposed
against Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc. ("Amazon")
as well as against Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One
Class Action Settlement, N.A., and Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.
("Capital One"). Benefits from the proposed Settlement will be
available to you if you are a member of the Settlement Class. The
proposed Settlement necessitates that Capital One create a $190
million Settlement Fund in addition to other benefits.
Settlement Name Capital One Class Action Settlement
Start date 28th September 2023
Last Date November 27, 2023
Year 2023
Website capitalonesettlement.com
Claimants will get letters from Tremendous, the payment partner of
the settlement website, along with correspondence from EpiqPay,
clarifying the status of their payment. The settlement website
states that two to four weeks after the deadline for claiming the
digital payment ends on November 27, 2023, unclaimed digital
payments will be distributed as physical checks. Go to the Capital
One class action settlement website
https://www.capitalonesettlement.com/ for further details.
How Do I file a claim in the Capital One settlement?
On the website of the class-action settlement, you may file online.
You will need the Unique ID and PIN that are printed on the
notification that you got through email or mail from Capital One,
in addition to thorough supporting documents such as bills, bank
statements, canceled checks, and receipts. (If you never got one or
misplaced your notification, call the settlement administrator at
855-604-1811.) Payments are scheduled to start on September 28,
2023, however, the settlement administrator claims that the process
has already started.
Click the "Claim Payment" link in any "EpiqPay" email to get your
funds. But remember, as stated on the settlement page, that the
deadline is November 27, 2023. You may choose your preferred
payment method on a payment dashboard that appears after clicking
the link. Depending on what you choose, you may need to provide a
few extra details in order to speed up the payment process.
Who Qualifies for money in the Capital One settlement?
According to Capital One, which said that it sent letters and
received emails from members whose Social Security information or
bank account details were compromised in the theft, almost 98
million applicants and cardholders are qualified to submit a claim.
You may get help by calling the settlement administrator at
855-604-1811 if you think you qualify but did not get a
notification.
How Much can I receive from the Capital One settlement?
Class members may recover up to $25,000 for lost time and
breach-related expenses, including fraud charges, identity theft
prevention costs, and data security fees.
Up to 15 hours of lost time spent resolving the problem may be
claimed at $25 per hour.
The settlement includes three years of free Pango Group identity
protection, including identity monitoring, lost wallet protection,
security freeze, dark-web monitoring, account restoration, and $1
million in identity theft and fraud insurance.
Capital One Class Action Settlement relief
The Settlement relief includes:
Cash Payment for Out-of-Pocket Losses
Cash Payment for Lost Time
Identity Defense Services
Restoration Services
Capital One Business Practice Changes
When will I receive my payment?
Although the settlement received final approval on September 8, the
distribution procedure might yet be slowed out by appeals.
A FAQ on the settlement page states, "This may take several months
or more."
Claimants will be informed by the settlement administrator of the
payment schedule. Depending on the method chosen, payments will be
made by paper check or direct deposit.
Capital One Settlement Administrator
The settlement administrator requires Capital One to create a $190
million settlement fund. Settlement funds will:
Pay out-of-pocket losses and time with cash;
Purchase identity defense and restoration services for all
settlement class members, regardless of claim status.
Pay settlement class notification and administration fees;
Pay court-approved service rewards to settlement class
representatives and other deposed class members;
Pay court-approved lawyers' fees, charges, and expenses. [GN]
CARESOURCE: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
WHIO Staff of WHIO reports that a federal class action lawsuit was
filed against Dayton-based Medicaid and Medicare plan provider
CareSource over a data breach in August.
On Sept. 14 members received a letter stating that the software of
one of CareSource's vendors (MOVEit) was hacked on May 31.
Caresource said it patched the software as instructed on June 1 and
on June 27 was named as one of the victims of the hacked data.
"We are sorry to say that some of your protected health information
was part of the data stolen by the bad actor," the letter reads.
The letter states that data such as first and last names,
addresses, date of birth, Social Security Numbers, health plan
information, medications and more were possibly accessed.
It suggested those impacted sign up for two years of credit
monitoring through Kroll.
The class action lawsuit filed Sept. 21 on behalf of three people
who were impacted by the data breach alleges that CareSource failed
to:
-- secure its network;
-- quickly notify its members of the breach, as despite knowledge
of the breach on June 1, CareSource did not notify victims until
Aug. 24;
-- make sure any vendors it elects to offload sensitive information
to could be entrusted and would safeguard sensitive data;
-- comply with regulatory, ethical and industry standards to ensure
the security and confidentiality of sensitive information; and
-- adequately respond to a foreseeable data breach;
The plaintiffs named in the lawsuit are asking for compensation for
damages such as loss of privacy, fraudulent charges, damages to
credit, time lost responding to the breach and out-of-pocket
expenses.
Some plaintiffs also alleged anxiety and emotional distress as a
result of their personal information being released.
CareSource services over a million members across six states.
News Center 7 reached out to CareSource about the lawsuit on
September 25, 2023 evening and received the following statement
from a CareSource spokesperson on September 26, 2023 morning:
"Upon learning CareSource members were impacted by a global
cybersecurity event that exploited the MOVEit platform, CareSource
launched a prompt and thorough response. We have notified
potentially impacted members, offering two years of complimentary
credit and identity monitoring. Right now, we are focused on
responding to member inquiries and assisting them with resources to
help safeguard their data." [GN]
CARMAX AUTO: Ruiz Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Maribelle Ruiz, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES, INC.; and
DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2304120 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on Sept. 27, 2023, and assigned Case No.
5:23-cv-01986.
The Plaintiffs Complaint alleges four causes of action: Failure to
Pay Wages for Accrued Paid Sick Days at the Regular Rate of Pay in
Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Provide Complete and Accurate
Wage Statements in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Timely Pay
All Earned Wages and Final Paychecks Due at Time of Separation of
Employment in Violation of Labor Code; and Unfair Business
Practices, in Violation of Business and Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jack S. Sholkoff, Esq.
Cathe Rackett, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART. P.C.
400 South Hope Street. Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213-239-9800
Facsimile: 213-239-9045
Email: jack.sholkoff@ogletree.com
catheline.brackett@ogletree.com
CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Settles Class Action Over COVID Tuition Refunds
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WHCU reports that Cornell has agreed to settle a class action
lawsuit related to COVID-19.
The lawsuit was filed in April 2020 by a group of students. It
alleges the school was in breach of its contract when it moved
classes online at the start of the pandemic in March 2020.
The Daily Sun reports Cornell denies any wrongdoing, but thought it
was in the best interest of all parties to settle. Students
enrolled in a degree program with in-person classes in the 2020
spring semester are eligible for partial tuition reimbursement.
The proposed settlement will have a final approval hearing in
December. [GN]
DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA: Castanares Appeals Final OK of Maree Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
JANA CASTANARES, et al., objectors, are taking an appeal from a
court order granting final settlement approval in the lawsuit
entitled Karla Maree, et al., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Deutsche Lufthansa A.G.,
Defendant, Case No. 8:20-cv-00885-SVW-MRW, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
arises from the Defendant's failure to provide full refunds to
customers whose flights were canceled as a result of the COVID-19
pandemic.
On June 5, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for settlement
approval of class action settlement, which the Court granted
through an Order entered by Judge Stephen V. Wilson on Aug. 21,
2023.
The appellate case is captioned Karla Maree, et al. v. Deutsche
Lufthansa A.G., Case No. 23-55795, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on September 20, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants Dennis Castanares and Jana Castanares Mediation
Questionnaire was due on September 27, 2023;
-- Appellants Dennis Castanares and Jana Castanares opening
brief is due on December 29, 2023;
-- Appellees Deutsche Lufthansa A.G., Mourad Guerdad and Karla
Maree answering brief is due on January 29, 2024; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees KARLA MAREE, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, PA
1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
- and -
Max Stuart Roberts, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, PA
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7408
Objectors-Appellants JANA CASTANARES, et al. are represented by:
Scott H. Sims, Esq.
FRANK SIMS & STOLPER LLP
19800 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 855
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 201-2400
Defendant-Appellee DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA A.G. is represented by:
Alexandra N. Burgess, Esq.
DLA PIPER, LLP (US)
2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 400 N Tower
Los Angeles, CA 90067
- and -
Keara M. Gordon, Esq.
DLA PIPER, LLP (US)
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 335-4500
- and -
Christopher Young, Esq.
DLA PIPER, LLP (US)
4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (619) 699-4748
DIALAMERICA MARKETING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brittain Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
RUSTY BRITTAIN; and RICHARD TOWNSEL, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DIALAMERICA MARKETING,
INC., a corporation, Defendant, Case No.2:23-cv-20579 (D.N.J.,
Sept. 22, 2023) is an action against the Defendant for failure to
pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals and rest
periods, and provide accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as customer service
representatives.
DIALAMERICA MARKETING INC. provides telemarketing services. The
Company serves the healthcare, government, sales, and general
business to business industries. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason T. Brown, Esq.
Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Telephone: (877) 561-0000
Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
- and -
Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
Alana A. Karbal, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, Michigan 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
Email: jthompson@sommers.com
akarbal@sommerspc.com
DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Faces Deller Suit Over COVID-19 Tuition Refunds
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA DELLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DREXEL UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-03746 (E.D. Pa., Sept. 26, 2023) alleges claims against the
Defendant for breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment.
According to the complaint, Drexel University breached its
contracts with Plaintiff and the Class by failing to provide the
promised in-person and on-campus educational instruction, services,
and access, as well as the services and facilities to which the
mandatory fee pertained throughout the Spring 2020 term, yet has
retained monies paid by Plaintiff and the Class for an on-campus
and in-person educational experience and access to these services
and facilities during the entire Spring 2020 term. The Plaintiff
and the members of the Class have therefore been denied the benefit
of their bargain.
In addition, Drexel has been unjustly enriched when it retained the
full benefit of tuition and mandatory fees paid for in-person on
campus education and experiences, and reduced the benefit it
provided and the costs it incurred, says the suit.
Drexel University is a private research university founded in 1891.
It is composed of three campuses in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
area and one in Sacramento, California that offer over 70
undergraduate programs and over 100 master's, doctoral and
professional programs. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
jamisen@lcllp.com
nickc@lcllp.com
- and -
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
Anthony Alesandro, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com
DRIVELINE RETAIL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Beck Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
KIERSTEN BECK; CHRISTINE LYNN BARRETT-BUKOWSKI; BRIDGETTE BOYD;
TIFFANY BRAGG; TRICIA BROOKS;WILLIE JEAN CASHAW; MARTHA CLEARY; AMY
CRAIG; MONTANA CRISS; KAMELA CRUTCHFIELD; JOSHUA CUMMINGS; MELISSA
CUMMINGS; MICHELLE DAILEY; CRYSTAL DARBY; RACHEAL DUNN; MELISSA
DUTTON; SEENA EASTER; STEPHANIE EDWARDS; PATTI EVANS; ROBIN FLOWER;
MARTHA GREENFELD; ANNA GRUBB WAACK; TARA HALL; JACKIE HAYWOOD;
SAUNDRA HEGLER; KELLEY HERCHENHAHN; RACHEL HICKS; MARLA HIX; ALICIA
HOWARD; JORI HUTCHINSON; LORA HYDE; KAYLA JAMES; JOHN JONES;
MELISSA JOSEPH; ANITA JUBIC; AMY KAY KNOPE; SARA KERN; JEN LACROIX;
TONYA LINDSEY; CHEYENNE LUNCEFORD; CHRISTY MANNING; LARA MAST;
MARISSA MICHAELSEN; TIMOTHY MICHELS; ANNA MITCHELL YANCY; SUSAN
NOTTINGHAM; GWENDOLYN NYAMOTI; AIESHA OFFORD; LLOYD PAYTON; MALISSA
PIRTLE; DONALD REIFENSTAHL; ANGIE REVELS; SHERRY ROBERTS; JENNIFER
RODGERS; MICHAEL SAVAGE; MANDY SCOGLIETTI; THERESA STATEN; NANCY
STEVENS; ELLA STRICKLAND; SHYANNA SWANSON; DANA TAYLOR; EDNA
TAYLOR; LINDA TAYLOR; KRISTINA THOMPSON; KALAYA TILLMAN; ROBIN
UHRIG; MELLETA UPSON PLOTTS; KILEE VAUGHN; BINA VAUGHT; JENNIFER
VOLKENANT; KATHERINE WEBB; JERMAINE WEBSTER; KAYLA NICOLE WILLIAMS;
MELISSA WILLIAMS; DANA WORK; and TARA WORKMAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DRIVELINE
RETAIL MERCHANDISING, INC., Defendant, Case No. No. 3:23-cv-3283
(C.D. Il., Sept. 22, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as merchandisers.
DRIVELINE RETAIL MERCHANDISING, INC. was founded in 1976. The
Company's line of business includes providing management consulting
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, Arkansas 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
ENCORE REHABILITATION: Ritterbeck Sues Over Discriminatory Conduct
------------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA RITTERBECK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENCORE REHABILITATION SERVICES,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01908 (N.D. Ohio, September 29,
2023) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Family and Medical
Leave Act including disability discrimination, failure to
accommodate, gender and pregnancy discrimination, and unlawful
interference with FMLA rights.
Ms. Ritterbeck worked as a physical therapist assistant on or about
June 15, 2016, until her termination on or around February 25,
2022.
Encore Rehabilitation Services, LLC is a provider of therapy
services based in Cleveland, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Fred M. Bean, Esq.
THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
25825 Science Park Drive, Suite 200
Beachwood, OH 44122
Telephone: (216) 291-4744
Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
E-mail: Fred. Bean@spitzlawfirm.com
FORD MOTOR: Sued Over Defective 360 Degree Cameras
--------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Ford
class action lawsuit alleges 360-degree camera recalls have done
nothing to prevent the rearview cameras from failing.
The backup camera display screens may be black or blue, or the
360-degree cameras may suffer other glitches.
The Ford 360 camera class action lawsuit was filed by four owners
who contend these vehicles are defective if they are equipped with
360-degree camera systems.
