/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231016.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, October 16, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 207
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Heffner Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Helms Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Jex Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Kucharski Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Moutra Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
AMAZON.COM INC: Wins Class Suit Over Retention of Users' Info
BECTON DICKINSON: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Aguila Suit
BELL TELEPHONE: Faces Class Suit Over Door-to-Door Sales Practices
BOSTON MEDICAL: Seeks Dismissal of Wiretapping Class Action
CAREDAMA CONTRACTORS: Faces Quintuna Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces Suit Over Misleading Advertised Shelf-Prices
EL CAMINO: Appeals Remand Order in Spalinger Suit to 9th Circuit
EZ DISPOSAL: Settles Wage Class Action for $1.7 Million
GANNETT CO: Racial Discrimination Class Action Pending
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Data Privacy Law Violations
H&R BLOCK: Faces Class Suit Over Data Privacy Law Violations
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Faces Curran Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
ILLINOIS FARMERS: Files 8th Cir. Appeal in Taqueria El Primo Suit
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Malinowski Balks at Unprotected Health Info
IROQUOIS NURSING: Pallotta Seeks Nurse Assistants' Unpaid Wages
JUUL TOBACCO: Set to Receive $9,237 Vape Settlement Payout
KANNACT INC: Fongheiser Files Suit in D. Oregon
KANNACT INC: White Files Suit in D. Oregon
KATIE'S KITTY: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
KENVUE INC: Nelson Sues Over Nasal Decongestants' False Ads
KRAFT HEINZ FOODS: Paszek Suit Removed to S.D. California
L & M FOOTWEAR: Kunkle Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LANIER INC: Allen Appeals Final Court Approval of Settlement
LOUISIANA: Writ of Certiorari Filed in Little v. Doguet
LULU'S FASHION: Esparza Suit Removed to E.D. California
MAERSK INC: Leon Sues for Mismanagement of Pension Plan
MAPFRE USA: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Alexanderowics Claims
MARYLAND: Class Action Over Correctional Systems Pending
MEDSOLE RCM: Brown Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
METHODIST HOSPITALS: Jestice Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct.
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in McAlister Suit
MIDLAND NATIONAL: Zimmerman Sues Over Breaches of Policy
MONTEREY BAY AQUARIUM: Sawyer Suit Transferred to N.D. California
NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE: Herrera ADA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
NAVIENT CORPORATION: Kuo Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
NEW YORK: Veloz Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
PEOPLES BANK: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Blankenship Alleges
PETRONIS CUBETA: Larry Files Suit in W.D. Texas
RECKITT BENCKISER: Grimsley Balks at Nasal Decongestants' False Ads
ROBERT DONOHOE: Bruno Files Suit in W.D. Texas
ROCKWELL COLLINS: Santos Suit Removed to N.D. California
ROSA'S DRY CLEANER: Lawrence Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
RUBUS MANAGEMENT: Decollibus Suit Removed to D. Nevada
SAGE SOFTWARE: Mendoza Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
SANSUM CLINIC: Rose Suit Removed to C.D. California
SHORT STORY INC: Singh Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Bombin Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial
SSM HEALTH: Files 8th Cir. Appeal in Doe Suit
TRAEGER PELLET: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Yates Suit
VALLEY NATIONAL: Tawfik Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
VANTAGE BANK: Averts Class Action Suit Over Illegal Fees
VERVENT INC: Turrey Bid to Amend SAC Tossed
VILLAS OF HOLLY: Mitchell Suit Seeks Conditional Status of Class
WALMART INC: Plaintiff Must File Class Cert Bid by March 14, 2024
WASHINGTON HOSPITAL: Suit Removed to N.D. California
WEST VIRGINIA: Video Depositions Submitted as Evidence in Lawsuit
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Sells Defective Refrigerators, Reed Says
WM CORPORATE: Banguis Suit Removed to E.D. California
*********
3M COMPANY: Heffner Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Heffner, 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-04376-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
skin 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: Helms Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Helms, 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-04835-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
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: Jex Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Jex, Jr., 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-04384-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 civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with Thyroid Disease 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:
David L. Selby II, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
3000 Riverchase Galleria Suite 905
Birmingham AL 35244
Phone: 205.835.9906
Fax: 304.342.1110
Email: dselby@baileyglasser.com
3M COMPANY: Kucharski Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Kucharski, 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-04369-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
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma 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: Moutra Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
Johnnie Moutra, 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-04371-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
AMAZON.COM INC: Wins Class Suit Over Retention of Users' Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Brown of Bloomberg Law reports that Amazon.com Inc.
defeated a proposed class action alleging it retained the personal
information of users longer than was necessary, in violation of New
York and Minnesota law.
Plaintiffs Angela Lugo and Andrew Brynildson didn't have standing
to bring their lawsuit in federal court because they didn't allege
they suffered actual harm from the mere retention of their data,
Judge Tana Lin of the US District Court for the Western District of
Washington said on September 26, 2023.
Lin granted Amazon's motion to dismiss, and gave the plaintiffs 30
days to amend their complaint.
Lugo and Brynildson alleged that Amazon collected their names. [GN]
BECTON DICKINSON: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Aguila Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
BECTON DICKINSON AND COMPANY, et al. are taking an appeal from a
court order denying their motion to compel arbitration in the
lawsuit entitled Ramon Aguila, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Becton Dickinson and
Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-06670-EJD, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed this class action complaint against the Defendants for
violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and
Professions Code including failure to pay wages including overtime,
failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods,
failure to pay timely wages, failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements, failure to indemnify necessary business expenses,
failure to pay reporting time, and unfair business practices.
On Feb. 6, 2023, the Defendants filed a joint motion to compel
individual arbitration and dismiss class claims, which the Court
denied through an Order entered by Judge Edward J. Davila on Sept.
13, 2023.
The Court finds that the Arbitration Provision is unenforceable
because it contravenes California public policy and is
substantively and procedurally unconscionable. As such, the Court
denies the Defendants' request to compel Aguila to arbitrate his
claims. Because the Court finds that the Arbitration Provision is
unenforceable, it does not reach the Defendants' other arguments
regarding the Arbitration Provision's scope, Becton Dickinson's
authority to compel arbitration, or arbitrating class action
claims.
The appellate case is captioned Ramon Aguila v. Becton Dickinson
and Company, et al., Case No. 23-16207, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on September 22, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants Apidel Technologies, LLC and Becton Dickinson and
Company Mediation Questionnaire was due on September 29, 2023;
-- Appellants Apidel Technologies, LLC and Becton Dickinson and
Company opening brief is due on November 24, 2023;
-- Appellee Ramon Aguila answering brief is due on December 26,
2023; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee RAMON AGUILA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
Gregory Mauro, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 387-7200
Defendants-Appellants BECTON DICKINSON AND COMPANY, et al. are
represented by:
Marlene M. Moffitt, Esq.
Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC
4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (858) 652-3100
- and -
Sara Abarbanel, Esq.
FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP
11988 El Camino Real, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: (858) 847-6700
- and -
Christopher Ward, Esq.
FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP
321 N. Clark Street, Suite 3000
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 832-4500
BELL TELEPHONE: Faces Class Suit Over Door-to-Door Sales Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nida Zafar, writing for MobileSyrup, reports that a class action
against telecom giant Bell on the company's sale practices will
continue forward, Quebec's Court of Appeal has ruled.
On July 4th, 2023, Quebec's Superior Court approved a filing from a
Quebec resident alleging the company took part in door-to-door
sales practice that went against the province's Consumer Protection
Act.
Resident Marie-Josee Langlois-Vinet alleged a sales representative
from the company arrived at her door to sell services in February
2019. However, she wasn't provided with a contract for the
services, which were later hashed out over the phone with a
different representative. In her suit, Langlois-Vinet argues the
move violated the act as the salesperson who came to her door
didn't have a permit to sell her the services.
Bell appealed the decision, partly arguing there wasn't enough
evidence for the class action to continue. The company also stated
Judge Lukasz Granosik made several mistakes in the July ruling
related to "unjustified causes of action" based on the act.
However, Quebec's Court of Appeal has ruled that Bell's arguments
didn't have a leg to stand on.
"Given the simple filtering role of the request for authorization
and the even more restricted role of the judge responsible for
authorizing appeals of judgments authorizing collective action, the
applicant does not convince that the judge has, on the face of its
judgment, erred in a manifest and decisive manner or committed a
simple error of law," the court's ruling states.
The class action represents Quebec residents who bought services
from Bell starting on July 23rd, 2018. [GN]
BOSTON MEDICAL: Seeks Dismissal of Wiretapping Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mass. Lawyers Weekly Staff reports that where a putative class
action has been brought alleging that a defendant used digital
marketing tools on its website that illegally redirected users'
personal information to third parties, the complaint should not be
dismissed despite the defendant's argument that the plaintiffs lack
standing and have failed to meet the requirements of the
Massachusetts wiretap statute (G.L.c. 272, §99) and the invasion
of privacy statute (G.L.c. 214, Sec. 1B).
"Plaintiffs John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 commenced this putative class
action against defendant Boston Medical Center Corporation ('BMC'),
alleging that it used digital marketing tools on its website that
illegally redirected website users' personal information, and the
contents of their communications with BMC's website, to third
parties Google and Meta. On the basis of these allegations, the
Complaint asserts claims for violations of the Massachusetts
Wiretap Statute, G.L.c. 272, §99, and invasion of privacy under
G.L.c. 214, Section 1B.
"BMC argues that Plaintiffs' claims must be dismissed due to lack
of standing and failure to meet the requirements of the relevant
statutes. As discussed below, the arguments are unavailing. . . .
". . . Under the statutes at issue here, the relevant standing
requirements have been met.
"Looking first at the Massachusetts Wiretap Statute, it contains a
liquidated damages provision providing that: 'Any aggrieved person
. . . shall have a civil cause of action . . . and shall be
entitled to recover . . . actual damages but not less than
liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 per day for each
day of violation or $1000, whichever is higher.' G.L.c. 272,
Section 99(Q). By providing such an award to an aggrieved person
under the statute, with no additional showing of harm required, the
Legislature necessarily deemed a properly alleged violation of the
statute, alone, to constitute injury sufficient to confer standing.
. . . Here, where, as discussed infra, Plaintiffs plausibly allege
a violation of the Massachusetts Wiretap Statute, more is not
required.
"As for the Right of Privacy statute, G.L.c. 214, Section 1B, it
provides: 'A person shall have a right against unreasonable,
substantial or serious interference with his privacy. The superior
court shall have jurisdiction in equity to enforce such right and
in connection therewith to award damages.' The plain language of
the statute provides a cause of action to those whose right to
privacy has been invaded in the manner described, with no
additional requirement to proof any additional harm or damages,
although the superior court has the authority to award damages.