2020-2023 Ford Explorer
2020-2023 Lincoln Aviator
2020-2023 Lincoln Corsair
According to the class action, filed a few weeks after Ford issued
a 360 camera recall, Ford concealed defects in the camera systems
and has known about the defects since at least February 2021.
More than 3,400 backup camera warranty claims were filed with Ford
between April 2018 and August 2023. The backup camera failures
allegedly caused two crashes but no reports of injuries.
Ford 360 Camera Recalls
In September 2021, Ford recalled the Explorer, Lincoln Aviator and
Lincoln Corsair for camera failures. Those same vehicles were
recalled again in January 2023 following 17 minor collisions.
Months later Ford recalled more than 422,000 Ford Explorer, Lincoln
Aviator and Lincoln Corsair vehicles due to problems with the
360-degree rearview cameras.
But in September 2023, another Ford 360 camera recall included
Lincoln Aviator, Lincoln Navigator, Ford Transit and Ford Bronco
vehicles.
In the 360-degree camera recall of September, Ford told regulators
backup camera failures were caused by image processing module
software. However, Ford also said the 360-degree camera screens
could turn black or blue because of problems with the camera
hardware and the wiring retention.
These four plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit assert their 360-degree
rear cameras malfunctioned, and one owner says he replaced his
vehicle.
Travis Corby / California / 2020 Lincoln Aviator
Chad Hobson / Kentucky / 2020 Lincoln Aviator
Allen Davis / Kentucky / 2020 Ford Explorer
Neil Dorfman / Michigan / 2021 Lincoln Corsair
The Ford 360-degree camera class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Southern
Division): Dorfman, et al., v. Ford Motor Company.
The plaintiffs are represented by the Miller Law Firm, P.C., and
McCune Law Group. [GN]
FRESH MARKET: Henchey Sues Over Workplace Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------
SUE HENCHEY, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
female employees, Plaintiffs v. THE FRESH MARKET INC. and MIKE
MIGNOLA, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-07171 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 26,
2023) seeks redress for the Defendants' discriminatory pay
practices, in violation of the Equal Pay Act, the New York Labor
Law, and the New York State Human Rights Law.
Throughout her employment with the Defendants, Ms. Henchey worked
as a store manager at The Fresh Market store located at 138 E. Main
Street, Smithtown, NY. Plaintiff worked for Defendants from
December 2015 until her termination on or about August 21, 2023.
For that entire time, the Plaintiff suffered discrimination in pay
as a result of gender, in violation of the EPA, the NYLL, and the
NYSHRL. Among other things, the Defendants allegedly pay women
thousands of dollars less men for doing the same work and that
Defendant Mike Mignola treated women differently than similarly
situated men. Less than a month after Ms. Henchey complained to
Human Resources of Defendant Mignola's discriminatory conduct, she
was terminated, asserts the suit.
Headquartered in Greensboro, NC, the Fresh Market owns and operates
a chain of supermarkets. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amit Kumar, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
108 West 39th Street, Ste. 602
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 583-7400
E-mail: AKumar@CafaroEsq.com
GILEAD SCIENCES: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Remdesivir Drug
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Durden, writing for ZeroHedge, reports that the company that
manufactures remdesivir, used across the United States to treat
COVID-19, has been hit with a class-action lawsuit over allegations
it deceptively promoted the drug without disclosing possible side
effects.
Two California residents, one of whom is a relative of a person who
died after receiving remdesivir, lodged the suit against Gilead
Sciences in Shasta County on Sept. 26.
Deborah Fust, the surviving spouse of Michael Fust, and Edward
Pimentel, who says he was injured after receiving remdesivir, are
accusing California-based Gilead of failing to mention documented
side effects in its promotion of remdesivir.
"It's a terrible drug. The nonprofit has thousands of members who
have the hospital records, and you can see there's a big difference
in the creatinine levels and the blood levels, kidney readings
after they get the remdesivir," Bradford Geyer, an attorney with
Former Feds Group who is representing the plaintiffs, told The
Epoch Times.
The FormerFedsGroup Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit, has compiled
some of the cases on its website.
The suit says that Gilead's press releases and statements to
consumers and investigators from Gilead show "a pattern of
downplaying or omitting altogether the clinical dangers experienced
by patients from remdesivir use, instead emphasizing its supposed
benefits, safety, and efficacy."
For example, a website for the drug, also known as veklury, makes
no mention of kidney problems. A handout (pdf) given to patients
also does not mention the issues.
"Defendant's advertising that remdesivir is a safe and effective
treatment for COVID-19 is false and misleading to a reasonable
consumer, including plaintiffs, because defendant in fact knew or
should have known, based upon prior studies and data on remdesivir,
that it was unsafe and posed a high risk of severe adverse effects
and death to plaintiffs and the class," the suit states.
The advertising "misrepresented and/or omitted the true content and
nature of the drug," it also says.
Gilead did not respond to a request for comment.
Plaintiffs are seeking class status, which would enable two groups
of people to join the suit. They are people who received remdesivir
while hospitalized with COVID-19 and suffered serious injuries as a
result, and people whose loved ones died after receiving remdesivir
after being hospitalized with COVID-19.
Early FDA Authorization
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted emergency
authorization to Gilead for remdesivir in May 2020, primarily based
on results from a government-sponsored trial in which researchers
changed the endpoint midway. Critics said the change was done in
order to garner positive results. The trial found remdesivir
quickened recovery time from COVID-19.
The agency made the move without consulting its advisory committee
on antimicrobial drugs.
The FDA approved remdesivir in October 2020 and expanded its
allowable use to outpatient settings and children.
Soon after, a large trial run by the World Health Organization
found remdesivir did not quicken recovery time or reduce mortality.
The group recommended against using remdesivir in hospitalized
patients, which ran counter to the recommendation in the United
States.
Animal studies found indications that remdesivir injured the
kidney. The U.S. trial found kidney injuries among remdesivir
recipients, including in three patients who were forced to stop
taking the drug.
Other studies, as well as post-approval data, have also raised
safety and effectiveness concerns.
Researchers reviewing reports to VigiBase, a World Health
Organization database, for instance, found reports of kidney
injuries after remdesivir were far higher than reports of kidney
injuries after other COVID-19 treatments.
Before receiving remdesivir, American patients are instructed (pdf)
by the FDA to disclose all of their medical conditions, including
kidney problems.
Gilead, while promoting remdesivir, needed to disclose the risk of
kidney injuries, according to the new suit.
By not doing so, the company allegedly violated California laws
against using deceptive practices and making untrue or misleading
statements.
Gilead also made negligent misrepresentations, resulting in unjust
enrichment, the suit says.
Plaintiffs are seeking an order establishing a class, an order
preventing Gilead from engaging in "unfair, unlawful, and deceptive
business practices, and false advertising," an order forcing Gilead
to correct its previous advertisements, an order ordering Gilead to
recall and destroy misleading and deceptive advertising materials,
an order requiring Gilead to pay back money obtained by the
allegedly violative actions, and an order compelling Gilead to pay
restitution and interest.
Plaintiffs also want damages.
Follows Michigan Ruling
The new suit comes after a court in Michigan ruled that remdesivir
was not protected under federal law against an action brought by a
man who needed his leg amputated after receiving remdesivir.
The man, Don Nowacki, also suffered two strokes.
The remdesivir he received was said to be contaminated with glass
particles.
Gilead argued that it could not be sued because of immunity granted
by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, which was
triggered by the Trump administration during the COVID-19
pandemic.
The judge rejected that argument, finding the act did not cover the
manufacturer in the situation.
Mr. Nowacki and his lawyers are now poised to receive discovery,
with a trial coming later.
"One of the things that we're going to figure out is exactly what
Gilead, the FDA, and the hospital knew and when," Ven Johnson, one
of the lawyers, told The Epoch Times. "How did glass particles that
could cause strokes and death in people get into this medication?
Why aren't these people approaching us to get our client's medical
records to understand what happened?" [GN]
GMRI INC: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Benitez Suit to 9th Cir
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GMRI, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying
their motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Rafael
Benitez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. GMRI, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-02031-L-JLB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Diego, to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California, alleges violations
of the California Labor Code and the California Business and
Professions Code for failure to provide meal periods, failure to
authorize and permit rest periods, failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements and maintain required records, failure to
pay all wages upon termination of employment, and unfair business
practices.
On Dec. 28, 2022, GMRI filed a motion to compel arbitration and
dismiss or strike class allegations, which the Court denied through
an Order entered by Judge M. James Lorenz on Aug. 24, 2023. The
Court held that the Dispute Resolution Process (DRP) delegation
clause is unenforceable as procedurally and substantively
unconscionable. The Defendant's motion to compel arbitration was,
therefore, denied.
The appellate case is captioned Rafael Benitez v. GMRI Inc., et
al., Case No. 23-55796, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on September 20, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant GMRI Inc. Mediation Questionnaire was due on
September 27, 2023;
-- Appellant GMRI Inc. opening brief is due on November 20,
2023;
-- Appellee Rafael Ramos Benitez answering brief is due on
December 20, 2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee RAFAEL RAMOS BENITEZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Thomas Stephen Campbell, Esq.
Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC
22760 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 200
Torrance, CA 90505
Telephone: (310) 961-9600
Defendants-Appellants GMRI INC., et al. are represented by:
Julie Dunne, Esq.
Matthew Riley, Esq.
DLA PIPER, LLP (US)
4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (858) 677-1400
GORILLAS TECHNOLOGIES: Vargas Sues Over Supervisors' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADOLFO VARGAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GORILLAS TECHNOLOGIES US INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-08622 (S.D.N.Y., September 30, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide annual wage notice and periodic
wage statements, and retaliation.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an operations associate
and was later promoted to supervisor in New York from around
November 2021 to February 2023.
Gorillas Technologies US Inc. is a company that owns and operates a
grocery delivery service doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 3rd Avenue, Suite 1810,
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (718) 669-0714
E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com
HEALTH CARE: Faces Stroud Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALTHEA STROUD, AMBER STOER, HEATHER SHAFFER, and THIDA MACKINNON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-14309 (N.D. Ill., September 29, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to pay for all hours worked
including overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act, and for common law claims of breach of contract and
unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as customer service
representatives (CSRs) within the last two years.
Health Care Service Corporation is a mutual legal reserve company,
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Oscar Rodriguez, Esq.
HOOPER HATHAWAY, P.C.
126 S. Main St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Telephone: (734) 662-4426
Facsimile: (734) 662-9559
E-mail: orod@hooperhathaway.com
- and -
Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
ASH LAW, PLLC
402 W. Liberty St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Telephone: (734) 234-5583
E-mail: cash@nationalwagelaw.com
- and -
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
55 E. Monroe St., Suite 3800
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (954) WORKERS
Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Dunn, Valentine Sue Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
CATHERINE DUNN and DAVE VALENTINE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL
INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00607-MOC-DCK (W.D.N.C., Sept.
25, 2023) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure
and safeguard Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated individuals'
personally identifiable information, which was reportedly accessed
by unauthorized party on May 27, 2023.
Based on the Notice, unusual activity was detected on some of its
computer systems in early June of 2023. Yet, Honeywell waited over
three months from the time it discovered the Data Breach to notify
the public that they were at risk. On or about September 13, 2023,
Honeywell filed official notice of a hacking incident with the
Office of the Maine Attorney General. As a result of this delayed
response, Plaintiffs and Class Members had no idea for over three
months that their Private Information had been compromised, and
that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity
theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial
harm, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs seek to remedy these harms on behalf of themselves
and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information
was accessed and compromised during the Data Breach. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs assert claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach
of contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and
declaratory judgment.
Honeywell, based in Charlotte, NC, is a software-industrial and
manufacturing company that develops technology solutions for
sophisticated businesses. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Dana Smith, Esq.
Mason Barney, Esq.
Tyler Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: dsmith@sirillp.com
mbarney@sirillp.com
tbean@sirillp.com
INARI MEDICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Huitron Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
BEATRIZ HUITRON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INARI MEDICAL, INC.; and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2023-01350866-CU-OE-CXC (Cal.
Sup., Orange Cty., Sept. 25, 2023) is an action against the
Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages,
wages for missed meal and rest periods.
Plaintiff Huitron was employed by the Defendants as an assembler.
INARI MEDICAL, INC. is a medical device company focused on
developing products to treat patients suffering from Chronic Venous
Disease. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jamie Serb, Esq.
Brandon Brouillette, Esq
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, PC
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (866) 276-7637
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
Email: jamie@crosnerlegal.com
bbrouillette@crosnerlegal.com
zach@crosnerlegal.com
INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Ivy Sues Over Tip Credit, Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
TAMIKA IVY, individually and on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v.
INTER-CONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP (JAPAN) INC, INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS
GROUP RESOURCES, LLC and, VALOR HOSPITALITY PARTNERS, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02609 (W.D. Tenn., Sept. 26, 2023)
arises out of the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Tamika Ivy has been employed by Defendants as an
hourly-paid tipped employee at Defendants' Holiday Inn
Memphis-University of Memphis at 3700 Central Avenue in Memphis,
TN. She claims that the Defendants have carried out their common
practice of reducing their labor cost by inducing and forcing their
banquet hall managers to require, direct, encourage, entice and/or,
suffer and permit, her and other employees to, among other things,
perform maintenance, kitchen and set-up/tear-down (dual
occupation), non-tip producing tasks for extended periods of time
during their shifts while clocked-in to Defendants' time keeping
system as tipped employees at a "tip credit" wage rate.
Intercontinental Hotels Group Resources, LLC, is a Delaware Limited
Liability Company and one of the world's leading hotel companies.
Intercontinental Hotels Group Resources, LLC, franchisees, manages,
owns, oversees and/or operates such hotel brands as Holiday Inn,
Crowne Plaza, Candlewood Suites, Intercontinental Hotels,
Staybridge Suites, throughout the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
jleatherwood@jsyc.com
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Faces Suit Over August 2023 Cyberattack
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown of Bloomberg Law reports that IBM Corp. and
Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems Inc. failed to protect the
personal information of thousands of people that was exposed in an
August data breach, a proposed federal class action said.
Elaine Malinowski alleged that IBM and Johnson & Johnson failed to
encrypt their data or follow industry data-security standards or
those required under the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act.
Information exposed in the breach included full names, contact
information, and information about medications and associated
conditions, according to a complaint filed Sept. 22 in the US
District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN]
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Carrigan Sues Over Mislabeled Decongestants
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES CARRIGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; THE PROCTER & GAMBLE
COMPANY; and WALGREEN CO., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01481 (W.D.
Wa., Sept. 22, 2023) alleges that the Defendants mislabeled its
over-the counter drugs containing phenylephrine ("PE").
According to the complaint, the Defendants' PE Drugs are marketed
by the Defendants as effective for treating indications identified
on the label, most often nasal congestion. Defendants represented
that their PE Drugs were properly branded and effective for
treating the indications identified, including, inter alia,
treating nasal congestion.
These representations were false, as Defendants' PE Drugs were not
effective for treating all the indications identified and/or were
misbranded. Reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff, have suffered an
ascertainable loss of money, measured by the difference between the
price paid for a properly branded product that effectively treated
nasal congestion and the lower market value of a product that was
misbranded and/or failed to effectively treat nasal congestion. As
a result of Defendants' illegal conduct, the purchase price of the
PE Drugs was greater than their objective market value, says the
suit.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON manufactures health care products and provides
related services for the consumer, pharmaceutical, and medical
devices and diagnostics markets. The Company sells products such as
skin and hair care products, acetaminophen products,
pharmaceuticals, diagnostic equipment, and surgical equipment in
countries located around the world. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian Ku, Esq.
KU & MUSSMAN, P.A.
14040 168th Ave. NE
Woodinville, WA 98072
Telephone: (305) 891-1322
Facsimile: (954) 686-3976
Email: brian@kumussman.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Suit Over August 2023 Cyberattack
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown of Bloomberg Law reports that IBM Corp. and
Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems Inc. failed to protect the
personal information of thousands of people that was exposed in an
August data breach, a proposed federal class action said.
Elaine Malinowski alleged that IBM and Johnson & Johnson failed to
encrypt their data or follow industry data-security standards or
those required under the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act.
Information exposed in the breach included full names, contact
information, and information about medications and associated
conditions, according to a complaint filed Sept. 22 in the US
District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN]
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Joyner Suit Over Ineffective Decongestants
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Irvin Jackson of AboutLawsuits.com reports that another major drug
manufacturer faces a class action lawsuit in the wake of a
scientific panel's determination that the nasal decongestant used
in Tylenol Sinus and similar cold medications does not work, and
never has.
The complaint was filed by Pamela Joyner in New Jersey federal
court on September 21, targeting Tylenol Sinus and its
manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. It is the second
such decongestant class action lawsuit filed in less than a week,
following findings issued by U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) advisors, which determined that the decongestant
phenylephrine is no better than a placebo.
The lawsuits come after an FDA advisory committee determined that
the decongestant phenylephrine is ineffective when taken orally,
even though it has been on the market for decades and is found in a
number of popular products, including Tylenol Sinus, Mucinex,
Nyquil and Sudafed tablets and liquids.
The FDA is now considering whether it will allow the drugs to
remain on the market, which may have far ranging effects on the
over-the-counter cold medication industry. However, consumer class
action lawsuits seek to recover profits that drug manufacturers
have generated from selling useless medications for decades.
Joyner's lawsuit indicates she purchased Tylenol Sinus Severe
Daytime Caplets from a local CVS Pharmacy. When she took the drugs,
her decongestion did not improve.
The lawsuit claims that she and other consumers would not have
purchased the drugs, and would not have paid premium cold
medication prices for them, had they known the nasal decongestant
the drugs advertised did not actually work.
Her complaint, which seeks class action status for all of those who
have purchased Tylenol Sinus medications, indicates that drugs like
it generated almost $2 billion in sales in 2022, with more than 242
million packages or bottles of medications containing the drug sold
that year.
"These Drugs are designed to combat sinus issues, such as
congestion, among other things. Unfortunately, the Drugs do not,"
Joyner's lawsuit notes. "In fact, the Drugs are ineffective
according to the FDA, this is due to their active ingredient being
phenylephrine."
The lawsuit notes that phenylephrine-containing products, which
have been on the market for decades, rose to prominence about 15
years ago, when pharmacies began restricting and moving medications
containing the decongestant pseudoephedrine behind the counter and
into locked cabinets, since that ingredient is frequently used in
illegal meth manufacturing operations.
As a result of restrictions on pseudoephedrine, the number of
tablets that can be purchased at one time is capped, and consumers
must be 18 years or older and show ID. Therefore, most common
over-the-counter products marketed in recent years contain the
decongestant phenylephrine, which may not have provided any actual
benefit for consumers.
The pharmaceutical industry has called for the FDA to leave the
products on shelves, predicting massive disruption in the supply
chain, and increasing prices, if the manufacturers have to
reformulate the products. [GN]
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Calhoun Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK CALHOUN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 0:23-cv-61833-AHS (S.D. Fla., Sept. 25, 2023)
is a class action against Defendant for its failure to properly
secure and safeguard personally identifiable and health information
of Plaintiff and the Class members, including, without limitation:
names, dates of birth, home addresses, phone numbers, and
information about medications and associated health conditions.
According to the complaint, by obtaining, collecting, using, and
deriving a benefit from the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII,
Defendant assumed non-delegable legal and equitable duties to the
Plaintiff and the Class members.
The Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII was compromised due to
the Defendant's negligent acts and omissions and the failure to
protect Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII. Plaintiff and Class
Members continue to be at significant risk of identity theft and
various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. The
risk will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the suit.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS INC. (JJHCS) provides
contracting, supply chain, and business support services. The
Company offers strategic management of customer data, logistics
analytics, contracting and supply chain systems management, and
administrative services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl 33301
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
- and -
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street Suite 1744
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 907-1136
MARLOU CORPORATION: Wheeler Seeks Exotic Dancers' Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA WHEELER and KARISSA ANN HUGH, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MARLOU CORPORATION
d/b/a CLUB PLATINUM, and RITA CAPOVILLA, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-01556 (D. Nev., September 29, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages and
unlawful retention of tips and kickbacks in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Nevada Constitution.
Plaintiffs Wheeler and Hugh worked as exotic dancers at Club
Platinum, located at 311 E. Flamingo Rd., Las Vegas, Nevada from
approximately 2018 to 2022 and from October through December 2021,
respectively.
Marlou Corporation is the owner and operator of the Club Platinum,
located at 311 E. Flamingo Rd., Las Vegas, Nevada. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kristina L. Hillman, Esq.
Sean W. McDonald, Esq.
WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD
3199 E. Warm Springs Rd., Ste. 400
Las Vegas, NV 89120
Telephone: (702) 508-9282
Facsimile: (510) 337-1023
E-mail: nevadacourtnotices@unioncounsel.net
khillman@unioncounsel.net
smcdonald@unioncounsel.net
- and -
Matthew Thomson, Esq.
Adelaide H. Pagano, Esq.
Mel Gonzalez, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: mthomson@llrlaw.com
apagano@llrlaw.com
mgonzalez@llrlaw.com
MEDIBANK PRIVATE: Faces Class Action Over Cyber-Hacking Incident
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Kruger, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
Medibank is applying to the Federal Court to stop a representative
complaint to the privacy commissioner that could affect
compensation for the millions of victims of last year's
cyber-hacking incident.
Medibank said Justice Jonathan Beach, who is dealing with a class
action filed by Baker and McKenzie, had directed it to take action
against the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner to
avoid multiple proceedings taking place at the same time.
Beach made similar directions in relation to the Optus cyberattack,
telling the court: "I'm not going to allow duplicative processes to
take place in two different locations."
In October last year, criminals accessed basic account details of
9.7 million current and former Medibank customers as well as the
health claims data for about 160,000 Medibank customers, 300,000
customers of its budget arm ahm and 20,000 international customers.
It was one of the worst cyberbreaches ever reported.
The representative complaint seeks to use the Privacy Act to get
compensation for these victims if an OAIC investigation finds
Medibank's cyberprotection was inadequate. The Federal Court class
action is pursuing compensation for victims under common law.
A Medibank spokeswoman said: "That application seeks to resolve the
unique problem of multiple overlapping proceedings, being the class
action in the Federal Court of Australia and the representative
complaint filed with the OAIC, both of which are brought on behalf
of consumers."
Medibank says its application does not seek to prevent the
commission, headed by Angelene Falk, from continuing its own
investigation into the hack and potentially extracting
multimillion-dollar fines if the company's cyber preparation was
found to have been lacking.
"The application seeks orders for the commissioner to be restrained
from proceeding with the investigation into the representative
complaint lodged by (law firm) Maurice Blackburn, and from making
or enforcing a determination under the Privacy Act, in
circumstances where the overlapping matters are being addressed in
the consumer class action in the Federal Court," the Medibank
spokeswoman said.
Maurice Blackburn said a successful action against its
representative complaint would affect the sort of compensation
victims might receive in a successful action under the Privacy
Act.
Under the act, if the commissioner decides that compensation should
be awarded, it can specifically compensate people for humiliation
and distress. This would be much harder under a class action, which
deals more with economic loss. A claimant who had intensely private
medical information released might not be eligible for
compensation.
Maurice Blackburn partner Lizzie O'Shea said: "Critically for the
representative complainant, what that means is not being able to
make a determination that that compensation be payable, for
example, or any kind of remedy for the representative complainant.
"And that includes for feelings of distress and hurt feelings,
which is an important provision, because in the common law, it's
not clear that that capacity to award damages on that basis exists.
Under the Privacy Act, it does."
The OAIC will be defending the complaint, along with Maurice
Blackburn, when it goes before the Federal Court in December.
"The matter is set to appear before the court and the OAIC will
respond," a spokesman said.
"The OAIC continues to proceed with its own commissioner-initiated
investigation into the personal information handing practices of
Medibank in relation to its notifiable data breach."
The privacy commissioner is well advanced with its investigation
into the Medibank cyber breach and it is expected to be finalised
in the coming months. [GN]
META MATERIALS: N.Y. Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Meta Materials Inc. (the "Company" or "META") (Nasdaq: MMAT), a
global leader in advanced materials and nanotechnology, on Oct. 2
announced the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York has granted the Company's motion to dismiss the securities
class action lawsuit previously disclosed. The court ruled that the
complaint fails to plead any false statements, material omissions,
or a strong inference of fraudulent intent by META or the other
named defendants. The court's order dismisses all claims against
all defendants, including META.
The lawsuit, initially filed in January 2022, consolidated two
separate class action lawsuits primarily stemming from a
short-seller report and statements related to META's business and
its proposed combination with Torchlight Energy Resources, Inc. The
court's decision dismisses these allegations.
"We appreciate the court's thorough examination of the complaint
and the Company's motion. Our priority remains serving our
shareholders and continuing our work in the field of advanced
materials and nanotechnology towards developing solutions that make
a difference in people's lives." said George Palikaras, President
and CEO of Meta Materials. "We are deeply appreciative of the
trust, patience and support our shareholders, customers and
partners have demonstrated throughout this process."
The court has not yet entered a judgment in favor of the
defendants. Plaintiff might seek leave from the court to file an
amended complaint and/or appeal the court's decision. Investors and
shareholders can access a copy with further details in the
Company's Form 8-K, which the Company filed with the SEC on October
2, 2023. [GN]
MGM RESORTS: Faces Class Action Suit in Nevada Over Cyberattack
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Jones of Cybersecurity Dive reports that MGM Resorts is
facing class action litigation in two separate lawsuits filed in
U.S. District Court in Nevada in connection with the cyberattack
launched against the company earlier this month.
The suits, filed September 21, 2023, allege the company was
negligent and gained unjust enrichment for failing to protect the
personal data of MGM Resorts customers from the alleged social
engineering attack.
The plaintiffs separately claim MGM should have been aware of the
risk of attack because of prior warnings by Okta that it had been
repeatedly targeted for social engineering attacks and failed to
take steps necessary to protect customer data.
MGM Resorts on September 20, 2023 said hotel and casino operations
were back to normal, after more than 10 days of disruption to the
company's casino, reservations system, digital room keys, payments
and other operational issues.
While MGM Resorts restored operations, providing a list of a
frequently asked questions, the company is still experiencing
lingering concerns. MGM told guests to monitor their MGM Rewards
Mastercard account for any potential fraud.
Security researchers linked threat groups Scattered Spider and
AlphV/BlackCat to the MGM Resorts attack, saying the groups may
have worked together. One group may have used the ransomware as a
service infrastructure of the other group to carry out the attacks,
researchers said.
AlphV/BlackCat previously claimed to have gained super
administrator privileges in the Okta environment inside MGM Resorts
and global administrator privileges inside the Azure tenant at the
company.
The hackers also claimed to have launched ransomware attacks
against 100 of the company's ESXi hypervisors.
MGM Resorts previously disclosed a cyber incident in a filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, but has not responded to a
request for comment about the litigation.
The FBI said it is investigating and the Cybersecurity and
Infrastructure Security Agency confirmed it was assisting in the
response. Okta also confirmed it was helping MGM Resorts respond to
the attack, but denied its environment was compromised by the
attack.
The Federal Trade Commission declined to comment regarding whether
it has received any complaints or is investigating MGM Resorts over
its data security practices. A spokesperson said the agency does
not generally comment on any current or potential investigations.
MGM Resorts is no stranger to cyberattacks -- the company was
targeted in 2019 by hackers who stole the personal data of more
than 10.6 million guests and posted that information online in
2020.
The Nevada Gaming Control Board earlier this month said it was
monitoring the current situation along with Gov. Joe Lombardo.