Thus, the invasion of privacy alleged -- that BMC intentionally
disclosed Plaintiffs' personal identifying information, including
their IP addresses, along with the contents of their personal
health-related website interactions -- alone are sufficient to show
they suffered a direct injury under the statute for purposes of
standing.
". . . BMC argues that dismissal is required here because the
Legislature intended the statute to apply only to 'conversations,'
not internet tracking; the term 'intercepting device' does not
encompass the software code at issue here; and finally the alleged
interceptions did not take place in Massachusetts.
". . . Plaintiffs' online search for doctors and requests for
appointment are the modern equivalent of telephone inquiries and
conversations that would have been made to doctors' offices in the
past when the statute was enacted, and are therefore covered under
its broad language.
"BMC next argues that the statutory term 'intercepting device' is
limited to only 'tangible' objects, and thus does not encompass the
Meta Pixel and Google Analytics software at issue here. Again, the
argument is unavailing. The Massachusetts Wiretap Statute broadly
defines an 'intercepting device' as 'any device or apparatus which
is capable of transmitting, receiving, amplifying, or recording a
wire or oral communication.' G.L.c. 272, Sec. 99(B)(4). Nothing in
this language limits intercepting devices to being physical,
tangible objects; neither does the common dictionary definition of
'device' so limit that term. . . . Moreover, where cellphone,
tablet, and computer applications and programs, and their
interfacing with the internet, all rely on software for their
operation, its use is practically implicit in any modern electronic
communication. Thus, to restrict software code from being
considered an intercepting device as BMC suggests would essentially
nullify the statute's application.
"Because the software code at issue here is alleged to have
recorded and transmitted the contents of Plaintiffs' communications
with BMC's website and their personal information to third parties,
the Complaint sufficiently alleges the use of an intercepting
device. . . .
"Finally, where BMC is alleged to have added (or directed the
addition of) the Meta Pixel and Google Analytics software to its
website from its offices in Massachusetts, and Plaintiffs are
Massachusetts residents who accessed BMC's website while in
Massachusetts, the allegations suffice to show that the
interceptions occurred in Massachusetts. In other words, because
the sender and the intended recipient/interceptor are both in
Massachusetts, the location of Meta and Google in California is not
disqualifying, particularly in the absence of controlling authority
holding otherwise. . . .
"An invasion of privacy claim under G.L.c. 214, §1B may be based
either on the public disclosure of private facts or an intrusion
upon a plaintiff's solitude or seclusion, i.e., an infringement
upon the right to be left alone. . . .
"Here, at the motion to dismiss stage, the alleged disclosure of
personal and healthcare-related information over multiple website
visits for the sole purpose of targeted advertising efforts
suffices to advance Plaintiffs' claim. . . .
"BMC nevertheless argues that Plaintiffs' claim fails for lack of
alleged damages. The statute provides the Superior Court with
equity jurisdiction, however, to enforce a plaintiff's right to
privacy, in addition to the authority to award damages. G.L.c. 214,
Sec. 1B. Here, where BMC is alleged to have intentionally placed
the Meta Pixel and Google Analytics software on its website, the
software's removal, the deletion of data collected, or the addition
of appropriate disclaimers, would fall under the court's equity
jurisdiction. Indeed, Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief enjoining
the disclosures alleged absent a website users' consent. Whether
the damages Plaintiffs further allege withstand scrutiny is a
matter for later determination."
Doe, et al. v. Boston Medical Center Corporation (Lawyers Weekly
No. 09-119-23) (9 pages) (Kazanjian, J.) (Suffolk Superior Court)
(Civil Action No. 2384CV00326-BLS-1) (Sept. 14, 2023). [GN]
CAREDAMA CONTRACTORS: Faces Quintuna Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS QUINTUNA, FRANKLYN YUCAILLA, RICARDO ISRAEL YANCHA and
FAUSTO ZHAGNAY, on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAREDAMA CONTRACTORS
INCORPORATED, and JORGE OLVERA, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-07056
(E.D.N.Y., Sept. 22, 2023) arises from the Defendants' unlawful
labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
New York Labor Law, and the Wage Theft Prevention Act.
The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants' failure to pay proper minimum
and overtime wages, failure to pay "spread of hours" compensation,
and failure to provide them with wage notices.
The Plaintiffs previously worked for the Defendants as carpenters
and concrete workers.
Caredama Contractors Incorporated is a construction contracting
company in Corona, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Samuel, Esq.
THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
1441 Broadway Suite 6085
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 563-9884
E-mail: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com
DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces Suit Over Misleading Advertised Shelf-Prices
------------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett of Top Class Actions reports that Dollar General
regularly charges customers a higher price for various items at the
cash register than what their advertised price is on the shelf, a
new class action lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiff Lori Hartline claims she has noticed a discrepancy in
what she was charged and paid at checkout versus the advertised
shelf-price for merchandise she purchased at a Dollar General in
Porum, Oklahoma.
Hartline argues she has filed three complaints with the Oklahoma
attorney general this year over Dollar General allegedly charging
her more at checkout for merchandise than what the advertised
shelf-price was.
"It is Defendant's policy and practice to charge a higher price at
the register for merchandise than the price advertised on the unit
price labels for the same merchandise on the shelves in Defendant's
Oklahoma stores," the Dollar General class action states.
Hartline wants to represent a class of consumers who, within the
last three years, have paid more for merchandise than the
advertised price labeled on the shelf at a Dollar General store
located in Oklahoma.
Complaints also filed against Dollar General in New Jersey, Ohio,
New York, class action says
Hartline cites complaints that have been filed against Dollar
General in New Jersey, Ohio and New York by consumers claiming the
store regularly charged customers higher prices at the register
than the price of merchandise advertised on the shelves.
"Defendant used the same procedures that they employed in charging
a higher price than advertised to Plaintiffs when selling the same
and/or similar merchandise to numerous other consumers in its
Oklahoma stores," the Dollar General class action states.
Hartline claims Dollar General is in violation of the Oklahoma
Consumer Protection Act. She is demanding a jury trial and
requesting injunctive and declaratory relief along with an award of
actual, treble, statutory and punitive damages for herself and all
class members.
A separate class action lawsuit was filed against Dollar General
earlier this year by a consumer arguing the company failed to make
its website fully accessible to and independently usable by
individuals who are blind or visually impaired.
Have you been charged more at checkout than the advertised shelf
price for a product purchased at a Dollar General in Oklahoma? Let
us know in the comments.
The plaintiff is represented by William B. Federman and Jessica A.
Wilkes of Federman & Sherwood, and Brian D. Flick and Marc E. Dann
of DannLaw.
The Dollar General prices class action lawsuit is Hartline v.
Dollar General Crop., et al., Case No. 6:23-cv-00319, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. [GN]
EL CAMINO: Appeals Remand Order in Spalinger Suit to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
EL CAMINO HOSPITAL is appealing a remand order in the lawsuit
entitled Indigo Spalinger, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. El Camino Hospital, Defendant,
Case No. 3:23-cv-02350-VC, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Santa Clara County Superior Court to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, was
brought against the Defendant for personal injury.
On June 12, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case
to State Court, which the Court granted through an Order entered by
Judge Vince Chhabria on Aug. 21, 2023.
The appellate case is captioned Indigo Spalinger v. El Camino
Hospital, Case No. 23-16206, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, filed on September 22, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant El Camino Hospital Mediation Questionnaire was due
on September 29, 2023;
-- Appellant El Camino Hospital opening brief is due on November
20, 2023;
-- Appellee Indigo Spalinger 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 INDIGO SPALINGER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Brittany Scott, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, PA
1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4460
Defendant-Appellant EL CAMINO HOSPITAL is represented by:
Dyanne J. Cho, Esq.
Teresa Carey Chow, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 979-8418
(310) 820-8800
- and -
Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq.
BAKER HOSTETLER LLP
1801 California Street
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 764-4013
- and -
James Morrison, Esq.
Alexander Vitruk, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
999 3rd Avenue, Suite 3900
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 332-1108
(206) 566-7092
EZ DISPOSAL: Settles Wage Class Action for $1.7 Million
-------------------------------------------------------
Mass. Lawyers Weekly Staff reports that a class of 66 trash and
recycling collection workers alleged they were not paid the full
prevailing wage as a result of improper health and welfare benefit
deductions.
The case settled for full trebled damages.
Action: Employment
Injuries alleged: Failure to pay class of trash and recycling
collection employees full prevailing wage as result of improper
health and welfare benefit deductions
Case name: Johnson v. EZ Disposal & Recycling, LLC, et al.
Court/case no.: Essex County Superior Court/No. 2277CV00504
Jury and/or judge: Judge James F. Lang (settled)
Amount: $1,661,761.96
Date: June 9, 2023
Attorney: Adam J. Shafran of Rudolph Friedmann, Boston (for the
plaintiff) [GN]
GANNETT CO: Racial Discrimination Class Action Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Telford, writing for The Washington Post, reports that when
the U.S. Supreme Court struck down affirmative action in college
admissions in June, the effects ricocheted far beyond academia. In
recent months, a flurry of litigation has aimed to translate the
court's race-blind stance on education to corporate diversity and
inclusion policies.
Companies have long tried to eliminate inequality in their ranks,
in part by encouraging the hiring and promotion of women and racial
minorities. But recent lawsuits claim those efforts perpetuate
discrimination on the basis of race and gender -- the very
injustice they claim to stamp out.
Here's what you should know about the growing legal battle over
corporate diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.
Does the Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action apply to
companies?
The short answer is that it doesn't -- at least not directly.
Unlike colleges and universities, private employers were already
barred from making decisions based on race under the Civil Rights
Act of 1964. Companies cannot set aside a portion of jobs for
minorities, or hire an applicant solely because of their race.
Decades of legal precedent have allowed employers to take race into
account, especially in the interest of countering historical
inequities in their workforces, according to Stacy Hawkins, a law
professor at Rutgers University and a former corporate employment
lawyer who specializes in diversity. But there's growing pushback
from litigants eager to see those practices curtailed as well.
"Quite frankly, the most risky thing an employer can do is make any
employment decision explicitly on the basis of race," Hawkins said.
"But you can be committed to diversity in your workplace and take
steps that are informed by that commitment."
That might entail eliminating exclusionary parts of the hiring
process or seeking alternative talent pools, Hawkins said. It could
also mean providing employee resource groups, mentorship or other
forms of support to members of underrepresented groups once they're
on board.
Wasn't DEI under fire before the court decision?