Earlier this month Caesars Entertainment disclosed it was hacked in
a social media attack that led to the theft of its rewards member
database. [GN]
MID-ATLANTIC YOUTH: Fails to Protect Juveniles in Custody
---------------------------------------------------------
FRIDAY BUTCHER; ZAHIR MARTIN; and CARLOS VAZQUEZ, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
MID-ATLANTIC YOUTH SERVICES CORP.; MR. FRAZIER; MS. CONWAY; XAVIER
FELDMAN; LATI WOODRUFF; SHAWN COLEMAN; MR. JEFF S.; MS. MAYWEATHER;
MR. INES; MR. GERADI; MR. MIKE; MR. TORRES; TONY SANDRELLI; MR.
DYDICT; and GEO GROUP, INC; JOHN/JANE DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case
No. 5:23-cv-03706 (E.D. PA., Sept. 22, 2023) seeks to hold
Mid-Atlantic accountable for the harm it caused to juveniles in
custody, and to prevent the devastating abuse from happening to any
other child in Mid-Atlantic care.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that instead of fulfilling
its promise and solemn responsibility to protect the vulnerable
youth, they were exposed to predators and abusers. Mid-Atlantic
failed to enact safety measures and other policies to protect the
children, failed to adequately screen, hire, train, and supervise
staff, and failed to fulfill its duties under state and federal law
and as a result of the Defendant's misconduct, children in
Mid-Atlantic facilities have been reportedly sexually abused –
often by Mid-Atlantic staff.
MID-ATLANTIC YOUTH SERVICES CORP. operate facilities where
juveniles are held in custody in Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Wesley Cornish, Esq.
CORNERSTONE LEGAL GROUP, LLC
230 South Broad Street, 17th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (888) 313-1385
Email: cornerstonelegalgroup@gmail.com
- and –
Brent Wieand, Esq.
WIEAND LAW FIRM, LLC
230 South Broad Street, 17th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 666-7777
Email: bwieand@wieandlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Must Face Antitrust Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Kyle J. Scandore, Esq., of McLane Middleton, in an article for
Mondaq, disclosed that a federal district court judge granted
class-action status to the plaintiffs in an antitrust lawsuit
against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and
major college conferences. In House v. NCAA, the plaintiffs,
including former college athletes Grant House, Sedona Prince, and
Tymir Oliver, are pursuing an antitrust action seeking compensation
in the form of backpay. The Plaintiffs argue that they were
deprived of the commercial use of their name, image, and likeness
due to NCAA amateurism regulations before July 1, 2021.
The plaintiffs claim the NCAA and its member institutions
restrained the market for collegiate student-athletes' use of their
name, image, and likeness (NIL) while simultaneously profiting from
the use of collegiate student-athletes' NIL through media rights
and sponsorship deals that generated billions of dollars. The
plaintiffs in this class action lawsuit also challenge the NCAA's
current NIL regulations, even as the NCAA has removed many
restrictions on student-athlete compensations since July 2021. The
complaint argues the NCAA has not suspended enforcement of certain
aspects of its NIL restraints, including prohibiting NCAA member
institutions and athletic conferences from compensating
student-athletes for using their NIL and restricting NIL
compensation from being tied to athletic performance or enrollment
at a specific school. The plaintiffs assert that all of these NCAA
NIL restraints are unreasonable and unjustified.
The NCAA maintains its stance that NIL payments to athletes should
not be used as a recruiting inducement or pay-for-play, and
announced that while it expected the judge's ruling to grant class
action status to the lawsuit, the NCAA affirmed its commitment to
defending its rules in court.
The evolving landscape of NIL regulations has created a sense of
chaos and prompted not only the NCAA, but also conferences and
schools to lobby Congress for legislative intervention to establish
a more consistent framework for NIL activities in collegiate
athletics. The ongoing legal battle and the potential outcomes of
this lawsuit will play a significant role in shaping the future of
NIL compensation and the NCAA's regulatory authority over NIL. [GN]
NEW YORK TIMES: Objection of Settlement Award Class Suit Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Record Staff reports that an objector appeals from the
approval of a settlement award, attorneys' fee award, and an
incentive award in a class action. The plaintiff had alleged that
the defendant violated California's Automatic Renewal Law by
automatically renewing subscriptions without providing the
disclosures and authorizations required by that law.
The Second Circuit vacated and remanded. The court held that the
district court applied the wrong legal standard when approving the
settlement. The Second Circuit further held that Rule 23(e)(2)’s
procedural factors prohibit courts from applying a presumption of
fairness to proposed settlements arising from an arms-length
agreement. The court also held that the error was not harmless as
the attorneys' fees amounted to 76% of the Settlement Fund, which
is interetwined with the settlement.
Frederick J. Klorcyk III, of Bursor & Fisher, for the
plaintiff-appellee; Kristen C. Rodriguez, of Dentons US, for the
defendant-appellee; Eric Alan Isaacson for the objector-appellant.
[GN]
OTTAWA COUNTY, MI: Burnside Files Suit in W.D. Michigan
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against County of Ottawa. The
case is styled as Darcy Lynn Burnside, on behalf of herself and all
those similarly situated trustee of Non-Martial Assets Trust v.
County of Ottawa, Case No. 1:23-cv-00930-PLM-PJG (W.D. Mich., Sept.
1, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil
Rights Act.
Ottawa County -- https://www.miottawa.org/ -- is a county located
in the U.S. state of Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas W. Eyre, Esq.
MILLER CANFIELD PADDOCK & STONE PLC (DETROIT)
150 W Jefferson Ave., Ste. 2500
Detroit, MI 48226-4415
Phone: (248) 373-3700
Fax: (248) 373-3708
Email: dweyre@mcalpinepc.com
- and -
Mark L. McAlpine, Esq.
MCALPINE PC
3201 University Dr., Ste. 200
Auburn Hills, MI 48326
Phone: (248) 373-3700
Email: mlmcalpine@mcalpinepc.com
- and -
Scott Fenton Smith, Esq.
SMITH LAW GROUP
30833 Northwestern Hwy., Ste. 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
Phone: (248) 626-1962
Email: smithsf.law@gmail.com
- and -
Roger G. Cotner, Esq.
COTNER LAW OFFICES
PO Box 838
Grand Haven, MI 49417-0838
Phone: (616) 846-7153
Fax: (616) 846-5368
Email: roger@cotnerlaw.us
PALISADES IMPORTS: Underpays Maintenance Workers, Schanker Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN SCHANKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PALISADES IMPORTS LLC d/b/a NISSAN OF GARDEN
CITY, and GPB 5 LLC, d/b/a NISSAN OF GARDEN CITY, Defendants, Case
No. 2:23-cv-07307 (E.D.N.Y., September 29, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure to
pay on a weekly basis.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a porter and
maintenance worker at their principal place of business located at
316 North Franklin Street, Hempstead, New York from on or about
September 11, 2011, through in or around February 2022.
Palisades Imports LLC, doing business as Nissan of Garden City, is
a company that operates several car dealerships, headquartered in
Hempstead, New York.
GPB 5 LLC, doing business as Nissan of Garden City, is a company
that operates several car dealerships, headquartered in Hempstead,
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq.
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
PAN PACIFIC: Court Partially Grants Class Cert. in Breach Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Young, Esq., Kristen Shaw, Esq., and Claire Wanhella, Esq., of
McMillan LLP, in an article for Mondaq, disclosed that class
actions certifications in British Columbia have continued to surge
for consumer claims arising from product liability, privacy
breaches, misleading advertising, and price-fixing competition
claims. However, employment-based class actions were thought to be
unlikely to be brought or successfully certified. While the
judicial landscape continues to evolve, for now employment-based
class actions appear to be making headway.
In the ongoing litigation started by a group of hourly employees of
Pan Pacific Hotel, a part of the Ocean Pacific Hotels Group ("Ocean
Pacific") seeking certification, the tide appears to have
turned.[1] The employees initiated a putative class action in
connection with alleged misrepresentation and a breach of the duty
of honesty arising out of reduced work hours during the COVID-19
pandemic. While certification was granted, the court did not accept
every claim initially advanced by the plaintiffs.
Background
In July 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, Ocean Pacific presented
156 regular hourly employees with employment agreements to
transition them to casual employment status (the "Casual
Agreement"). This shift meant relinquishing certain benefits, such
as termination pay entitlements. However, the plaintiffs allege
that Ocean Pacific assured them that extended health benefits,
typically unavailable to casual employees, would be continued
through Manulife's insurance plan, subject to the plan's terms and
conditions and Manulife's approval. Of the 156 employees offered
casual employment, 93 accepted.
Follow this, most of these employees had their extended health
benefits terminated on January 2, 2021. The plaintiffs allege that
Ocean Pacific breached the Casual Agreement (or an implied term),
or alternatively, failed to fulfill its obligations under the
agreement in good faith. Additionally, the plaintiffs assert that
Ocean Pacific fraudulently misrepresented its commitment to
maintaining extended health benefits for those who signed the
Casual Agreement.
Procedural History
The certification application was initially heard on April 20 and
21, 2022 but the court rejected it for failing to sufficiently
plead the material facts essential to support the elements of the
causes of action, as required by s. 4(1)(a) of the Class Proceeding
Act ("CPA"). In response, the plaintiffs' legal representatives
attempted "verbal" amendments to the proposed notice of civil
claim, but these were deemed vague, ambiguous, and insufficient to
consider certifying the class action.
The plaintiffs subsequently amended their claim and sought
permission to file an amended claim, taking the position that they
had satisfied s. 4(1) of the CPA, and thus, a certification order
should be granted. Ocean Pacific, conversely, maintained that the
proposed amended claim still failed to adequately plead the
necessary material facts to support the alleged causes of action
and correctly articulate the causes of action. Ocean Pacific
contended that the proposed amended claim was seriously flawed, the
class was overly broad, and individual issues overshadowed common
issues, rendering a class proceeding inappropriate and the
certification application should be dismissed in its entirety.
Analysis
The plaintiffs argued that Ocean Pacific had a duty to take
reasonable steps to seek continued approval from Manulife to
continue extended health benefits for class members, or
alternatively take reasonable steps pursuant to its obligation to
act in good faith in performance of its obligations in the Casual
Agreements. The plaintiffs also argued that, as a bare minimum,
Ocean Pacific has a duty to ask Manulife to continue its approval
of Class members' benefit coverage beyond January 2, 2021.
They further contended that Ocean Pacific breached the duty of
honest performance by intentionally withholding vital information
about the Casual Agreements and the continuation of extended health
benefits, misleading class members about the true nature of their
benefits and the temporary nature of the grace period and failing
to take reasonable steps to extend this grace period for as long as
it could. The plaintiffs also alleged fraudulent misrepresentation,
citing an Ocean Pacific representative's statement that no changes
to existing policies were anticipated, which, according to the
plaintiffs, constituted a false representation. Finally, the
plaintiffs sought punitive damages on the basis that Ocean
Pacific's conduct was characterized as "high-handed, reckless,
callous, willful, reprehensible, and entirely without care for
Class members' precarious position in a sector hard-hit by
COVID-19."
Breach of Contract
When interpreting a contract without ambiguity in its language, the
parties' intention is determined objectively based on the plain and
ordinary meaning of the contract's words. The court was satisfied
that there was no express contractual term within the Casual
Agreement that obligated Ocean Pacific to seek Manulife's approval
for extended health coverage. Ocean Pacific argued that an implied
term cannot contradict an express term of the contract. The
proposed amended NOCC provided material facts capable of
establishing the implied term, which was not inconsistent with the
Casual Agreement's express terms. Therefore, the court found that
the plea that there was an implied term that Ocean Pacific had a
duty to request that Manulife consider extending the coverage of
the extended health benefits for employees covered by the Casual
Agreement after January 2, 2021, was not bound to fail.
Breach of the Duty of Good Faith Contractual Performance
The duty to exercise contractual discretion in good faith arises
when discretion exists for either party, and requires the parties
to exercise their discretion consistently with the purpose that it
was conferred. The plaintiffs did not plead any material facts
necessary to establish that Ocean Pacific had the contractual
discretion under the Casual Agreement to ask Manulife to continue
its approval of the extended health benefit covered for employees
covered by the Casual Agreements. Since the core of the plaintiffs'
case was that Ocean Pacific was obligated to seek another extension
of the grace period, which conflicted with a pleading of discretion
regarding seeking an extension, the cause of action alleging Ocean
Pacific's duty to exercise contractual discretion in good faith was
deemed to be bound to fail.
Breach of the Duty of Honest Performance
The plaintiffs claimed that Ocean Pacific intentionally withheld
information regarding the value of the Casual Agreements, leading
class members to accept these agreements and give up their right to
severance pay under false pretenses about the continuation of
extended health benefits. To establish a breach of the duty of
honest performance, the plaintiffs must plead material facts
demonstrating that the defendant lied or knowingly misled the
plaintiffs about a matter directly linked to contract performance.
This can include omissions or other misleading behaviors, such as
half-truths or even silence. Given the plaintiffs' assertion that
the employment agreement and the Casual Agreement should be
considered collectively, implying an existing employer-employee
contractual relationship, within which Ocean Pacific intentionally
and dishonestly concealed important information about the Casual
Agreements to induce acceptance, this claim was considered novel
but not bound to fail.
Fraudulent Misrepresentation
A representative of Ocean Pacific wrote in an email regarding the
Casual Agreements that Ocean Pacific did not currently anticipate
any changes to their existing policies. A claim for fraudulent
misrepresentation requires the representation to be about a
statement of fact, not a future event. This was a representation
about a future event, and therefore not actionable, making the
claim based on fraudulent misrepresentation bound to fail.
Punitive Damages
To establish a claim for punitive damages, the plaintiffs must
allege misconduct so malicious, oppressive, and high-handed that it
offends the court's sense of decency. The plaintiffs claimed that
Ocean Pacific engaged in conduct fitting this description by
intentionally misleading employees of a sector hard-hit by COVID-19
about the value of the Casual Agreements to encourage their
acceptance. The plaintiffs also asserted that some employees relied
heavily on the representations in that e-mail, and Ocean Pacific
should have reasonably known that the possibility of continuing
extended health benefit coverage was the key value of the Casual
Agreements. Finally, they asserted that Ocean Pacific intentionally
withheld the information that the coverage was temporary so that
the class members would be more likely to accept the Casual
Agreements. Because Ocean Pacific may have intentionally misled the
employees to avoid paying them severance pay during a global
pandemic and may have also failed to take reasonable steps to
extend the Grace Period, the court decided that this claim was not
bound to fail.
Certification of the Class Action
The court accepted the definition of the class as "all current and
former employees of the defendant who agreed to convert from
regular to casual status in July or August 2020 in exchange for
terms that included continuation of benefits, and whose benefits
were thereafter terminated despite maintaining their casual
employee status at the time their benefits were terminated."
The fact that an Ocean Pacific representative did not engage in
individual conversations with additional information about the
Casual Agreement with individual employees was also material to the
application for certification. All employees offered Casual
Agreements received the same information, whether through group
meetings, email, or individual communication.
Breach of Contract
The proposed representative plaintiffs presented sufficient
evidence to meet the low test requiring them to provide some "Basis
in fact" that they each suffered loss, particularly the loss of the
right to claim severance if they had not signed the Casual
Agreements. Breach of contract was certified, with common issues to
address whether Ocean Pacific failed to take reasonable steps to
seek continued approval from Manulife, whether this constitutes a
breach of an implied term, and what remedies the class members are
entitled to.
Breach of the Duty of Honest Performance
Evidence existed of an initial contract, identical communications
sent to all class members, and nearly identical communications
between Ocean Pacific's representative and individual class members
regarding the Casual Agreements. Consequently, three common issues
were certified: whether Ocean Pacific intentionally misled class
members about the limited continuation of their benefits, whether
that would constitute a breach of the duty of honest performance,
and what remedies the class members are entitled to.
Punitive Damages
Common issues were also certified for the plaintiffs regarding
punitive damages, as there was some basis to conclude that the
communications regarding the Casual Agreements constituted a common
set of facts upon which punitive damages could be considered. In
this case, proceeding as a class action provides significant
advantages and is a fair, efficient, and manageable method to
advance the claims of the plaintiffs.
Conclusion
The court granted the plaintiffs permission to file their proposed
amended claim. The court also certified common issues related to
breach of contract, breach of the duty of honest performance, and
punitive damages. This means that the lawsuit will proceed as a
class action, allowing the plaintiffs to represent a group of
employees who share common issues in their claims against Ocean
Pacific. The court's decision acknowledged the potential validity
of the plaintiffs' claims, especially regarding the alleged
breaches of contract and the duty of honest performance and deemed
them suitable for further legal proceedings.
Takeaways for Employers
In conclusion, this case emphasizes the importance of clear and
transparent employment agreements and acting in good faith when
dealing with employees, particularly in challenging circumstances
that put them in a vulnerable position. Employers should provide
honest and accurate information, particularly regarding benefits,
and avoid conduct that could be perceived as malicious or
oppressive, as it may lead to punitive damages claims.
Further, the previously remote possibility of employment-based
class action lawsuits should be considered when addressing disputes
with groups of employees. This is a growing trend that can result
in ongoing lengthy, expensive litigation. We recommend employers
seek advice any time they are amending terms or conditions for a
group of employees.
Case Citation
Lee v. Ocean Pacific Hotels Ltd., 2023 BCSC 1650
Footnote
1 Lee v. Ocean Pacific Hotels Ltd., 2023 BCSC 1650
The foregoing provides only an overview and does not constitute
legal advice. Readers are cautioned against making any decisions
based on this material alone. Rather, specific legal advice should
be obtained. [GN]
PORTLAND, OR: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Camping Ban
---------------------------------------------------------
Jackson Sinnenberg, writing for KATU, reports that a new
class-action lawsuit has been filed in Multnomah County court on
behalf of people experiencing homelessness. The lawsuit, filed by
attorneys at the Oregon Law Center, says the camping ban, passed by
Portland City Council earlier this year, is illegal.
The plaintiffs named in this suit are staying away from the cameras
right now. But the complaint speaks for them. It says that it's
unfair for unhoused people to be bound to laws they don't
understand.
The camping ban ordinance has restrictions that say people cannot
be "within 250 feet of an environmental overlay zone," among other
restrictions.
"The plaintiff says one of the plaintiffs "does not have access to
a phone, email or the internet. He does not know if the place he is
currently sleeping is prohibited under the ordinance."
A declarant to the suit -- which is just someone who is providing
facts for the case -- says this is a recipe for jail time that will
cost taxpayers.
"The thing is, you're unhoused, maybe you don't have a cellphone,
how do you contact this person? If they lose their citation, or
they don't know where to go and don't show up to court, then they
end up in jail," said Kathleen Mahoney, executive director of
Sisters of the Road.
Another declarant says this potentially ensuing jail time could
make homelessness worse.
"The single greatest barrier to housing access in our communities
is having a criminal record. So the notion that a policy that is
aimed at addressing our homeless crisis by criminalizing behavior
over which people have very little choice in many cases is really
counterproductive," said Andy Miller, executive director of Our
Just Future.
The complaint also says the hours of the camping ban, 8 a.m. to 8
p.m., are unreasonable. The complaint says one plaintiff is "afraid
to sleep at night because he has been robbed and beaten several
times while sleeping at night, or while unconscious with
seizures."
The city was not available for an interview, but it sent KATU a
statement reading in part, "The city of Portland remains focused on
education and outreach efforts with the intention of starting
enforcement in the coming weeks. The city will provide two weeks'
notice to the community before enforcement begins." [GN]
PROFESSIONAL TOWING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barbett Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN BARRETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROFESSIONAL TOWING AND RECOVERY, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-02025-ROS (D. Ariz., Sept. 25, 2023)
alleges that Defendant failed to pay the unpaid minimum wage and
overtime for all hours worked exceeding 40 in a workweek,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Barrett was employed by the Defendant as a tow truck
driver.
PROFESSIONAL TOWING AND RECOVERY, LLC provides towing and roadside
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patricia N. Syverson
FRANKEL SYVERSON PLLC
2375 E. Camelback Road, Suite 600
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 598-4000
Email: ty@frankelsyverson.com
- and -
Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
FRANKEL SYVERSON PLLC
9655 Granite Ridge Drive, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92123
Telephone: (602) 598-4000
Email: patti@frankelsyverson.com
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Boaden Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
LYNN A. BOADEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION; PENSION
BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC d/b/a PBI RESEARCH SERVICES; and
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-12192-NMG (D. Mass., Sept. 25, 2023) is a class action
against Defendants for their failure to properly secure and
safeguard personally identifiable information including, but not
limited to, Plaintiff and Class Members' names, addresses, dates of
birth, phone numbers, and Social Security numbers.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that despite its duties to
the Plaintiff and Class Members related to and arising from its
cloud hosting and secure file transfer services and applications
involving MOVEit, PSC stored, maintained, and hosted the
Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information on its MOVEit
transfer services software that was negligently and recklessly
configured and maintained so as to contain security vulnerabilities
that resulted in multiple breaches of its network and systems or of
its customers' networks and systems, including PBI. These security
vulnerabilities existed as far back as 2021. As a result of the
breach, unauthorized third-party cybercriminals gained access to
and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII, says the
Plaintiff.
PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION is a Massachusetts based software
company that offers a wide range of software products and services
to corporate and governmental entities throughout the United States
and the world, including cloud hosting and secure file transfer
services such as MOVEit. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
1 Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 482-3700
Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
Email: kristenj@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Sean R. Matt, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
sean@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (513) 345-8291
Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
- and -
Charles Schaffer, Esq.
Nicholas J. Elia, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
v nelia@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
THE LYON FIRM
2754 Erie Ave.
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Telephone: (513) 381-2333
Facsimile: (513) 766-9011
Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
- and -
Sean K. Collins, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SEAN K. COLLINS
184 High Street, Suite 503
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (855) 693-9256
Facsimile: (617) 227-2843
Email: Sean@Neinsurancelaw.com
PURDUE PHARMA: Quebec Seeks to Join Opioid Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Woo and Frederik-Xavier Duhamel, writing for The Globe and
Mail, report that Quebec is set to introduce legislation that would
enable it to join a putative class-action lawsuit against dozens of
players in the pharmaceutical industry over opioid-related harms.
The province is expected to make the move amid the attempt by two
Quebec companies, named as defendants in the British Columbia-led
national effort, to have proceedings against them dismissed on
jurisdictional grounds.
A source with knowledge on the file confirmed to The Globe and Mail
the Quebec government's intentions. The Globe is not naming the
source because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the
legislation, which is expected in coming days.
B.C. initiated the lawsuit in 2018, seeking to recover health care
costs from what it alleged was 20 years of misinformation and
deception by pharmaceutical firms and distributors that knew or
should have known the drugs were addictive and seeping into the
illicit market.
The more than 40 defendants include manufacturers such as Purdue
Pharma, whose OxyContin pain pill has been implicated in Canada's
overdose epidemic; retailers such as Shoppers Drug Mart Inc. and
the Jean Coutu Group Inc.; and distributors and wholesalers.
Jean Coutu is a franchisor operating a network of about 420
independently owned stores and pharmacies, mainly in Quebec, while
distributor Pro Doc Limitee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Jean
Coutu, according to court documents.
The two Quebec companies have argued that they should not be
included in the putative class proceeding as they keep no business
records in B.C. and don't market their products in the province,
and because the B.C. Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over
them.
That matter was heard in September, 2022. The following April, B.C.
Supreme Court Justice Michael J. Brundrett dismissed the
application, finding that the court does have territorial
competence to determine the claims against them. The companies, now
appealing that decision, sought a stay of the certification hearing
pending the outcome; that was dismissed in August.
B.C. introduced the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery
Act in 2018, empowering it to pursue class actions on behalf of the
federal government and other provincial governments.
Quebec, Yukon and Nunavut are the only province and territories
without similar legislation, which would also make it possible for
their governments to join class-action lawsuits initiated in other
Canadian jurisdictions.
"Although the class action was initiated by British Columbia on
behalf of the federal government and the provincial and territorial
governments, the adoption of legislation similar to that taken by
British Columbia makes it possible, among other things, to promote
the application … of legal regimes that are adapted to the
situation and similar for all," Marie-Claude Lacasse, spokesperson
for the Quebec Department of Health, said in an e-mail.
Suzanne Chiodo, an associate professor at York University's Osgoode
Hall Law School and an expert in class actions, said that if Quebec
joins the lawsuit, Jean Coutu and Pro Doc's claim that the B.C.
courts cannot take jurisdiction over them would likely fail, as has
already happened in B.C. Supreme Court.
"There will be a real and substantial connection between the
defendants and B.C., because the class members on whose behalf B.C.
is suing will include Quebec" and the provinces will be found to
"have issues in common," Dr. Chiodo said, referring to the
applicable legal test.
Quebec's indication it will join the lawsuit is "excellent news,"
the expert wrote in an e-mail to The Globe, as it will bring "more
uniformity" in accountability and damages to be recovered.
Jean Coutu spokesperson Catherine Latendresse declined to comment.
In June, 2022, the federal, provincial and territorial governments
reached a settlement with one of the defendants in the class
action, Purdue Pharma Canada, which agreed to pay $150-million. The
allegations against the pharmaceutical giant have not been proven
in court.
David Klein, a Vancouver-based class-action lawyer, said while the
settlement amount relative to Purdue's alleged role in driving the
opioid crisis is small, it must be viewed in the context of the
company's bankruptcy filing in the U.S.
"The settlement was a good break for them in the sense that they
were able to get some traction early on, with some recovery," he
said. "It's a relatively small amount, but you take what you can
get when a company is in solvency proceedings."
Dr. Chiodo said that, because of a previous settlement on this
issue with Purdue Pharma, as well as the strong chances of
certification in B.C.'s "plaintiff-friendly class actions regime"
and the costs associated with a trial, there is a significant
likelihood that the nationwide effort that Quebec is set to join
will also be settled.
With a report from The Canadian Press [GN]
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Nov. 28
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors of the upcoming
November 28, 2023 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
class action filed on behalf of investors who acquired PureCycle
Technologies, Inc. ("PureCycle" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PCT)
securities between August 8, 2023 and September 13, 2023, inclusive
(the "Class Period").
On September 13, 2023, after the market closed, PureCycle disclosed
that its Ironton Facility experienced a full plant power outage on
August 7, 2023, which required the Ironton Facility to halt
operations. The Company further disclosed that it replaced a seal
that purportedly failed as a result of the power outage, and
initiated facility restart procedures on September 11, 2023.
On this news, PureCycle's stock price fell $1.395, or 18.4%, to
close at $6.18 per share on September 14, 2023, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Ironton Facility experienced a full plant
power outage on August 7, 2023; (2) that there was a risk of
additional failures resulting from the August 7, 2023 power outage;
and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired PureCycle securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than November 28,
2023 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz,
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067
at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our
website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Southgate Sues Over Drop of Stock Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAY SOUTHGATE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., DUSTIN OLSON,
and LAWRENCE SOMMA, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-08605 (S.D.N.Y.,
September 29, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding PureCycle's business,
operations, and prospects in order to trade PureCycle securities at
artificially inflated prices between August 8, 2023 and September
13, 2023. Specifically, the Defendants allegedly failed to disclose
to investors that: (1) that the Ironton Facility experienced a full
plant power outage on August 7, 2023; (2) that there was a risk of
additional failures resulting from the August 7, 2023 power outage;
and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants'
positive statements about the company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
When the truth emerged, PureCycle's stock price fell $1.395, or
18.4 percent, to close at $6.18 per share on September 14, 2023, on
unusually heavy trading volume, the suit says.
PureCycle Technologies, Inc. is a purification recycling technology
company, its principal executive offices are located in Orlando,
Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave., Suite 358
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com
- and -
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
- and -
Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 914-5007
RESPONSIBLE ENERGY: Evans, Fields Seek Proper Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN M. EVANS and JUSTIN A. FIELDS, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RESPONSIBLE ENERGY
OPERATIONS LLC and JOSH PHILLIPS, Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-00156-MPB-CSW (S.D. Ind., Sept. 26, 2023) alleges claims
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Indiana Wage Payment Statute.
Plaintiff Evans worked for Responsible Energy at its Antioch,
Indiana coal mine as an operator from approximately October 2022
until he was involuntarily terminated on September 8, 2023.