Yes, and corporate commitments to these endeavors have been waning.
In the wake of George Floyd's murder in 2020, companies made $340
billion in commitments to improve racial equity in their ranks
between May 2020 and October 2022, according to data from the
McKinsey Institute for Black Economic Mobility. But in the past
year, companies have been paring back DEI roles.
Conservative politicians and advocacy groups also have been
challenging DEI practices. For example, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis
(R) has barred spending on DEI at public colleges and universities
in his state, declaring "Florida is where 'woke' goes to die."
In July, 13 Republican attorneys general sent a letter urging
Microsoft and other Fortune 100 companies to reexamine their DEI
policies in response to the Supreme Court ruling on affirmative
action. The letter threatened "serious legal consequences" for
companies that rely on race-based employment preferences, including
"explicit racial quotas and preferences in hiring, recruiting,
retention, promotion and advancement."
Companies take an expansive range of approaches to enhancing
diversity, from tailoring their recruiting to better reach
underrepresented groups to helping minority employees feel
supported in the workplace, according to Stephanie Creary,
assistant professor of management at the Wharton School of the
University of Pennsylvania. And ever since these efforts began, in
the wake of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they've faced significant
pushback.
"The government does not tell people how to execute this," Creary
said. Companies "have to figure out for themselves what that means
and what practices they have to put into place."
Modern incarnations of DEI policies emerged from major racial
discrimination lawsuits, Creary said, such as the 2000 case in
which Coca-Cola agreed to a $192 million settlement — a record
sum for a corporate racial discrimination case at that time. To
settle claims that the company relegated Black employees to the
bottom of its pay scale, Coca-Cola was required to change
performance evaluations and its processes for staffing and
promotion decisions.
Now, corporate DEI practices are facing their own legal pushback.
How is the legal fight playing out?
In recent months, a steady trickle of lawsuits and decisions has
challenged the legality of DEI policies and practices in the
workplace. A few have been filed by the American Alliance for Equal
Rights (AAER), a group founded by conservative activist Edward
Blum, who was behind the cases that culminated in the Supreme Court
striking down affirmative action in college admissions.
In early August, the group filed a lawsuit against Fearless Fund,
an Atlanta-based venture capital firm run by two Black women,
alleging that the fund is engaging in racial discrimination by
running a grant program exclusively for early-stage companies owned
by Black women. On Sept. 29, the firm notched a big victory when a
federal judge declined AAER's request for an injunction, which
would have blocked the program.
On Sept. 26, however, a panel of federal appellate judges
temporarily blocked the fund from awarding grants, effectively
reversing the Sept. 29 ruling.
In September, AAER also sued two major corporate law firms, arguing
that their fellowships aimed at bolstering diversity amount to
racial discrimination because they exclude non-minorities.
Shortly after the suits were filed, one of the firms, Morrison
Foerster, removed all references to race from online descriptions
of the fellowship, opening the program to students of all
backgrounds. In September, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, one of the
firms representing Fearless Fund, also changed the criteria for its
diversity and inclusion scholarship. The award is now for students
"who have demonstrated resilience and excellence on their path
toward a career in law," according to reporting from Bloomberg Law,
as opposed to previous language specifying it was for "students who
identify with an underrepresented group."
America First Legal, the conservative nonprofit group backed by
former Donald Trump adviser Stephen Miller, has filed complaints in
recent months against Kellogg's, Nordstrom and Activision Blizzard,
alleging that their diversity and inclusion policies constitute
racial discrimination.
In July, a federal judge in Tennessee thrust the U.S. Small
Business Administration's 8(a) Business Development program into
chaos after he struck down a provision that equated race with
social disadvantage. For about 50 years, the program has opened a
pipeline to billions in government contracting dollars for
historically disadvantaged groups.
Under the July ruling, a business owner's Black, Hispanic, Asian or
Native American heritage no longer automatically qualifies as
evidence of social disadvantage. Instead, in a mass email
distributed by SBA officials on Aug. 22, business owners were
instructed to submit an essay demonstrating that their race had
somehow hindered their success.
What DEI practices are most likely to face scrutiny?
The purpose of DEI efforts is to "make workplaces that really work
for everyone," according to Alexis Robertson, director of DEI at
law firm Foley & Lardner. But there's a misconception, she said,
that these policies unfairly give preference to some groups over
others — a claim advanced in many ongoing lawsuits.
People of color and women held less than 14 percent of C-suite
roles across Fortune 500 and S&P 500 companies as of 2023,
according to data from executive search firm Crist Kolder
Associates.
In the field of law, which has already faced suits over diversity
fellowships, less than 5 percent of practicing attorneys are Black,
even though Black people make up roughly 15 percent of the U.S.
population, according to the American Bar Association. About 10
percent of practicing attorneys fall into other minority groups.
Robertson said she is optimistic the tension around DEI will
encourage companies to thoroughly examine their practices and
develop more sophisticated solutions. If your organization's DEI
efforts amount to: "'We're giving some impermissible preference in
hiring or promotion,'" Robertson said, "you're going to get sued."
Fearing legal challenge, organizations are likely to move away from
DEI programs that exclusively target certain populations, such as
minorities, Robertson said, because "these efforts invite
scrutiny." While some demographic-specific efforts will probably
remain, overall, corporate DEI is likely to shift and focus more on
"universal" efforts to make recruiting, hiring and retention more
successful for everyone.
A sticking point is likely to be how the courts draw the line
between diversity goals and quotas. The use of racial quotas has
been illegal for decades under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but
companies have long been permitted to enact targeted, temporary
measures to improve diversity in their workforces, according to
Sheila Willis, co-chair of the affirmative action and federal
contract compliance practice group at law firm Fisher Phillips.
"When I hear 'quota,' I hear a requirement," Willis said. "A 'goal'
is something that's more aspirational."
This issue is being interrogated in a proposed class-action lawsuit
from former employers of newspaper publisher Gannett, which accused
the company of racial discrimination. The suit claims White workers
were unfairly terminated or passed over for opportunities and
replaced with less-qualified minority candidates amid Gannett's
efforts to increase the number of people of color in leadership
roles by 30 percent by 2025.
In a statement, Gannett declined to discuss the lawsuit but said it
"always seeks to recruit and retain the most qualified individuals
for all roles within the company."
"We will vigorously defend our practice of ensuring equal
opportunities for all our valued employees against this meritless
lawsuit," Polly Grunfeld Sack, Gannett's chief legal counsel, told
The Washington Post in an email.
What should employers do about all this?
Experts on all sides of this issue are clear: Now is the time for
employers to closely examine their DEI efforts and ensure they're
complying with the law.
Employers should be "vigilant and thoughtful" about the language
used not only in their explicit DEI policies and practices, but
also in their formal and informal communication about them, Willis
said. She recommended that companies involve internal or external
legal counsel in their evaluations.
"Regardless of how noble corporations may be with their DEI goals,
the legality of this is now under the microscope," said Leon
Prieto, professor of management at Clayton State University.
"Because of the fear of litigation, they have no choice but to
adapt."
Despite the scrutiny, Prieto cautioned companies against backing
away from DEI efforts. But in demonstrating their commitment,
companies must "do a more robust job of communicating their goals
and their vision," Prieto added.
"They need to let people know that DEI is not about just hiring
ethnic minorities for the sake of hiring ethnic minorities." [GN]
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Data Privacy Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Smalley of The Record reports that a trial lawyer who
secured a nearly $90 million verdict against Monsanto filed suit
against H&R Block on September 27, 2023, alleging the tax
preparation firm collaborated with Meta and Google to embed
"spyware" on its website to make money from scraped tax return
data.
The class-action suit alleges the three companies' joint conduct
should be considered a pattern of racketeering on a "massive
scale."
Los Angeles-based R. Brent Wisner, managing partner of Wisner Baum,
is filing the suit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO), which usually applies to organized crime.
The firm says it's the first class-action RICO suit in the H&R
Block case.
The suit, filed in a California federal court, argues the tax
preparer and tech behemoths failed to adequately alert consumers
that their data was being sold and established a "comprehensive
program" to deceive customers and share their data "for their own
financial gain, breaking an array of laws in the process."
A congressional report released in July documented that Meta and
Google worked with H&R Block to put tracking pixels on the section
of the tax preparation company's website where customers entered
sensitive information. Tracking pixels are essentially small files
that, when downloaded, help a site gather information about a
visitor.
"Most people would never post their kids' college account or their
retirement savings on Facebook, but H&R Block did something just
like that when they handed customer income tax information over to
a bunch of advertisers," Wisner said in a prepared statement.
He added that the three companies ignored data privacy laws and
"passed information about people's financial lives around like
candy."
H&R Block and Meta did not respond to requests for comment. A
Google spokesperson said in a statement that the company has
"strict policies and technical features that prohibit Google
Analytics customers from collecting data that could be used to
identify an individual."
The statement noted that site owners, as opposed to Google, control
what information they collect.
Last week, the Federal Trade Commission warned H&R Block and four
other tax preparation firms they would be penalized if they failed
to get consumers' permission to use their data for advertising.
H&R Block, a global company, reports that it prepares more than 20
million tax returns annually.
The suit cites the fact that the Internal Revenue Code specifies
tax preparation companies cannot share any information customers
disclose for any purpose other than to prepare their returns.
The July congressional report alleged that H&R Block shared a large
amount of data via the Meta Pixel, including whether taxpayers had
visited pages for "revealing tax situations, such as having
dependents, certain types of income (such as rental income or
capital gains), and certain tax credits or deductions."
The report noted that while H&R Block, Google and Meta claimed all
shared data was anonymous, the FTC has said that the data could
easily be used to identify individuals, creating a "dossier on them
that could be used for targeted advertising or other purposes."
In 2018, Law360 named Wisner as a "Titan of the Plaintiff's Bar," a
lifetime award honoring lawyers skilled in major litigation. The
Monsanto suit involved the corporation's Roundup weed killer
product. [GN]
H&R BLOCK: Faces Class Suit Over Data Privacy Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Smalley of The Record reports that a trial lawyer who
secured a nearly $90 million verdict against Monsanto filed suit
against H&R Block on September 27, 2023, alleging the tax
preparation firm collaborated with Meta and Google to embed
"spyware" on its website to make money from scraped tax return
data.
The class-action suit alleges the three companies' joint conduct
should be considered a pattern of racketeering on a "massive
scale."
Los Angeles-based R. Brent Wisner, managing partner of Wisner Baum,
is filing the suit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO), which usually applies to organized crime.
The firm says it's the first class-action RICO suit in the H&R
Block case.