Plaintiff Fields also worked for the Defendant at the same mining
site as an operator from approximately September 2022 until he
voluntarily resigned his employment on or about August 8, 2023.
Both Evans and Fields worked at least 64 hours in every, average
work week, but were paid for only 58 of those work hours.
Moreover, Responsible Energy has been systematically and
substantially underpaying wages and overtime wages to Evans, Fields
and similarly situated hourly paid workers. Responsible Energy does
not use a time clock or otherwise keep track of its employees’
hours worked. Instead, Responsible Energy pays hourly wages to
workers based upon estimated hours of work. In addition,
Responsible Energy does not provide a bonafide meal period of 30
minutes or more where workers are completely relieved of duty and
able to use the time freely, says the suit.
Evans, Fields and the Plaintiff Class seek all available damages,
including unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, payment of reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses,
and any and all other damages to which they may be entitled for
Defendants' violations of their rights under the FLSA and the
Indiana Wage Payment Statute.
Headquartered in Petersburg, Pike County, Indiana, Responsible
Energy Operations LLC operates coal mining sites in Antioch,
Petersurg, and Mt. Carmel. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq.
HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP
100 Cherry Street
Terre Haute, IN 47807
Telephone: (812) 232-9691
Facsimile: (812) 234-2881
E-mail: kondras@hkmlawfirm.com
RESTIGOUCHE HOSPITAL: Reaches $17M Deal in Patients' Abuse Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Magee of CBC reports that a judge will decide by the end of
October whether to approve a proposed $17-million class-action
lawsuit settlement in a case that alleged decades of patient
mistreatment at New Brunswick's only psychiatric hospital.
The lawsuit, launched in 2019 against the provincial government and
Vitalite Health Network, alleged years of physical and sexual abuse
at the Restigouche Hospital Centre in Campbellton.
A settlement was reached earlier this year, but it requires a judge
to approve it, which would then allow former patients who qualify
to receive financial compensation.
James Sayce, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, said the
settlement would avoid a difficult and lengthy court battle where
vulnerable people would need to testify.
"It's also important because people aren't going to be traumatized,
they're not going to be cross-examined," Sayce said. "They're going
to be believed."
Lawyers representing the province and Vitalite, which operates the
140-bed hospital, also asked for Court of King's Bench Chief
Justice Tracey DeWare to approve the settlement.
The settlement does not include an admission of wrongdoing.
DeWare, after hearing from lawyers and one former patient who
objected to the settlement, said she would issue a written decision
by Oct. 26.
In a class-action lawsuit, one or more plaintiffs sue on behalf of
others with similar issues, which are collectively called the
class.
Darrell Tidd and Reid Smith were the representative plaintiffs.
They launched the case on behalf of their sons Devan Tidd and Aaron
Smith, both former patients at the hospital.
Both asked DeWare to approve the settlement.
"As we said from the onset, myself and Mr. Smith, we didn't do this
just on behalf of our sons as litigation guardians," Tidd told
reporters outside the courthouse.
"We did it on behalf of all those out there that have no voice and
no avenue to seek justice. So we did it on their behalf as well. We
think the settlement is in the best interest of all the class
members."
The case alleged their sons, who have autism, were overmedicated.
Devan Tidd complained of assault at the hands of other residents.
The lawsuit, which originally sought up to $500 million, was
launched after ombud Charles Murray's 2019 report that found
"significant mistreatment" of patients at the hospital.
DeWare certified the class action in 2021, a step that allowed the
case to proceed.
Payments vary by harm
The proposed settlement would include people who resided or were
admitted to Restigouche between May 24, 2004, and Oct. 1, 2021, and
who were alive as of May 24, 2017.
It also includes those who resided at the centre from Jan. 1, 1954,
to Oct. 1, 2021, who claim they were sexually assaulted.
The proposed settlement agreement would offer payments to those who
meet the requirements of a claims process.
The amount a person could receive varies by the type and level of
harm a person experienced.
A general claim could see payments between $1,000 and $5,000, while
repeated sexual assault could qualify for $60,000.
Someone both physically and sexually assaulted could receive up to
$85,000.
The settlement would include an audit process.
"It's not a bad thing to have an auditing process because it lends
credibility," Sayce said.
There are up to 2,500 people eligible to make a claim, Sayce said.
Denis Thériault, a lawyer representing the province, said the case
could have continued on for another decade and become more
expensive, even if it eventually won.
Sayce said a settlement was best, telling the judge a trial in the
case could have lasted months and that potential appeals at each
step could drag it out further.
"It's an excellent outcome because of the particular issues that
litigating this case further would represent," Sayce said.
Objector to settlement
Denis Fernette objected to the proposed settlement, telling DeWare
that he was sent to the centre in 1992 where he was abused.
He said he was unable to get administrators, the police or lawyers
to hear his story. Fernette said he's been waiting years for
justice and is worried the settlement could exclude him from
seeking a financial claim.
"At some point the province will need to claim responsibility, or
become responsible," Fernette said in French.
Sayce later said Fernette should speak to a lawyer as he may still
be eligible for a claim through the settlement.
The judge said she would consider documents Fernette submitted.
"I see that you've been waiting for answers for 30 years," DeWare
said. "I greatly appreciate your participation here on September
26, 2023." [GN]
ROOT INC: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------
Root, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that a purported class action
complaint was filed against the Company and certain of its current
and former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio (Case No. 2:21-cv-01197) on behalf of
certain Root shareholders, was dismissed with prejudice on March
31, 2023. Plaintiffs have filed as appeal.
Said complaint was filed on March 19, 2021 alleging that defendants
made false or misleading statements and omissions of purportedly
material fact, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and of Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act in connection with and following the
company's initial public offering. The complaint seeks unspecified
damages.
The defendants' motion to dismiss the claims set forth in the
complaint was granted.
Root, Inc. is a holding company. Its subsidiaries are Root
Insurance Company, Root Property & Casualty Insurance Company and
Root Reinsurance Company, Ltd.
SABA UNIVERSITY: Ortiz Sues Over Misleading Advertisement
---------------------------------------------------------
Natalia Ortiz, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly
situated persons v. SABA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE; and R3
EDUCATION, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-12002-WGY (D. Mass., Aug. 30,
2023), is brought against the Defendants action of advertising
inflated and misleading outcomes and false guarantees of passing
the United States Medical Licensing Examination ("USMLE"), seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief barring Defendants from
collecting on any loans or other tuition payment plans of Plaintiff
or members of the Class and requiring them to refund payments made
by the Class including tuition and fees; for actual or statutory
damages; for attorneys' fees expenses, and costs; and for any
additional relief determined by this Court to be just, equitable,
and proper.
Caribbean medical schools provide students an alternative pathway
to becoming a doctor, typically admitting applicants with lower
GPAs and MCAT scores than their United States counterparts. As a
result, Caribbean medical schools are often perceived as less
competitive than their mainland counterparts.
To overcome these negative perceptions--since at least 2015--the
Defendants have induced students to enroll at Saba with false
assurances of success by advertising inflated and misleading
outcomes that were calculated by excluding large numbers of
unsuccessful students. The Defendants have and continue to lure
potential students with false guarantees of passing the United
States Medical Licensing Examination ("USMLE"), a multi-step
examination that medical students must pass before obtaining their
medical license.
The Defendants heavily promoted anywhere from a 98% to 100%
first-time time passage rate on the USMLE and touted on Saba's
website, social media pages, online advertisements, and in direct
communications with consumers that "virtually every student at Saba
passes the USMLE Step on their first attempt," that the passage
rate was "better than most U.S. Schools, and that the 98% to 100%
passage rate is a "testament to the quality of [the Saba]
education."
What Defendants do not disclose to the public is that only
approximately half of the students who enroll at Saba even sit for
the USMLE because they either drop out of the program or because
Defendants--in an effort to make their percentages appear high--bar
students from taking the exam by requiring them to obtain a certain
score on a Saba-administered pretest, something students are not
told before they enroll. If students do not pass Saba's pretest
after four attempts, they are automatically dismissed from the
program.
By concealing the fact that their USMLE calculation excludes the
many students who do not take the exam, Defendants deceive
prospective and current students about the absolute and relative
(as compared to U.S. institutions) quality of the Saba education.
In fact, Saba's USMLE "success" does not come from preparing
students well, but from excluding the students it has failed to
prepare from its calculations. By contrast, nearly all students at
U.S. medical schools sit for and pass Step 1 of the USMLE, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff attended Saba University School of Medicine from
September of 2019 through August of 2022, when she was dismissed
from the school after failing to pass Saba's pre-test, which it
requires prior to certifying students' registration for the USMLE.
Saba University School of Medicine ("Saba") is a for-profit medical
school located on Saba Island in the Dutch Caribbean, with its
headquarters and principal place of business in Devens,
Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick T. Egan, Esq.
Christina L. Gregg, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
One Liberty Square
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: (617) 542-8300
Email: pegan@bermantabacco.com
cgregg@bermantabacco.com
- and -
Margaret M. Siller, Esq.
MAYNARD NEXSEN PC
1131 4th Avenue South, Suite 320
Nashville, TN 37210
Phone: (629) 258-2253
Email: msiller@maynardnexsen.com
- and -
Alexander S. Elson, Esq.
NATIONAL STUDENT LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK
1701 Rhode Island Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 734-7495
Email: alex@defendstudents.org
SAFECO INSURANCE: Fennell Sues Over Improper Business Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN FENNELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff V. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS; and
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No.CV 23 985828
(Ohio Com. Pl., Cuhayoga Cty., Sept. 22, 2023) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unlawful practice of denying insurance claims without
legal basis.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class are
customers of the Defendants and made claims when they suffered
collision or comprehensive losses of their vehicles. Instead of
paying actual cash value (ACV) for the loss, as required by the
policy and Ohio law, the Defendant reduced the payment amount by
something it calls a "Condition Adjustment," or some similar
deduction, which practice was not disclosed to its customers in
Defendant's policies. Because this practice failed to pay ACV, is a
breach of Defendant's contract with Plaintiff and the Class, and
contrary to Ohio law. It was committed with the intent to defraud
Plaintiff and all customers in the putative class, says the suit.
SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS operates as an insurance
company. The Company provides auto, home, renters, condo, boat,
car, motorcycle, and umbrella insurance services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
Frank A. Bartela, Esq.
DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., LPA
60 South Park Place
Painesville, OH 44077
Telephone: (440) 352-3391
Facsimile: (440) 352-3469
Email: pperottigdworkenlaw.com
fbartelagdworkenlaw.com
- and -
James A. DeRoche, Esq.
GARSON JOHNSON LLC
2900 Detroit Avenue
Van Roy Building 2nd Floor
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 696-9330
Facsimile: (216) 696-8558
Email: jderocheggarson.com
SENIOR PATH: Flannigan Sues Over Uniform Day Rate Pay Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCOISE FLANNIGAN, individually and for others similarly situated
v. SENIOR PATH SPECIALISTS, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-01206 (W.D. Tex.,
Sept. 26, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime and other damages
from Senior Path Specialists, LLC under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and Illinois Minimum Wage Law.
Plaintiff Flannigan worked for Senior Path as a Caregiver in and
around San Antonio, TX and Belleville, IL from approximately April
2022 until June 2023. However, Senior Path did not pay Flannigan
and its other day rate workers, including minimum wages or
overtime. Instead, it uniformly paid its day rate workers a flat
amount for each day worked, regardless of the total number of hours
they worked in a workweek. Accordingly, Senior Path's uniform day
rate pay scheme violated the FLSA and IMWL by depriving the day
rate workers of overtime wages at 1.5 times their regular rates of
pay for all hours worked after 40 in a workweek, says the
Plaintiff.
Headquartered in San Antonio, TX, Senior Path provides senior care
and housing consultancy services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
SIMILASA CORP: Plowden Sues Over Misleading Homeopathic Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID PLOWDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SIMILASAN CORP., a Colorado Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-02511-STV (D. Colo., Sept. 26, 2023)
arises from the Defendants' illegal sales and marketing of
homeopathic products, which allegedly violated the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and parallel state law.
Plaintiff Plowden brings this class action on behalf of consumers
who purchased Defendant's alleged homeopathic products that claim
to relieve a number of minor eye symptoms that are being illegally
marketed. The products include "Similasan Dry Eye Relief,"
"Similasan Complete Eye Relief," "Similasan Allergy Eye Relief,"
"Similasan Kids Allergy Eye Relief," "Similasan Red Eye Relief,"
"Similasan Pink Eye Relief," "Similasan Kids Pink Eye Relief,"
"Similasan Aging Eye Relief," "Similasan Computer Eye Relief,"
"Similasan Stye Eye Relief," "Similasan Pink Eye Nighttime Gel,"
and "Similasan Dry Eye Nighttime Gel." Given that Defendant claims
that the products can relieve or cure symptoms, including watery
eyes, sensation of grittiness, redness, strain, and burning, these
products are a "Drug" under the FDCA. Yet, Defendant has not
secured the appropriate approvals from the Federal Food and Drug
Administration to sell these products as a homeopathic drug and has
not shown that these products are generally recognized as safe and
effective, says the Plaintiff.
Among other things, Plaintiff Plowden alleges claims against the
Defendant for unjust enrichment and for violations of the Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act and the state consumer protection
statutes.
Similasan Corporation is a Colorado corporation with its principal
place of business in Highlands Ranch, CO. It markets, sells, and
distributes the homeopathic products and is responsible for the
advertising, marketing, trade dress, and packaging of these
products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William H. Anderson, Esq.
HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
5353 Manhattan Circle, Suite 204
Boulder, CO 80305
Telephone: (303) 800-9109
E-mail: wanderson@hfajustice.com
- and -
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com
- and -
Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
402 West Broadway, Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 810-7047
E-mail: tkashima@milberg.com
- and -
Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
Ryan T. Gott, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
328 Barry Avenue S., Suite 200
Wayzata, MN 55391
Telephone: (612) 389-0600
E-mail: mweiner@pwfirm.com
rgott@pwfirm.com
SIMON PROPERTY: Dalton Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Simon Property Group,
Inc. The case is styled as Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Simon Property Group, Inc.,
Case No. 0:23-cv-02998-NEB-ECW (D. Minn., Sept. 27, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Simon Property Group, Inc. -- https://www.simon.com/ -- is an
American real estate investment trust that invests in shopping
malls, outlet centers, and community/lifestyle centers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason D. Gustafson, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
One Central Avenue West, Suite 203
St. Michael, MN 55376
Phone: (763) 515-6110
Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
SM ENERGY: Garvey Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------
PAUL GARVEY, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SM ENERGY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-02508
(D. Colo., Sept. 26, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and other damages from SM Energy Company under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
According to the complaint, SM Energy paid Garvey and the other day
rate workers by the day. These workers regularly worked more than
40 hours a week. However, SM Energy did not pay its them proper
overtime wages. Instead, SM Energy uniformly misclassified these
workers as independent contractors and paid them a flat amount for
each day worked, regardless of the total number of hours they
worked in a workweek. Accordingly, SM Energy's uniform day rate pay
scheme violates the FLSA by depriving the Day Rate Workers of
overtime wages at one and a half times their regular rates of pay
for all hours worked after 40 in a workweek, says the suit.
Headquartered in Denver, CO, SM Energy bills itself as a premier
operator of top-tier assets in the oil and gas industry with core
operations in the Midland Basin in West Texas and the Maverick
Basin in South Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson,Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
SPECIALIZED LOAN: Simon Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Specialized Loan
Servicing, LLC. The case is styled as Tom Simon, Cyndie Simon, on
behalf of themselves and all similarly situated consumers v.
Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01159-PTG-LRV
(E.D. Va., Aug. 30, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Specialized Loan Servicing -- https://www.sls.net/ -- offers
residential mortgages, as well as provides loan modification and
planning services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
Casey Shannon Nash, Esq.
Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
KELLY GUZZO PLC
3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: (703) 424-7570
Fax: (703) 591-9285
Email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
casey@kellyguzzo.com
aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
SPINNEYBECK ENTERPRISES: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spinneybeck
Enterprises, Inc. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Spinneybeck
Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08519-MKV (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 27,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Spinneybeck Enterprises, Inc. -- https://www.spinneybeck.com/ -- is
a retail & wholesale supplier of aniline-dyed Italian upholstery
leather and architectural products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
SPORTS AND FITNESS: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sports and Fitness
Exchange Legacy, LLC. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sports and Fitness
Exchange Legacy, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-08523 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 27,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sports and Fitness Exchange Legacy --
https://sportsandfitnessexchange.com/ -- is a store with new, used
& consignment gear for all sports, plus exercise equipment & custom
printing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
380 North Broadway, Suite 300
Jericho, NY 11753
Phone: (718) 740-5060
Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com
STANDARD INSURANCE: Baker Files Suit in D. Oregon
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Standard Insurance
Company. The case is styled as Tyler Baker, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Standard Insurance
Company, Case No. 3:23-cv-01407-HZ (D. Ore., Sept. 27, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property Damage.
Standard Insurance -- https://my.standardinsuranceonline.com/ --
offers the most comprehensive car insurance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin A. Schwartzman, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
950 West Bannock Street, Suite 940
Boise, ID 83702
Phone: (208) 342-4411
Fax: (208) 342-4455
Email: bschwartzman@baileyglasser.com
pauld@akimlawfirm.com
SUNRUN INC: Sends Unwanted Telemarketing Calls, Strickland Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHERRY STRICKLAND, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNRUN, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:23-cv-05034-SVK (N.D. Cal., October 1, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in an illegal
practice of using automated systems to place telemarketing calls on
numbers included in the National Do Not Call Registry in an attempt
to sell its solar power services. The Defendant failed to secure
prior express written consent from the Plaintiff and similarly
situated residents before placing such telemarketing calls. As a
result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff and Class members
were harmed, says the suit.
Sunrun, Inc. is a provider of solar power services, headquartered
in San Francisco, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
BRODERICK LAW, P.C.
99 High Street, Suite 304
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 738-7080
Facsimile: (617) 830-0327
E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com
- and -
Dana J. Oliver, Esq.
OLIVER LAW CENTER, INC.
8780 19th Street #559
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
Telephone: (855) 384-3262
Facsimile: (888) 570-2021
E-mail: dana@danaoliverlaw.com
TENNECO INC: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Parker Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
TENNECO, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
denying their motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled
Tanika Parker, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Tenneco, Inc., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-10816, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by
failing to prudently monitor and control ERISA-covered 401(k)
plans' investments and expenses.
On May 5, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration, which the Court denied through an Order entered by
Judge George Caram Steeh on Aug. 21, 2023. The Court concluded that
the Arbitration Procedure does not apply to the pending action.
The appellate case is captioned Tanika Parker, et al. v. Tenneco,
Inc., et al., Case No. 23-1857, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on September 20, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees TANIKA PARKER, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Sharon Sue Almonrode, Esq.
Mitchell Kendrick, Esq.
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
MILLER LAW FIRM
950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
- and -
Boyd Byers, Esq.
Scott C. Nehrbass, Esq.
FOULSTON SIEFKIN
7500 College Boulevard, Suite 1400
Overland Park, KS 66210
Telephone: (316) 267-6371
(913) 498-2100
Defendants-Appellants TENNECO, INC., et al. are represented by:
Lindsey Camp, Esq.
Todd David Wozniak, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT
1180 W. Peachtree Street, N.W., Suite 1800
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 817-8454
TERRAFORM LABS: Plaintiff Voluntarily Withdraws Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
CryptosHeadlines.com reports that that in the most recent update,
the final class action lawsuit lodged in the United States against
Terra (LUNA) and Terraform Labs has been voluntarily dismissed.
In a noteworthy development, the recent class action lawsuit
brought against Terra (LUNA) in the United States has been
voluntarily retracted by the plaintiffs. This marks the second case
to be withdrawn, signifying a favorable trend for the company.
Terraform Labs CEO Chris Amani conveyed his sense of relief and
resolve in his statement regarding the matter. He stated, "The most
recent class action lawsuit filed against Terra in the U.S. has
been dismissed by the plaintiffs, making it a total of two. As long
as these groundless legal allegations persist, we will remain
committed to our defense."
Regarding the specifics of the case, it was initially filed by Nick
Patterson individually, and subsequently, on behalf of a group
sharing similarities with Terraform Labs, including Jump Crypto,
Jump Trading, Tribe Capital, Definance Capital/Definance
Technologies, Three Arrows Capital, Nicholas Platias, and Do Kwon.
In response, a countersuit was initiated.
Nonetheless, lead plaintiff Michael Tobias and plaintiff Nick
Patterson have willingly and entirely withdrawn the lawsuit against
defendants Terraform Labs and Do Kwon, as indicated in a notice
submitted to the court and all relevant parties.
The notice also made it clear that neither the plaintiffs nor their
legal representatives have received or will receive any form of
compensation for this withdrawal.
Important: Please note that this article is only meant to provide
information and should not be taken as legal, tax, investment,
financial, or any other type of advice. [GN]
TESLA INC: EEOC Files Racial Discrimination Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Will Ebeler, writing for onlabor, reports that EEOC accuses Tesla
of racial discrimination; more than 75,000 health care workers
poised to go on strike at Kaiser Permanente facilities throughout
the country; Unite Here Local 11 reaches tentative agreement with
one Los Angeles hotel; and SAG-AFTRA plans to resume contract
negotiations with movie and television studios.
On Sept. 28, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a
lawsuit against Tesla, accusing it of discriminating against Black
employees at its factory in Fremont, California. According to the
complaint, racist graffiti was written on desks, in bathrooms and
elevators, and even in cars coming off the assembly line. And
employees who complained were given unpleasant work assignments or
fired. According to the EEOC, the lawsuit was filed only after the
agency tried unsuccessfully to work out a plan with Tesla to
address the discrimination. The EEOC's lawsuit is the latest to
accuse Tesla of discrimination at its Fremont factory. Earlier this
year, a jury awarded $3.2 million to a Black man who alleged that
Tesla had ignored racial abuse that he experienced while working as
a contractor; a group of 240 Black men and women have filed a class
action against the company alleging employment discrimination; and
California's Civil Rights Department has alleged that Black workers
are "severely underrepresented" in management positions.
More than 75,000 health care workers at Kaiser Permanente could go
on strike as soon as Wednesday, Oct. 4. A coalition of unions
representing Kaiser workers has notified the company that it will
begin a three-day strike on October 4 at facilities in California,
Oregon, Colorado, Virginia, Washington, and the District of
Columbia. The workers' previous collective bargaining agreement
expired last night. If the workers do go on strike, it will be the
largest health care strike in U.S. history. The unions have asked
Kaiser to hire at least 10,000 more workers by the end of the year
and rejected a company proposal offering annual pay increases
between 2 and 4 percent.
On Sept. 29, Unite Here Local 11 announced that it had reached a
tentative agreement with one Los Angeles area hotel. The union
represents hotel workers throughout Southern California and has
been engaging in sporadic strikes at dozens of hotels since July.
In a statement, the union said the agreement will give the hotel's
300 workers "unprecedented wage increases that keep pace with the
soaring cost of housing." The agreement also improves healthcare,
addresses employee staffing concerns, improves pension benefits,
and establishes a hiring process that is more inclusive towards
formerly incarcerated individuals and undocumented immigrants.
Finally, SAG-AFTRA will resume contract negotiations with the
Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers on Sept. 25.
The parties announced the resumed negotiations one day after
industry writers ended their strike with a new tentative agreement.
[GN]
UNDER ARMOUR: November 27 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP regarding the In re Under Armour Securities Litigation:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
In re UNDER ARMOUR SECURITIES LITIGATION
This Document Relates To:
ALL ACTIONS.
Civil No. RDB-17-388
CLASS ACTION
PRESS RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLASS PENDENCY
Notice of Pendency of Class Action Announced by Lead Class Counsel
Mark Solomon, Robert R. Henssler Jr., Stephen R. Astley, and
Elizabeth A. Shonson of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP in In re
Under Armour Securities Litigation, No. RDB-17-388.
Mark Solomon, Robert R. Henssler Jr., Stephen R. Astley, and
Elizabeth A. Shonson of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, announce
class certification has been granted allowing a class of
shareholders to proceed in a lawsuit named In re Under Armour
Securities Litigation, No. RDB-17-388.
The litigation asserts claims for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws against Under Armour, Inc. ("Under Armour" or the
"Company") and Kevin A. Plank (collectively, "Defendants"). On
September 29, 2022, the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland entered an Order, pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, certifying the case to proceed as
a class action on behalf of a Class defined as follows:
ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED CLASS
A AND CLASS C COMMON STOCK OF UNDER ARMOUR, INC. ("UNDER ARMOUR")
BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 16, 2015 AND NOVEMBER 1, 2019, INCLUSIVE ("CLASS
PERIOD"). EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS ARE DEFENDANTS, PRESENT OR FORMER
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF UNDER ARMOUR AND THEIR
IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS (AS DEFINED IN 17 C.F.R. §229.404,
INSTRUCTIONS (1)(A)(III) AND (1)(B)(II)).
Lead Plaintiffs Aberdeen City Council as Administrating Authority
for the North East Scotland Pension Fund, Monroe County Employees'
Retirement System, and KBC Asset Management NV have been appointed
Class Representatives. This action has not been settled and
continues to be litigated.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY
BE AFFECTED. On September 28, 2023, a Postcard Notice of Pendency
of Class Action (the "Postcard Notice") was mailed to persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Under Armour common stock during
the Class Period, as reflected on the books and records of the
Company and its transfer agent. The Postcard Notice contains
important information regarding the rights of Class Members,
including the right to seek exclusion from the Class and the legal
implications and deadline for doing so. If you believe you are a
member of the Class as defined above, and you have not received a
copy of the Postcard Notice by mail, you are urged to request a
copy free of charge by mailing your request to:
Under Armour Securities Litigation
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 301135
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1135
You may also download a copy of the Printed Notice at:
www.UnderArmourSecuritiesLitigation.com.
IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOT EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THE
CLASS, YOU WILL BE BOUND BY ALL ORDERS AND ANY JUDGMENT IN THE
ACTION. TO EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
WRITTEN REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION POSTMARKED ON OR BEFORE NOVEMBER 27,
2023.
CLASS MEMBERS SHOULD NOT CONTACT DEFENDANTS, THE COURT, OR THE
CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING EXPLANATION OF THIS NOTICE. [GN]
UNICO ENGINEERING: Villalta Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unico Engineering,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Maya Diaz Villalta, on behalf of
herself and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. Unico
Engineering, Inc., et al., Case No. 23CV009174 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Sept. 27, 2023).
UNICO Engineering -- https://www.unicoengineering.com/ -- provides
high quality Construction Management, Land Surveying, and Systems
Integration services to public and private client.[BN]
UNION PACIFIC: Discriminates Against Disabled Workers, EEOC Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNION PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 0:23-cv-03030-ECT-DLM (D.
Minn., September 29, 2023) is a class action against the Defendant
for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the ADA when it:
(1) regarded the aggrieved individuals as disabled and terminated
their employment on the basis of disability; (2) used an unlawful
qualification standard that screens out an individual with a
disability or class of individuals with disabilities; and (3)
subjected some of the aggrieved individuals to unlawful medical
inquiries.
The aggrieved individuals are former employees of the Defendant.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is an agency in the
U.S.
Union Pacific Railroad Company is a transport company headquartered
in Washington, D.C. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Lage, Esq.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
131 M. Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20507
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
- and -
Emma Heo, Esq.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Chicago District Office
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 872-9740
E-mail: emma.heo@eeoc.gov
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: Judge Tosses Professor's Hiring Bias Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Quinn, writing for Inside Higher Ed, reports that a judge has
dismissed a University of Texas at Austin professor's lawsuit
against Texas A&M University. The white male professor had sought
to prohibit A&M from considering race or sex in hiring
decisions—before he applied to work there.