The suit, filed in a California federal court, argues the tax
preparer and tech behemoths failed to adequately alert consumers
that their data was being sold and established a "comprehensive
program" to deceive customers and share their data "for their own
financial gain, breaking an array of laws in the process."
A congressional report released in July documented that Meta and
Google worked with H&R Block to put tracking pixels on the section
of the tax preparation company's website where customers entered
sensitive information. Tracking pixels are essentially small files
that, when downloaded, help a site gather information about a
visitor.
"Most people would never post their kids' college account or their
retirement savings on Facebook, but H&R Block did something just
like that when they handed customer income tax information over to
a bunch of advertisers," Wisner said in a prepared statement.
He added that the three companies ignored data privacy laws and
"passed information about people's financial lives around like
candy."
H&R Block and Meta did not respond to requests for comment. A
Google spokesperson said in a statement that the company has
"strict policies and technical features that prohibit Google
Analytics customers from collecting data that could be used to
identify an individual."
The statement noted that site owners, as opposed to Google, control
what information they collect.
Last week, the Federal Trade Commission warned H&R Block and four
other tax preparation firms they would be penalized if they failed
to get consumers' permission to use their data for advertising.
H&R Block, a global company, reports that it prepares more than 20
million tax returns annually.
The suit cites the fact that the Internal Revenue Code specifies
tax preparation companies cannot share any information customers
disclose for any purpose other than to prepare their returns.
The July congressional report alleged that H&R Block shared a large
amount of data via the Meta Pixel, including whether taxpayers had
visited pages for "revealing tax situations, such as having
dependents, certain types of income (such as rental income or
capital gains), and certain tax credits or deductions."
The report noted that while H&R Block, Google and Meta claimed all
shared data was anonymous, the FTC has said that the data could
easily be used to identify individuals, creating a "dossier on them
that could be used for targeted advertising or other purposes."
In 2018, Law360 named Wisner as a "Titan of the Plaintiff's Bar," a
lifetime award honoring lawyers skilled in major litigation. The
Monsanto suit involved the corporation's Roundup weed killer
product. [GN]
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Faces Curran Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Styf of Top Class Actions reports that a new class action
lawsuit against Honeywell claims the company didn't do enough to
protect the personal information of customers from being stolen in
the Honeywell data breach.
The lawsuit, filed by plaintiff Lynne Curran, argues Honeywell's
lack of data security contributed to more than 118,000 customers
having their data stolen prior to the end of May 2023.
"Defendant disregarded the rights of plaintiff and class members by
intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to
take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that
plaintiff's and class members' PII (personally identifiable
information) was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to
prevent unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow
applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and
procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal
use," the Honeywell data breach class action says.
The plaintiffs have lost time monitoring their credit and also have
risk for future identity theft based on the personal information
that was stolen, the class action says.
Honeywell says it didn't learn details of data breach until Aug.
28, class action says
Honeywell sent notice to customers stating it didn't learn of the
Honeywell data breach until Aug. 28 and reviewed the data breach
after that. But the plaintiff claims Honeywell still hasn't told
customers exactly what data was stolen and what malware was used to
steal it.
Personal information stolen in a data breach can be re-sold for $40
to $200, while bank details can sell from $50 to $2,002 and a
stolen credit or debit card number can sell for $5 to $110 on the
dark web, according to the lawsuit.
A class action lawsuit last year claimed Honeywell International
imposed an "unlawful" COVID-19 vaccine mandate on its employees and
required exempt workers to wear color-coded "identification
badges."
Was your personal information compromised in the Honeywell data
breach? Let us know in the comments.
The plaintiff is represented by David M. Wilkerson of The Van
Winkle Law Firm and Kevin Laukaitis of Laukaitis Law LLC.
The Honeywell class action lawsuit is Curran v. Honeywell
International Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00594, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina. [GN]
ILLINOIS FARMERS: Files 8th Cir. Appeal in Taqueria El Primo Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ILLINOIS FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. are taking an appeal
from a memorandum opinion and order entered by the court in the
lawsuit entitled Taqueria El Primo LLC, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Illinois
Farmers Insurance Company, et al., Defendants, Case No.
0:19-cv-03071-JRT, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
first filed a lawsuit in Hennepin County District Court on Nov. 8,
2019. The Defendants removed the suit to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d)(2),
1441, and 1446. The Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on
June 4, 2020. They seek damages and ask for an order declaring the
billing limitations are illegal and enjoining their enforcement.
The parties then engaged in substantial discovery.
The Plaintiffs brought claims under the Minnesota Consumer Fraud
Act ("MCFA"), under the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices
Act ("MDTPA"), and for breach of contract.
The Plaintiffs moved to certify two classes: (1) a Damages Class
defined as "all persons or entities who purchased an insurance
policy on or after Jan. 13, 2013 within the State of Minnesota from
any of the Defendant Insurers that provided for medical expense
benefits under Minnesota's No Fault Act," and (2) an Injunctive
Class defined as "all persons or entities who purchased an
insurance policy on or after January 13, 2013 within the State of
Minnesota from any of the Defendant Insurers that provided for
medical expense benefits under Minnesota's No Fault Act, and who
maintain that policy."
On February 16, 2023, the Defendants moved to exclude the
Plaintiffs' expert witnesses Akshay R. Rao, Michael J. Rothman, and
Allan I. Schwartz.
The parties cross-moved for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs moved
for partial summary judgment for the Damages Class-seeking to leave
just the issue of damages under the MCFA to the jury-but moved for
summary judgment on all claims with respect to the Injunctive
Class. The Defendants seek summary judgment on all claims.
On Sept. 13, 2023, Judge John R. Tunheim entered a memorandum
opinion and order denying each of the motions to exclude expert
testimony because they do not adequately challenge the methodology
or reliability of each witness. The Court concluded that
Plaintiffs' MCFA claims are actionable but that issues of fact
remain as to the causal nexus to any damages precluding summary
judgment. The Court granted summary judgment to the Injunctive
Class on its MDTPA claim and enjoin3e the Defendants from enforcing
the billing limitations or entering into similar agreements in the
future. The Court also grant3e summary judgment to the Defendants
on the breach of contract claim. Finally, the Court denied the
Defendants' request to dismiss the claims against Farmers Group,
Inc. (FGI) but granted summary judgment in favor of Farmers
Insurance Company, Inc. (FICI) on all claims and dismiss FICI from
this case.
The appellate case is captioned Taqueria El Primo LLC, et al. v. IL
Farmers Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 23-3128, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on September
21, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Transcript due on or before October 31, 2023;
-- Appendix is due on November 13, 2023;
-- Appellants Farmers Group, Farmers Insurance Company, Farmers
Insurance Exchange, Illinois Farmers Insurance Company, Mid-Century
Insurance Company, and Truck Insurance Exchange brief is due on
November 13, 2023; and
-- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees TAQUERIA EL PRIMO LLC, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:
David Walfred Asp, Esq.
Jennifer Jacobs, Esq.
Kristen Marttila, Esq.
Stephen Matthew Owen, Esq.
Derek C. Waller, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE & GRINDAL
Suite 2200
100 Washington Avenue, S.
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
- and -
Paul James Phelps, Esq.
THOMAS J. LYONS & ASSOCIATES
342 E. County Road D
Little Canada, MN 55117
Telephone: (651) 770-9707
- and -
Nathan D. Prosser, Esq.
Anne T. Regan, Esq.
HELLMUTH & JOHNSON
8050 W. 78th Street
Edina, MN 55439
Telephone: (952) 941-4005
- and -
Paul James Phelps, Esq.
SAWICKI & PHELPS
5758 Blackshire Path
Inver Grove Heights, MN 55076
Telephone: (651) 730-6900
Defendants-Appellants ILLINOIS FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
are represented by:
Marc Andre Al, Esq.
Emily C. Atmore, Esq.
John T. Katuska, Esq.
STOEL & RIVES
Suite 4200
33 S. Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 373-8801
(612) 373-8800
- and -
Timothy W. Snider, Esq.
STOEL & RIVES
Suite 3000
760 S.W. Ninth Avenue
Portland, OR 97205
Telephone: (503) 224-3380
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Malinowski Balks at Unprotected Health Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ELAINE D. MALINOWSKI, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORPORATION and JOHNSON & JOHNSON HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 7:23-cv-08421-NSR (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 22, 2023)
arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected
health information and personally identifiable information stored
within Defendants' information network, including, without
limitation, full names, contact information, and information about
medications and associated conditions, being thereafter referred
to, collectively, as protected health information(PHI) and
personally identifiable information(PII).
In this complaint, Representative Plaintiff seeks to hold
Defendants responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to
cause Representative Plaintiff and, at least, thousands of other
similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable
cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendants on August 2, 2023,
in which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendants' inadequately
protected network servers and accessed highly sensitive PHI/PII
that was being kept unprotected.
By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from
Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' PHI/PII, Defendants
assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals, says the
complaint. These duties arise from Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996, other state and federal statutes and
regulations, and common law principles. Representative Plaintiff do
not bring claims in this action for direct violations of HIPAA but
charge Defendants with various legal violations merely predicated
upon the duties set forth in HIPAA, adds the complaint.
International Business Machines Corporation is an American
multinational technology corporation headquartered in Armonk, New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jared R. Cooper, Esq.
ROBINSON YABLON COOPER & BONFANTE, LLP
232 Madison Avenue, Suite 909
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 725-8566
Facsimile: (212) 725-8567
E-mail: jared@rycbinjury.com
- and -
Daniel Srourian, Esq.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 474-3800
Facsimile: (213) 471-4160
E-mail: daniel@slfla.com
IROQUOIS NURSING: Pallotta Seeks Nurse Assistants' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN PALLOTTA, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were employed by IROQUOIS NURSING HOME,
INC., MEDCOR STAFFING INC., and/or any other entities affiliated
with or controlled by IROQUOIS NURSING HOME, INC., MEDCOR STAFFING
INC., Plaintiffs v. IROQUOIS NURSING HOME, INC., MEDCOR STAFFING
INC. and any related entities, Defendants, Case No.
6:23-cv-01197-DNH-ML (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 22, 2023) is brought against
the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New
York Labor Law, and New York Codes, Rules and Regulations to
recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation as well as related
damages owed to the Named Plaintiff and all similarly situated
persons.
Plaintiff Pallotta was employed by Defendants as a Certified Nurse
Assistant from approximately February 2023, through June 19, 2023.
Iroquois Nursing Home, Inc. is a senior living provider in
Jamesville, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank S. Gattuso, Esq.
GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC
The White House
7030 E. Genesee Street
Fayetteville, NY 13066
Telephone: (315) 314-8000
Facsimile: (315) 446-7521
E-mail: fgattuso@gclawoffice.com
JUUL TOBACCO: Set to Receive $9,237 Vape Settlement Payout
----------------------------------------------------------
Chad Arnold, writing for The Daily Gazette, reports that the
Schalmont Central School District is the latest to receive a
payment from Juul Tobacco Corp. to settle claims that the
e-cigarette company intentionally marketed its product to underage
students.
The school district will receive $9,237 after previously agreeing
to join a class action lawsuit against the company that has long
faced claims it was responsible for the rise in youth vaping in
recent years. The district's board of education agreed to accept
the funds at its meeting.
It's unclear how the district plans to spend the money. A district
spokesperson did not return a request seeking comment.
Thousands of school districts, as well as local and state
governments, filed a class action lawsuit against Juul in 2019,
claiming the company did not properly notify users that its
products contained tobacco and used aggressive marketing tactics
that led to a significant increase in underage vape use.
Earlier this year, the company agreed to pay $426 million to settle
claims with several states, including New York, California,
Colorado, Illinois and Massachusetts, according to the New York
Times.
It's unclear if the Schalmont Central School District has seen an
increase use in students using e-cigarettes, though a recent report
by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration found that tobacco
products are used by 14.8% of high school students and 6.8% of
middle schoolers. [GN]
KANNACT INC: Fongheiser Files Suit in D. Oregon
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kannact, Inc. The
case is styled as Ann Fongheiser, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Kannact, Inc., Case No.
6:23-cv-01288-AA (D. Ore., Sept. 5, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property Damage for
Contract Dispute.
Kannact -- https://kannact.com/ -- is a solutions provider who seek
to improve lives of patients through innovative healthcare
collaboration solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 5th Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 682-5600
Email: kstephens@tousley.com
KANNACT INC: White Files Suit in D. Oregon
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kannact, Inc. The
case is styled as Alan White, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Kannact, Inc., Case No. 6:23-cv-01297-AA (D.
Ore., Sept. 6, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property Damage for
Contract Default.
Kannact -- https://kannact.com/ -- is a solutions provider who seek
to improve lives of patients through innovative healthcare
collaboration solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 5th Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 682-5600
Email: kstephens@tousley.com
KATIE'S KITTY: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Katie's Kitty, Inc.
The case is styled as Hakan Durantas, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Katie's Kitty, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-07305-FB-RER (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 29, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Katie's Kitty -- https://katieskitty.com/ -- is an exclusive
boutique-style cat sitting company in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
KENVUE INC: Nelson Sues Over Nasal Decongestants' False Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN NELSON and REGINA PERALTA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KENVUE, INC., MCNEIL
CONSUMER HEALTHCARE, JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., CVS
PHARMACY, INC., HALEON US CAPITAL LLC, GSK PLC, ALBERTSONS
COMPANIES, INC., TARGET CORPORATION, WALMART INC., and PERRIGO
COMPANY PLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-04875 (N.D. Cal., Sept.
22, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition
Law, False Advertising Law, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, and unjust enrichment.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have made millions of
dollars selling their nasal decongestant products. They market the
products as having the ability to provide nasal decongestant
relief. The Defendants attribute the products' ability to provide
nasal decongestion relief to the inclusion of one active ingredient
called Phenylephrine (PE).
PE, however, is ineffective at providing nasal decongestion relief
when it is taken orally. Indeed, on September 12, 2023, an advisory
panel to the U.S. Food & Drug Administration unanimously agreed
that oral PE is not effective at relieving nasal congestion. By
representing that the products are effective remedies for nasal
congestion, Defendants induced reasonable consumers, such as
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated consumers into believing
that the products were effective at providing nasal decongestion
relief, says the suit.
Kenvue, Inc. is an American consumer health company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Ave., Suite 1420
Miami, FL 33131-2800
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com
- and -
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
KRAFT HEINZ FOODS: Paszek Suit Removed to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Rafael Paszek, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. KRAFT
HEINZ FOODS COMPANY dba KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY (LLC), a
Pennsylvania limited liability company; PRIMAL NUTRITION, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, Case No. 37-2023-00037010-CU-OE-CTL was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on Sept. 29, 2023, and assigned Case No.
3:23-cv-01813-WQH-SBC.
The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges ten causes of action: Failure to
Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Unpaid
Overtime; Unpaid Minimum Wages; Wages Not Timely Paid Upon
Termination; Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment;
Violation of California Labor Code Section 1198 and California Code
of Regulations, Title 8 Section 11010 Subdivision 5(A) (Failure to
Provide Reporting Time Pay); Unreimbursed Business Expenses;
Violation of California Business & Professions Code (Unlawful
Business Practices); and Violation of California Business &
Professions Code (Unlawful Business Practices) all in Violation of
the California Labor Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Aaron H. Cole, Esq.
Vi N. Applen, 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: aaron.cole@ogletree.com
vi.applen@ogletree.com
L & M FOOTWEAR: Kunkle Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against L & M Footwear, Inc.
The case is styled as Frank Kunkle, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. L & M Footwear, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-08528 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 27, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
L & M Footwear, Inc. retails footwear for adults and children. The
Company offers sports shoes, boots, sneakers, slip-ons, sandals,
bags, and accessories.[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
LANIER INC: Allen Appeals Final Court Approval of Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL ALLEN is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit
entitled Daniel Allen, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lanier, Inc., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00268-jdp, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed a complaint against the Defendants for their alleged willful
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
On May 17, 2023, Judge James D. Peterson of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Wisconsin grants the parties' motion to
certify a federal collective and a state class, and for
preliminarily approval of their proposed settlement. Under the
settlement agreement, the maximum amount to be paid by the
Defendants is $182,000, which is divided up as follows: a net
settlement fund of $93,833.33 for class and collective members;
$10,000 for a reserve fund; $60,666.67 for attorney's fees; $10,000
for the administrator; $5,000 for costs; and $2,500 for Allen's
incentive payment.
On Aug. 1, 2023, the Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for final
approval of class and collective action settlement agreement and
memorandum in support, which the Court granted through an Order
entered by Judge Peterson on Aug. 30, 2023.
On Sept. 15, 2023, the Court entered judgment approving the
settlement agreement and dismissing the case with prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned Daniel Allen v. Lanier, Inc., et
al., Case No. 23-2826, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit, filed on Sept. 21, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Daniel Allen Docketing Statement was due on
September 27, 2023;
-- Transcript information sheet is due on October 5, 2023; and
-- Appellant's brief due on or before October 31, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant DANIEL ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Katherine Serrano, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 N. St. Paul Street
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
Defendants-Appellees LANIER, INC., et al., are represented by:
Anthony D. Dick, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
200 Public Square
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (440) 838-8800
LOUISIANA: Writ of Certiorari Filed in Little v. Doguet
-------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD LITTLE filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the
Supreme Court of United States in the lawsuit entitled Edward
Little, individually and all others similarly situated, Petitioner
vs. Andre' Doguet, et al., Case No. 20-30159 (5th Cir. 2023).
This litigation challenges the bail practices of one Louisiana
parish. The claim is that money bail is required for pretrial
detainees without consideration of alternatives, violating the
rights of indigents to substantive due process and equal
protection. The district court denied all relief. The Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that district courts must
abstain from suits contesting a local jurisdiction's bail practices
when there is an opportunity in state court to present
constitutional challenges to bail. The parties agree there exists
an opportunity here. Therefore, the Court remanded for the district
court to dismiss the case.
The appellate case is captioned Edward Little, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioner vs. Andre'
Doguet, et al., Case No. 23-291, in the Supreme Court of United
States, filed on September 22, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner Edward Little, individually and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:
Daniel Stephen Volchok, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20037
E-mail: daniel.volchok@wilmerhale.com
LULU'S FASHION: Esparza Suit Removed to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Miguel Esparza, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. LULU'S FASHION LOUNGE, LLC, a
Delaware entity d/b/a LULUS.COM, Case No. 23STCV19903 was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California on Sept. 27, 2023, and assigned Case No.
2:23-cv-08083.
The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges the following causes of action
against Defendant: Violations of the California Invasion of Privacy
Act, California Penal Code; Violations of the California Invasion
of Privacy Act, California Penal Code; California Unauthorized
Access to Computer Data Act, California Penal Code; and California
Invasion of Privacy.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Bradley J. Mullins, Esq.
MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
2049 Century Park East, 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3120
Phone: (310) 312-2000
Facsimile: (310) 312-3100
Email: bym@msk.com
MAERSK INC: Leon Sues for Mismanagement of Pension Plan
-------------------------------------------------------
CHARLENE P. LEON, individually, and as a representative of a Class
of Participants and Beneficiaries of the Maersk Inc. Pension,
Plaintiff v. MAERSK INC. and BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MAERSK INC., and
PENSION COMMITTEE OF MAERSK INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-00602 (W.D.N.C., Sept. 22, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for breach of duty of prudence and loyalty and for
failure to adequately monitor other fiduciaries in violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
According to the complaint, during the putative Class Period,
Defendants, as fiduciaries of the Maersk Inc. Pension Plan, as that
term is defined under ERISA, breached the duty of prudence they
owed to the Plan by requiring the Plan to pay excessive
recordkeeping and administrative (RKA) fees and by failing to
remove their high-cost record-keeper, John Hancock Retirement Plan
Services.
The complaint also asserts a breach of fiduciary duty by Maersk and
its Board for failing to monitor those members of the Pension
Committee responsible for paying these unreasonable and
discriminatory total RKA fees. These breaches of fiduciary duty
caused Plaintiff and Class Members millions of dollars of harm in
the form of lower retirement account balances than they otherwise
should have had in the absence of these unreasonable Plan fees.
The Plaintiff is a "participant" of the Plan under ERISA.
Maersk Inc. is a Danish international container shipping
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew L. Fitzgerald, Esq.
FITZGERALD HANNA & SULLIVAN, PLLC
119 Brookstown Avenue, Suite 402
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Telephone: (336) 793-4365
Facsimile: (336) 793-4696
E-mail: andy@fitzgeraldlitigation.com
- and -
Paul M. Secunda, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Dr., Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (414) 828-2372
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: psecunda@walcheskeluzi.com
MAPFRE USA: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Alexanderowics Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LYNNE ALEXANDEROWICS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAPFRE U.S.A. CORP. and THE
COMMERCE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-40125 (D.
Mass., Sept. 22, 2023) is a class action against Defendants for
their failure to properly secure and safeguard highly valuable,
protected personally identifiable information(PII), including
without limitation, Driver's License numbers; failure to comply
with industry standards to protect information systems that contain
PII; and unlawful disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members'
PII.
On August 22, 2023, MAPFRE provided Plaintiff with a notice
indicating that, between July 1, 2023 and July 2, 2023, an
unidentified third party illegally used some of Plaintiff's
information, including her name and date of birth, to obtain auto
insurance quotes from MAPFRE's website, www.mapfreinsurance.com.
The Defendants' policies and practices allowed unauthorized third
parties to intentionally target and improperly obtain Plaintiff's
and Class Members' PII through the use of MAPFRE's online insurance
quote and/or policy process, says the suit.
As a result, Plaintiff and Class Members face substantially
increased risk of future identity theft, both currently and for the
indefinite future. Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII, including
their Driver's License numbers compromised by cybercriminals in the
Data Disclosure, is highly valuable because it is readily useable
to commit fraud and identity theft, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, brings claims for negligence, negligence per se,
violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, and declaratory
judgment.
MAPFRE U.S.A Corp. is a Fortune 500 company that provides
insurance, including automotive and property policies, to over 30
million customers worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
Amanda M. Rolon, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
arolon@scott-scott.com
- and -
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
Patrick D. Donathen, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
E-mail: Gary@lcllp.com
NickC@lcllp.com
Patrick@lcllp.com
MARYLAND: Class Action Over Correctional Systems Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Ben Conarck, writing for The Baltimore Banner, reports that last
month, attorneys from a private law firm known for its work
defending prison systems in the Deep South entered their
appearances on behalf of the state of Maryland in a decades-old
class action lawsuit over health care and mental health treatment
in Baltimore jails. Since then, the state Office of Attorney
General has been largely quiet on how and why those attorneys were
brought into the fold.
The Butler Snow LLP law firm has generated headlines in states such
as Georgia, Louisiana and Alabama for garnering multimillion-dollar
contracts in exchange for defending against a variety of
allegations levied at those states' correctional systems. One
common thread appears to be that they are often civil rights class
action lawsuits brought by advocacy groups, namely the American
Civil Liberties Union and the Southern Poverty Law Center.
But, unlike in the Southern states, Butler Snow's contract in
Maryland was approved in part and maintained under Democratic
leaders in the governor's and attorney general's offices who often
proclaim their support for the civil rights of incarcerated people.
And while the lofty costs of the contracts drew the attention of
lawmakers in Alabama, the deal has faced little public scrutiny in
Maryland.
Butler Snow's task in Baltimore is to bring to an end litigation
that stretches back to before the state corrections department took
over the city jails in 1991. Over that time, the lawsuit has been
settled, reopened, and settled again, with mixed results. It has
forced an array of reforms at the jail and the closure of some of
the most dilapidated structures, though independent monitors
continue to report that medical and mental health care in the jail
system is deeply flawed.
The hiring of the law firm comes as the state has lagged far behind
on its plans to come into compliance with the terms of the latest
settlement in the litigation, an agreement reached in 2016 that
ordered overhauls of the health care system, improvements to
facilities, better screening of inmates, timely delivery of
medications and other mandates.
While the scope of the lawsuit is limited to the constitutionality
of the health care and mental health system in Baltimore jails, it
has also forced an atypical level of transparency. The corrections
department has had to answer to independent monitors and allow
plaintiff attorneys to tour its facilities, sometimes revealing
horrific conditions.
The attorney general's office hired Butler Snow to accelerate its
legal efforts in the case, but to what end remains an object of
speculation. The ACLU, for its part, believes the state is digging
in for a fight.
Whatever the outcome, the means are likely to be costly. Butler
Snow has drawn notoriety in the South for its lofty price tags:
garnering nearly $15 million in contracts to defend Alabama
prisons, and charging Louisiana between $220 to $285 per hour to
defend the relocation of teenagers to the notorious state prison at
Angola, according to media reports. The latter effort was recently
rejected by a federal judge.
In Maryland, the attorney general's office has kept the finances of
its deal with Butler Snow a closely guarded secret. The office said
it was not in possession of any invoices filed by the law firm and
has declined to disclose the hourly rate it is paying the private
attorneys, saying it is "prevented" from doing so because the
information is the "confidential commercial information" of Butler
Snow.
In response to questions from The Baltimore Banner, the attorney
general's office said that the law firm's contract was requested
under the previous administration, led by Brian Frosh, and approved
by former Gov. Larry Hogan. Still, the contract was executed and
signed this year, and the current administration, under Attorney
General Anthony Brown, has maintained the course.
The attorney general's office has declined to provide much of an
explanation for why it is pursuing the legal strategy, saying only
that it is "working in the best interest of Marylanders and as
expeditiously as possible to finish this critical work."
"Although we cannot disclose confidential and privileged
communications with our clients as to the specific reasons why
assistant counsel might be necessary in a particular case or why a
particular firm was chosen, we hire assistant counsel only when
necessary and only upon consideration of their unique skill set and
experience in helping us to represent the state most effectively in
legal matters," Jennifer Donelan, the agency's spokesperson, said
in an email -- the office's first on-the-record comments about the
decision to hire the firm.
In response to a records request, the attorney general's office
provided a copy of the contract given to Butler Snow, but with two
sections redacted: "scope of services" and "compensation and method
of payment." It also clarified that it procured the contract under
a section of Maryland state code allowing the office to employ
assistant counsel considered "necessary to carry out any duty of
the office in an extraordinary or unforeseen case or in special
county work."
That means that the decision didn't need to be publicized and was
not subject to a request-for-bid proposal or the scrutiny of the
state spending board -- as almost all other state agencies are
required to do. Butler Snow has not responded to requests for
comment.
The attorney general's office also declined to provide a copy of
its written request for outside counsel to then-Gov. Larry Hogan,
which may shed more light on why the law firm has been retained. A
senior attorney at the office said providing the request "would not
be in the public interest because it would chill free and frank
discussions among government decision-makers and put our office at
a disadvantage in litigation vis-à-vis other parties."
The secrecy of the process has shielded Maryland's business with
Butler Snow from public scrutiny to an extent not seen in other
states. It may also represent a shift away from transparency in the
attorney general's office.
Doug Gansler, a former Maryland attorney general who held office
from 2007 to 2015, told The Banner that, "without specifically
addressing this case, typically there is a desire for full
transparency when spending taxpayer dollars on any case."
"A well publicized RFP [request for proposal] is issued in almost
in all circumstances," Gansler said. "However, in rare cases where
there's a specialty that only a particular law firm has that unique
expertise, then the RFP process would be circumvented and a sole
source procurement would ensue."
David Fathi, director of the ACLU's National Prison Project, which
is representing the plaintiffs in the Baltimore jail class action
suit, said he believes the state has struggled so much with coming
into compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement that it
is now trying instead to "litigate their way out of it."
To support his theory, Fathi pointed to the request made by the
state's corrections department for legal consultants earlier this
year, in which the agency said that it needed the outside attorneys
to bring the litigation to a close within 18 months, -- a quicker
timeline than it had laid out in court filings for coming into
compliance.
The request also detailed that the private attorneys would
"participate in all aspects of representation of the state" in the
litigation, which would "include ... potential hiring and
preparation of expert witnesses for defendants, potential
depositions of expert witnesses for plaintiffs," among other
responsibilities.
"There will only be expert witnesses if they try to terminate it
[the settlement agreement] or otherwise litigate their way out of
their obligations," Fathi said.
The attorney general's office declined to comment on what it
considered to be legal strategy.
The two sides will meet in court in late October for a status
conference recently ordered by the federal judge overseeing the
case, against the wishes of the state.
AG (sort of) explains decision to clamp down on independent
monitor
One issue likely to be discussed at the conference is the recent
restrictions the state has put on the jail's independent medical
monitor.
Pressed for comment on its decision to bar the monitor from
speaking with clinicians at the jail, as he has done since the 2016
settlement, Donelan, the office spokesperson, wrote that the
monitor "was never prevented from performing his work."
"Under the prior practice, department leadership could not ensure
that the medical monitor was receiving all the information he was
requesting," Donelan said. "The change now centralizes the flow of
information through the [corrections] department's chief medical
officer."
She added: "The decision to make that change falls within the
defendant's discretion and was made to deliver the requested
information most effectively and to ensure timely delivery."
Fathi, the ACLU prison attorney, called the department's
explanation a "classic example of Orwellian double speak: 'We're
prohibiting him from speaking to the clinicians so he can get the
information he needs.'"
"Of course, it evades the very troubling fact that this was done
unilaterally or covertly, without informing either the court or the
plaintiff's counsel," Fathi added.
Butler Snow's paper trail
The legal efforts by the Butler Snow team in Maryland will be
spearheaded by William Lunsford, who was at a different firm,
Maynard Cooper & Gale, when he first contracted with the state.
Lunsford joined the Butler Snow firm earlier this year with more
than 20 other former Maynard Cooper & Gale attorneys to open an
office in Huntsville, Alabama, according to reporting by Law360
that was republished on the Butler Snow website. The bolstered law
firm now has more than 400 attorneys, the article said.
Lunsford's dealings in the correctional sphere have earned him
scrutiny from lawmakers and other media outlets. Notably, Lunsford
briefly served on the board of advisers for the health care
provider in Maryland prisons and Baltimore jails: YesCare, a
correctional health care giant formerly known as Corizon Health.
That company entered into a controversial bankruptcy earlier this
year before it split into two divisions, one of them rebranding as
YesCare.
Across the South, Butler Snow has racked up tens of millions of
dollars in legal billings in prison lawsuits. In Louisiana,
plaintiff attorneys expressed shock that the law firm had run up
nearly $3 million in legal defense fees before the trial had even
started in a legal battle over one prison's mental health services
in the northern part of the state.
That money, the attorneys observed, "could have gone a long way
toward fixing the conditions at David Wade that the lawsuit is
meant to address," the Shreveport Times reported.
Butler Snow's website includes information about its "correctional
litigation group," citing the need to "manage increasingly complex
litigation and risk management issues facing today's correctional
leaders and their agencies" in the face of "a barrage of complex
and class-action lawsuits."
The website promises: "Our team's knowledge of the corrections
industry, trial-tested experience, and innovative defense
strategies ensure that agency professionals can fulfill their
responsibilities without interference." [GN]
MEDSOLE RCM: Brown Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medsole RCM LLC. The
case is styled as Angela Brown, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Medsole RCM LLC, Case No.
2:23-cv-02041-ROS (D. Ariz., Sept. 27, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Medsol RCM -- https://medsolrcm.com/ -- is a leading provider of
Medical Billing & Revenue Cycle Management (RCM) services in the US
healthcare industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David James McGlothlin, Esq.