Richard Lowery, a tenured associate professor of finance in UT
Austin's McCombs School of Business, filed the lawsuit a year ago
in federal court, seeking to make it a class action. Since then, as
Judge Charles Eskridge noted in his ruling on Sept. 29, the Texas
Legislature passed Senate Bill 17.
SB 17, which takes effect in January, will ban race- and
gender-based affirmative action in institutions' hiring as well as
"trainings, programs or activities designed or implemented in
reference to race, color, ethnicity, gender identity or sexual
orientation." Texas A&M argued that makes Lowery's case moot, and
Eskridge agreed.
"SB 17 prohibits exactly what Lowery alleges is taking place,"
Eskridge wrote. But he also criticized Lowery's lawsuit for other
reasons, including the fact that he hadn't yet applied to A&M.
The judge wrote that, under Lowery's reasoning, "any putative
plaintiff could sue a potential employer without ever applying,
simply upon allegation the posited discriminatory practices
deterred application. That's not enough."
Lowery's separate federal lawsuit against his current business
school's leaders is continuing. In that case, he alleges they
threatened his career because he denounced UT Austin's funding and
support of "left-wing" causes and tried to draw state lawmakers'
attention.
Eskridge wrote in the Sept. 29 ruling that Lowery "says that he's
interested in leaving the University of Texas because he dislikes
the current leadership and has been the target of intense criticism
for his outspoken conservativism."
The Texas Tribune reported earlier on the dismissal. [GN]
VALLEY NATIONAL: Allcock Sues Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------
Susan Allcock, on behalf of herself and all those similarly
situated v. VALLEY NATIONAL BANCORP and VALLEY NATIONAL BANK d/b/a
VALLEY BANK, Case No. MID-L-004895-23 (N.J. Super. Ct., Middlesex
Cty., Aug. 30, 2023), is brought against the Defendants' data
breached by unauthorized third-party hackers.
Between May 27, 2023 and May 31, 2023, Defendants Valley National
Bancorp and Valley National Bank, who both do business as Valley
Bank (hereinafter "Valley Bank") had its data breached by
unauthorized third-party hackers (the "Data Breach"), who stole the
highly sensitive personal identifying information ("PII") of
Plaintiff and presumably thousands of Valley Bank customers like
her.
Despite Valley Bank's duty to safeguard its customers' PII, the PII
of Plaintiff and other bank customers was allowed to be accessed
and exposed to an unauthorized third party during the Data Breach.
Based on the statements of Valley Bank to date, a variety of PII
was implicated in the Data Breach, including but not limited to:
names, Social Security Numbers, addresses, and Valley Bank loan
numbers. As a direct and proximate result of Valley Bank's
inadequate data security measures, and its breach of its duty to
handle PII with reasonable care, the PII of Plaintiff and the Class
Members have been accessed by hackers and exposed to an untold
number of unauthorized individual
The Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly
increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft,
intrusion of their financial privacy, and similar forms of criminal
mischief, risk which may last for the rest of their lives.
Consequently, Plaintiff and Class Members must devote substantially
more time, money, and energy to protect themselves, to the extent
possible, from these crimes. Additionally, Plaintiff and Class
Members have also lost the value of their PII, for which there is
an established marketplace value. Finally, Plaintiff and Class
Members have lost the benefit of their bargains with Valley Bank,
as they would not have entered into agreements with and paid money
to Valley Bank for financial services had they been aware that
their PII would not be adequately protected, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was a customer of Valley Bank and provided her
personal information and PII to Valley Bank.
Valley National Bancorp is bank holding company and financial
holding company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew M. Milz, Esq.
Jody Thomas Lopez-Jacobs, Esq.
FLITTER MILZ, P.C.
1814 East Rt. 70, Suite 350
Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
Phone: (856) 396-0600
Fax: (833) 775-3450
- and -
Jane Santoni, Esq.
SANTONI, VOCCI & ORTEGA, LLC
201 W. Padonia Road, Suite 101A
Timonium, MD 21093
Phone: 443-921-8161
Fax: 410-525-5704
- and -
James A. Francis, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 735-8600
Fax: (215) 940-8000
Email: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
VALYRIA LLC: Rivera Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Deivi Rivera, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. VALYRIA, LLC, a corporation;
TRANSPAC, an unknown entity; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. 23-CA-014686 was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Solano, to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California on Sept. 26,
2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02113-CKD.
In this Class-Action Complaint, Plaintiff asserts eight causes of
action against Defendant for various California Labor Code
violations, including: failure to pay minimum and straight time
wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal
periods; failure to authorize and permit rest periods; failure to
timely pay final wages at termination; failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements; failure to indemnify employees for
expenditures; and unfair business practices.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Roger M. Mansukhani, Esq.
Joseph J. Huprich, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
633 West Fifth Street, 52nd floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 576-5000
Facsimile: (213) 680-4470
Email: rmansukhani@grsm.com
jhuprich@grsm.com
VIMEO INC: Settlement in BIPA Suit Gets Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------
Vimeo, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 3, 2023, that the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois issued an order granting preliminary
approval of a $2.3 million settlement on January 20, 2023 with
regards to an Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)
Litigation.
On September 9, 2019, Bradley Acaley filed, on behalf of himself
and other similarly situated individuals, a putative class action
complaint against Vimeo in the U.S. Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois under Case No. 2019 CH10873. Vimeo thereafter removed the
case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, where it is now pending.
In his complaint, plaintiff asserts that Vimeo's Magisto mobile
application collected facial biometric information in a manner that
violated his rights under the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act, and he seeks, among other things, injunctive relief
and monetary damages.
On May 29, 2022, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
that, subject to court approval, will result in certain payments to
class members in exchange for releases to Vimeo. On June 6, 2022,
the case was, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, remanded from
federal court back to the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.
On July 22, 2022, plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement agreement.
Vimeo is a video software solution, providing the full breadth of
video tools through a software-as-a-service model using cloud-based
tools.
VIRGINIA NATIONAL: Aubrey Files Suit in W.D. Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Virginia National
Bank. The case is styled as Samantha Aubrey, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Virginia National Bank, Case
No. 3:23-cv-00050-RSB (W.D. Va., Sept. 27, 2023).
The nature of suit is state as Other Contract for Electronic Fees
Transfer Act.
Virginia National Bank -- https://www.vnb.com/ -- is a bank that
specializes in banking, wealth management, personal loans, and
mortgages.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Devon J. Munro, Esq.
MUNRO BYRD P.C.
120 Day Ave. SWFirst Floor
Roanoke, VA 24016
Phone: (540) 283-9343
Fax: (540) 328-9290
Email: dmunro@trialsva.com
WALMART INC: Abdulhadi Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walmart, Inc. The
case is styled as Ali Abdulhadi, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Walmart, Inc., Case No.
2:23-cv-07183-ODW-SSC (C.D. Cal., Aug. 30, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Walmart Inc. -- https://corporate.walmart.com/ -- is an American
multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of
hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores in the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Sibilia, Esq.
Oceanside Law Center
P O Box 861
Oceanside, CA 92049
Phone: (760) 666-1151
Fax: (818) 698-0300
Email: sibilialaw@aol.com
WAYPOINT RESOURCE: Smith FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Nikiesha Smith, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Waypoint Resource Group, LLC, John
Does 1-25, Case No. CAM-L-002135-23 was removed from Superior Court
of New Jersey, Camden County, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey on Sept. 1, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-14255-RMB-AMD to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Waypoint Resource Group -- https://www.waypoint.com/ -- provides
third-party collection services for a variety of clients over a
number of industries, including telecom (cable, satellite,
internet, and phone), automotive, healthcare, and utilities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Phone: (973) 227-5900
Fax: (973) 244-0019
Email: jkj@legaljones.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Sean Michael O'brien, Esq.
LIPPES MATHIAS LLP
50 Fountain Plaza, Suite 1700
Buffalo, NY 14202
Phone: (518) 669-0813
Email: sobrien@lippes.com
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Salas Suit Over Defective Refrigerators
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action alleges a defect can cause certain Whirlpool refrigerators
to stop cooling and run above safe food-storing temperatures.
The 43-page lawsuit claims that although Whirlpool Corporation has
known for years that at least 56 different Whirlpool refrigerator
models fail to keep food cold enough, the company has continued to
sell the products to unsuspecting consumers without disclosing the
alleged defect. Instead, Whirlpool has misleadingly advertised the
refrigerators as "reliable" appliances that can cool themselves and
maintain customized temperatures, the filing says.
Be sure to scroll down to see the model numbers of Whirlpool
fridges mentioned in the lawsuit.
In particular, the refrigerators at issue come equipped with a
thermistor -- a sensor that sends a signal to the appliance's
control board when it detects temperature changes -- that can
become loose or fall off the clip holding it in place, the case
claims. Once the thermistor becomes loose or detached, the suit
says, a Whirlpool fridge will not sense the freezer temperature
properly.
The lawsuit explains that this can cause the appliance to create
"excessive" frost buildup, fail to properly defrost, and develop
refrigerant leaks. These issues ultimately reduce or eliminate the
unit's ability to cool itself, the filing summarizes.
The lawsuit charges that Whirlpool has "actively concealed" the
existence of the thermistor sensor clip defect and continues to
mispresent the "performance, durability, capability, and
reliability" of its refrigerators to induce consumers into
purchasing the products at substantially higher prices. In fact,
the suit says, many consumers would not have bought the appliances
at all had they known they would fail to properly cool their food.
Whirlpool's alleged knowledge of the cooling issues
Per the complaint, Whirlpool discovered or should have discovered
the cooling problem, namely through pre-release reviews and its
"extensive" pre-sale testing processes, before the refrigerators at
issue even hit the market. Since releasing the products, Whirlpool
Corporation has been made aware of the defect through the high
volume of maintenance and repair requests consumers have made in
connection with their refrigerators running too warm, the suit
says.
Moreover, the company actively monitors reviews Whirlpool
refrigerator owners post to its website and third-party forums,
many of which detail problems with the products properly cooling
food, the filing shares.
For example, a commenter on Whirlpool.com wrote that they were
forced to throw away over $400 worth of food after their
three-week-old Whirlpool refrigerator would not go below 43 degrees
-- three degrees higher than the temperature U.S. Food and Drug
Administration deems safe for storing perishables. Other consumers
have reported elsewhere that the freezer side of their appliances
could not maintain an adequate temperature and stopped making ice,
the filing relays.
According to the case, Whirlpool Corporation even admitted in a
September 2021 technical service pointer distributed to certain
service companies and technicians that the defect causes the
refrigerators to stop cooling.
The plaintiff, a New York resident, says she was completely unaware
of these issues when she bought a Whirlpool 36-inch-wide
side-by-side refrigerator nearly ten months after the defendant
quietly acknowledged that the product doesn't work as advertised.
Shortly after purchasing the fridge, both the refrigerator and
freezer portion of her appliance failed to maintain their proper
temperatures, and the water dispenser rapidly slowed down when
dispensing water, the case explains. The woman says she was forced
to pay $245 for a new appliance, went without a fridge for more
than a month, and lost approximately $730 worth of food.
Although the Whirlpool refrigerators at issue come with a one-year
warranty for "defects in materials or workmanship under normal home
use," the company has failed to provide an effective and lasting
remedy for these cooling issues pursuant to its express and implied
warranties, the suit contends.
Which Whirlpool refrigerators are affected by the alleged defect?
The complaint claims that the following Whirlpool refrigerator
models fail to properly cool due to a faulty thermistor sensor
clip:
ASI2175GRB;
ASI2575GRS;
KRSC700HPS01;
KRSF705HPS01;
MSS25C4MGZ;
WRS311SDHW;
WRS312SNHW;
WRS315SDHW;
WRS315SNHW;
WRS321SDHZ;
WRS325SDHZ;
WRS335SDHB;
WRS555SIHV;
WRS973CIHV01;
ASI2175GRS;
ASI2575GRW;
KRSC703HBS01;
MSS25C4MGB;
WRS311SDHB;
WRS311SDHZ;
WRS315SDHB;
WRS315SDHZ;
WRS321SDHB;
WRS325SDHB;
WRS331SDHB;
WRS335SDHM;
WRS555SIHW;
973CIHZ01;
ASI2175GRW;
IRS335SDHM;
KRSC703HPS01;
MSS25C4MGK;
MRS311SDHM;
WRS312SNHB;
WRS315SDHM;
WRS315SNHB;
WRS321SDHV;
WRS325SDHV;
WRS331SDHM;
WRS335SDHW;
WRS555SIHZ;
WRSA15SNHN;
ASI2575GRB;
KRSC700HBS01;
KRSF705HBS01;
MSS25C4MGW;
WRS311SDHT;
WRS312SNHM;
WRS315SDHT;
WRS315SNHM;
WRS312SDHW;
WRS325SDHW;
WRS331SDHW;
WRS555SIHB;
WRS970CIHZ01; and
WRSA15SNHZ.
Who's covered by the lawsuit?
The suit seeks to represent anyone in the United States who
purchased any of the above-listed Whirlpool refrigerators.
How do I join the lawsuit?
There's usually nothing you need to do to join or be included in a
proposed class action lawsuit when it's first filed. If and when
the lawsuit settles, those who have been affected, i.e., the "class
members," should receive a direct notice of the settlement and
details about what to do next.
If you've bought one of the Whirlpool refrigerators mentioned
above, or simply want to stay in the loop on class action lawsuit
and settlement news, sign up for ClassAction.org's free weekly
newsletter. [GN]
XYLEM INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 30
announced an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf
of shareholders of Xylem Inc. (NYSE: XYL) resulting from
allegations that Xylem may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Xylem securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=19314 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On August 9, 2023, before the market opened,
the investment firm Spruce Point Capital Management, LLC released a
report entitled "A Leak in the Bull Case" (the "Report"), in which
it outlined why it believes the price of Xylem stock will decline.
Among other things, the Report alleged that certain financial
figures which had been presented to investors regarding Xylem's
2023 acquisition of Evoqua were false.
On this news, the price of Xylem stock declined by $2.82 per share,
or 2.68% on August 9, 2023, on unusually high volume.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
*********
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 ***