Ryan Lee McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
301 East Bethany Home Road, Suite C-195
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Fax: (800) 520-5523
Email: ryan@kazlg.com
ryan@kazlg.com
METHODIST HOSPITALS: Jestice Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Methodist Hospitals
of Dallas, et al. The case is styled as Robin Robinson Jestice,
Christina Reining, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Methodist Hospitals of Dallas, Case No.
DC-23-14404 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Dallas Cty., Sept. 6, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Contract."
Methodist Health System -- https://www.methodisthealthsystem.org/
-- is a faith-based organization with a mission to improve and save
lives through compassionate, quality healthcare.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC - DALLAS
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
Dallas, TX 75219
Phone: (214) 744-3000
Fax: (214) 744-3015
Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in McAlister Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. are taking an appeal
from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Catherine McAlister, et
al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-11229-RA-OTW, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
The class action is brought by former employees of Defendant
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("MetLife") who allege that the
calculation of benefits offered under their retirement plan
violates Section 205(d) of the Employee Retirement Income Act of
1974 (ERISA).
On Mar. 3, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class.
On Mar. 17, 2023, Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang filed a report and
recommendation to grant Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification,
which the Court accepted and adopted through an Order entered by
Judge Ronnie Abrams on Sept. 7, 2023. The Court held that
Plaintiffs shall proceed on a class-action basis pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)(A). The class will be
divided into two subclasses, with one subclass to consist of class
members who signed a release upon their separation from MetLife.
Plaintiffs Kernan, Ross and Brownell were appointed class
representatives and Izard, Kindall & Raabe, LLP (IKR) and Bailey &
Glasser LLP ("B&G") were appointed class counsel.
The appellate case is captioned Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
v. McAlister, Case No. 23-1314, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on September 21, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Respondents CATHERINE MCALISTER, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:
Christopher Barrett, Esq.
Robert A. Izard, Jr., Esq.
Seth R. Klein, Esq.
Douglas P. Needham, Esq.
IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP
29 South Main Street
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 513-2937
(860) 493-6295
(860) 493-6292
- and -
Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 463-2101
Defendants-Petitioners METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.
are represented by:
Russell Laurence Hirschhorn, Esq.
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
11 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
MIDLAND NATIONAL: Zimmerman Sues Over Breaches of Policy
--------------------------------------------------------
Gail J. Zimmerman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. MIDLAND NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
4:23-cv-00345-RGE-WPK (S.D. Iowa, Sept. 8, 2023), is brought
seeking to represent a class of Midland policyholders who are being
subjected to an unlawful and excessive cost of insurance ("COI")
rate increase by Midland in violation of the terms of their
insurance policies. As a result of Midland's breaches of the
policy, Plaintiff was injured and now seeks damages.
The Plaintiff owns a universal life ("UL") policy issued by Midland
in 1992, which insures her own life. UL policies are permanent life
insurance policies, designed to stay in force for the life of the
insured so long as, among other means, what is referred to as the
"surrender value" is funded sufficiently to pay various charges,
the largest of which are COI charges (also referred to as
"mortality charges"). Those COI charges are, in turn, determined by
multiplying the net amount at risk (the death benefit divided by a
coefficient minus the policy value) by a COI rate.
In August 2022, Midland sent a cryptic letter to its policyholders
notifying them of a massive increase in COI rates on certain of
Midland's UL insurance policies. For example, after having paid
premiums for more than 30 years, Midland suddenly increased Ms.
Zimmerman's COI rates by various amounts, including a staggering
763.33% rate hike in a single year. Midland's regulatory filings
reveal that, in addition to Ms. Zimmerman's policy, it increased
the COI rates for at least seven other UL products in the last
three years. Midland disclosed no specific reason for the rate
increase or its magnitude.
The increase breached the policies for several reasons. The first
is that Midland based the adjustment in COI rates on considerations
other than, and by ignoring altogether, "an estimate of future
mortality experience," in contravention of the terms of Ms.
Zimmerman's policy. Midland's proffered reason for the rate hike,
albeit cryptic, is at odds with the contract language. The contract
states that "cost of insurance rates will be figured by the
company, based on an estimate of future mortality experience."
However, the increase letter states that the increase resulted from
an analysis of the "company's expectations of the future costs of
providing benefits under your policy."
Second, Midland's "estimate of future mortality experience" (EFME)
has improved over the past three decades since Ms. Zimmerman
purchased her policy. The Society of Actuaries ("SOA") and the
American Academy of Actuaries (the "Academy") periodically publish
mortality tables using information collected from America's largest
insurers. Those tables show that mortality rates have been
improving. In 2022, Midland's sole owner, Sammons Financial Group,
participated in a study by the SOA that confirmed that mortality
rates are expected to continue to improve. But in 2022, Midland
hiked its COI rates--an adjustment that must be based on EFME--by
as much as 763%. There is simply no possible way that this massive
increase was based on a deterioration in Midland's EFME.
Third, Plaintiff's policy states that "the cost of insurance rates
will be figured by the company yearly." This means Midland should
have last determined COI rates for the policies no more than one
year prior to the COI increase (i.e., in 2021), using its
then-current EFME. It is simply impossible for Midland's EFME to
have changed so much in a single year to justify the massive COI
increases that Midland has imposed. EFME changes slowly over time;
is reviewed annually through actual-to-expected experience studies;
and did not deteriorate enough to potentially justify a 763% COI
increase in a single year.
Nor have mortality expectations deteriorated by 763% in 2022
relative to any other year in the history of the United States.
This increase is extraordinary given the dynamics of how mortality
expectations change. COVID-19 had been in full swing for over a
year when Midland last determined its COI rates in 2021. The
Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
policyholders, seeks relief for the COI overcharges that Midland
has wrongly imposed and continues to impose on its policyholders,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff owns Midland policy number 1700521756 (the
"Representative Policy").
Midland is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
Iowa.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robin G. Maxon, Esq.
Chandler M. Surrency, Esq.
HOPKINS & HUEBNER, P.C.
2700 Grand Avenue, Suite 111
Des Moines, IA 50312
Phone: 515-244-0111
Fax: 515-697-4299
Email: rmaxon@hhlawpc.com
csurrency@hhlawpc.com
- and -
Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
Glenn C. Bridgman, Esq.
Halley Josephs, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
Phone: 310-789-3100
Fax: 310-789-3150
Email: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
gbridgman@susmangodfrey.com
hjosephs@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Seth Ard, Esq.
Ryan C. Kirkpatrick, Esq.
Dinis Cheian, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Phone: 212-336-8330
Fax: 212-336-8340
Email: sard@susmangodfrey.com
rkirkpatrick@susmangodfrey.com
dcheian@susmangodfrey.com
MONTEREY BAY AQUARIUM: Sawyer Suit Transferred to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Arthur Sawyer, Jarrett Drake, Eric Meschino,
Bill Souza, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Monterey Bay Aquarium, Marine Stewardship Council, Case
No. 2:23-cv-00796 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on Sept. 29, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-04994-NC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Monterey Bay Aquarium -- https://www.montereybayaquarium.org/ -- is
a nonprofit public aquarium in Monterey, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristin Kay Robbins, Esq.
ECKLAND & BLANDO, LLC
1100 Poydras Street, Suite 2900
New Orleans, LA 70163
Phone: (504) 662-1594
Fax: (612) 236-0179
Email: krobbins@ecklandblando.com
- and -
Samuel Peter Blatchley, Esq.
ECKLAND & BLANDO LLP
22 Boston Wharf Road, 7th Floor
Boston, MA 02210
Phone: (617) 217-6936
Fax: (617) 428-6919
Email: sblatchley@ecklandblando.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Loretta G. Mince, Esq.
Ashton James Licciardi, Esq.
Michael Ryan Dodson, Esq.
FISHMAN HAYGOOD, LLP (NEW ORLEANS)
201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 4600, 46th Floor
New Orleans, LA 70170-4600
Phone: (504) 586-5252
Email: lmince@fishmanhaygood.com
alicciardi@fishmanhaygood.com
mdodson@fishmanhaygood.com
NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE: Herrera ADA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Carlos Herrera, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. National Automotive Parts Association,
LLC, Case No. HUD-L-002482-23 was removed from the Hudson County
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey on Aug. 30, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-13017-CCC-JSA to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
National Automotive Parts Association, LLC (NAPA) --
https://www.napaonline.com/ -- is a trusted source for automotive
parts, accessories & know how for cars, trucks or SUVs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Zemel, Esq.
ZEMEL LAW LLC
660 Broadway
Paterson, NJ 07514
Phone: (862) 227-3106
Fax: (973) 525-2552
Email: dz@zemellawllc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Susan B. Fellman, Esq.
BREUNINGER & FELLMAN, ESQS.
1829 Front Street
Scotch Plains, NJ 07076
Phone: (908) 490-9900
Email: sfellman@bfnjlaw.com
NAVIENT CORPORATION: Kuo Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jay Kuo, an Individual on behalf of himself, the
general public, and those similarly situated v. Navient
Corporation, Navient Solutions LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-05282 was
transferred the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on Sept. 27, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-08511-PAE to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Contract Dispute.
Navient Corporation -- https://navient.com/ -- is an American
student loan servicer based in Wilmington, Delaware.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marie Ann McCrary, Esq.
Seth Adam Safier, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 639-9090
Fax: (415) 449-6469
The Defendant is represented by:
Benjamin Jefferson Sitter, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
260 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1800
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 667-7904
Fax: (412) 667-7991
NEW YORK: Veloz Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State Board for
Professional Medical Conduct of The New York State (OPMC), et al.
The case is styled as Eva Santos Veloz and Kimberly Daly,
individually and on behalf of thousands of other patients similarly
situated v. State Board for Professional Medical Conduct of The New
York State, et al., Case No. 158881/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York
Cty., Sept. 5, 2023).
New York State Health Department's Office of Professional Medical
Conduct (OPMC) and the state Board for Professional Medical Conduct
(board) are responsible for investigating and adjudicating
complaints against physicians, physician assistants, and specialist
assistants.[BN]
PEOPLES BANK: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Blankenship Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
EARL BLANKENSHIP, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PEOPLES BANK a/k/a Limestone Bank,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00603-TSB (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 22, 2023)
is a class action against Defendant for its failure to properly
secure and safeguard personally identifiable information including,
but not limited to, Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, Social
Security number, and financial account information.
On August 16, 2023, Defendant became aware of suspicious activity
on its computer network. Following an investigation, Defendant
determined that an unknown third party accessed its systems between
November 21, 2022 and March 23, 2023.
On August 16, 2023, Defendant confirmed that that Plaintiff's and
Class Members' name and Social Security number were exfiltrated in
the data breach.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff and more than 47,590 Class
Members suffered injury and ascertainable losses in the form of the
present and imminent threat of fraud and identity theft, loss of
the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of value
of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects
of the attack, and the loss of, and diminution in, value of their
personal information as a result of the data breach.
The Plaintiff and Class Members suffered ascertainable losses,
including but not limited to, a loss of privacy, the loss of the
benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket monetary losses and
expenses, the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or
mitigate the effects of the attack, the diminished value of their
private information, and the substantial and imminent risk of
identity theft, the suit alleges.
Peoples Bank is one of the largest 200 banks in the United States,
with 132 full-service bank branches in Ohio, Kentucky, West
Virginia, Virginia, Washington D.C., and Maryland.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-7300
Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
E-mail: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com
PETRONIS CUBETA: Larry Files Suit in W.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Petronis Cubeta, et
al. The case is styled as Kayvon Larry, Raymond Marlow,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Petronis Cubeta, Kelli Ann Petronis Cubeta, Elizabeth Assunto
Germany, Aaron Kinsey, Travis Reese, Case No. 1:23-cv-01025-DII
(W.D. Tex., Aug. 30, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.
Kelli Ann Petronis Cubeta is a lawyer in San Antonio Texas who
attended Texas Tech University School of Law.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James Monroe Scurlock, Esq.
WALLACE, MARTIN, DUKE & RUSSELL PLLC
3800 N Lamar, Ste. 200
Austin, TX 78756
Phone: (512) 522-4957
Email: jms@wallacelawfirm.com
RECKITT BENCKISER: Grimsley Balks at Nasal Decongestants' False Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff DARRELL WAYNE GRIMSLEY, JR., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RECKITT BENCKISER,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-24588-MCR-HTC (N.D. Fla., Sept.
22, 2023) seeks redress for Defendant's business practices designed
to mislead the public in connection with its promotion, marketing,
advertising, and labeling of the products which Defendant, during
the relevant time period, promoted as containing phenylephrine and
as being effective nasal decongestant, when, in fact, it is not
effective as a nasal decongestant.
According to the complaint, by concealing the existence of the lack
of efficacy as a nasal decongestant, Defendant implicitly distorted
and misrepresented the true value of the product such that every
Plaintiff and Class member received a product of different and
substantially lesser value than they reasonably believed they were
receiving. Through the use of misleading representations and
concealment of the lack of efficacy as a nasal decongestant,
Defendant commanded a price for every product that exceeded what
Plaintiff and the Class would have paid had they been fully
informed, says the suit.
Reckitt Benckiser, LLC is a Delaware limited liability corporation
with its headquarters and principal place of business located in
Parsippany, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter J. Mougey, Esq.
Jeff R. Gaddy, Esq.
LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, RAFFERTY, PROCTOR,
BUCHANAN, O'BRIEN, BARR & MOUGEY, P.A.
316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600
Pensacola, FL 32503
Telephone: (850) 435-7068
Facsimile: (850) 436-6068
E-mail: pmougey@levinlaw.com
jgaddy@levinlaw.com
- and -
Russell W. Budd, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 521-3605
Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
E-mail: rbudd@baronbudd.com
- and -
Roland Tellis, Esq.
Mark Pifko, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
15910 Ventura Blvd #1600
Los Angeles, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 839-2333
Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
E-mail: rtellis@baronbudd.com
mpifko@baronbudd.com
ROBERT DONOHOE: Bruno Files Suit in W.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Robert Donohoe. The
case is styled as Arturo Bruno, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Robert Donohoe, as Trustee of the
Texas Medical Liability Trust, Case No. 1:23-cv-01183 (W.D. Tex.,
Sept. 29, 2023).
The nature of suit is state as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Robert Donohoe joined Texas Medical Liability Trust (TMLT) in
January 2012 as Senior Vice President and subsequently served as
Chief Operating Officer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
STECKLER WAYNE CHERRY & LOVE PLLC
12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045
Dallas, TX 75230
Phone: (972) 387-4040
Fax: (972) 387-4041
Email: bruce@swclaw.com
ROCKWELL COLLINS: Santos Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as George P. Santos, on behalf or himself and all
others similarly situated v. Rockwell Collins, Inc., DOES 1-50,
Case No. 23CV039609 was removed from Superior Court, County of
Alameda, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on Sept. 1, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-04522-TSH to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Employment
Discrimination.
Rockwell Collins -- https://portal.rockwellcollins.com/ -- was a
multinational corporation headquartered in Cedar Rapids, Iowa,
providing avionics and information technology systems and services
to government agencies and aircraft manufacturers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua S. Falakassa, Esq.
FALAKASSA LAW, P.C.
1901 Avenue Of The Stars, Ste. 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6006
Phone: 818-456-6168
Email: josh@falakassalaw.com
- and -
Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, P.C.
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 310-975-1493
Fax: 310-300-1705
The Defendant is represented by:
Justin Taylor Curley
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 397-2823
Fax: (415) 397-8549
Email: jcurley@seyfarth.com
Michael Sigall
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 201-1515
Email: msigall@seyfarth.com
ROSA'S DRY CLEANER: Lawrence Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rosa's Dry Cleaner &
Alterations Inc., et al. The case is styled as Nana Queenie
Lawrence, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rosa's
Dry Cleaner & Alterations Inc., 928 Myrtle LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-06674-NGG-TAM (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 7, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Rosa's Dry Cleaner & Alterations Inc. offers sewing & alterations,
dry cleaning.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel A. Johnston, Esq.
JOHNSTON LAW LLC
1103 Stewart Avenue, Suite 200
Garden City, NY 11757
Phone: (516) 388-7611
Email: DJ@BellLG.com
- and -
Jonathan Bell, Esq.
BELL LAW GROUP PLLC
116 Jackson Avenue
Syosset, NY 11791
Phone: (516) 280-3008
Fax: (516) 706-4692
Email: jb@belllg.com
RUBUS MANAGEMENT: Decollibus Suit Removed to D. Nevada
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Danielle Decollibus, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. RUBUS MANAGEMENT, LLC;
DOES 1-10; and ROE CORPORATIONS 11-20; inclusive, Case No.
A-23-875823-C was removed from the Eighth Judicial District Court
in Clark County, Nevada, to the United States District Court for
the District of Nevada on Sept. 29, 2023, and assigned Case No.
2:23-cv-01552.
This removal is based upon federal question jurisdiction, because
this action arises out of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christian Gabroy, Esq.
Kaine Messer, Esq.
GABROY MESSER
170 South Green Valley Parkway, Suite 280
Las Vegas, NV 89102
Email: christian@gabroy.com
kmesser@gabroy.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Robert L. Rosenthal, Esq.
John J. Savage, Esq.
HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC
3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1000
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Phone: 702.257.1483
Fax: 702.567.1568
Email: rlr@h2law.com
jjs@h2law.com
SAGE SOFTWARE: Mendoza Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as German Mendoza, individually and on behalf of
other persons similarly situated v. SAGE SOFTWARE, INC., Case No.
2023CH07782 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division, to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
Sept. 29, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-14316.
The Plaintiff brings his Complaint on behalf of a proposed class of
all persons who allegedly had their fingerprints, handprints, or
faceprints collected, captured, stored, transmitted, disseminated,
or otherwise used by or on behalf of Defendant within the State of
Illinois during the applicable limitations period. The Plaintiff
brings his Complaint on behalf of a proposed class of all persons
who allegedly had their fingerprints, handprints, or faceprints
collected, captured, stored, transmitted, disseminated, or
otherwise used by or on behalf of Defendant within the State of
Illinois during the applicable limitations period. The Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant committed at least four violations of the
Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA" or the "Act").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
David K. Haase, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
321 North Clark Street, Suite 1100
Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: 312.372.5520
Email: dhaase@littler.com
- and -
Lillian T. Manning, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
600 Washington Street, Suite 900
St. Louis, MO 63101
Email: lmanning@littler.com
SANSUM CLINIC: Rose Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Andrew Rose, Jeremy Lebman, Patricia Hervey,
Don Defrancia, and Stephanie Ray on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. SANSUM CLINIC and META PLATFORMS,
INC., Case No. 23CV03762 was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of Santa Barbara, to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on Sept. 29, 2023, and
assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-08180.
The Plaintiffs' Complaint brings ten claims against Defendants Meta
and Sansum Clinic: two claims for violation of common law privacy;
two claims for invasion of privacy under the California
Constitution; violation of the Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act ("CMIA"); aiding and abetting violation of the
CMIA; violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; violation
of the federal Wiretap Act; violation of the California Invasion of
Privacy Act ("CIPA"); and breach of implied contract.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Elizabeth K McCloskey, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 393-4622
Facsimile: (415) 801-7389
Email: emccloskey@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Michael G Rhodes, Esq.
Kyle C Wong, Esq.
Caroline A Lebel, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4004
Phone: (415) 693-2000
Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
Email: rhodesmg@cooley.com
kwong@cooley.com
clebel@cooley.com
SHORT STORY INC: Singh Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Short Story, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Chandni Singh, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Short Story, Inc., Does
1 through 10, Inclusive, Case No. CGC23609394 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., Sept. 29, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Short Story -- https://shortstorybox.com/ -- is the premiere
personal styling service for petite women.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510
Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145
Phone: 213-381-9988
Fax: 213-381-9989
Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Bombin Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial
---------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN BOMBIN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in
the lawsuit entitled Adrian Bombin, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Southwest
Airlines Co., Defendant, Case No. 5-20-cv-01883, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff
Adrian Bombin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated individuals who purchased tickets from the Defendant from
March 1, 2020, alleges that the Defendant failed to provide them
prompt refunds for canceled flights due to COVID-19 pandemic. The
Defendant only offered them credits for use on future flight, which
violates the Defendant's own Contract of Carriage and also the
enforcement notice issued by the U.S. Department of
Transportation's Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings to
air carriers requiring them to refund tickets if they cancel
flights due to the novel coronavirus.
On Apr. 22, 2022, and Apr. 19, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion
to certify class and a motion to exclude under Rule 702 portions of
the expert reports of Darin N. Lee, PhD, respectively.
On Sept. 7, 2023, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motions through
an Order entered by Judge John M. Gallagher. The Court found Dr.
Lee's various opinions relevant to issues faced at the class
certification stage. Under liberal standards of admissibility and a
relevancy requirement as expressed in Federal Rule of Evidence 401,
preclusion of the various portions of Dr. Lee's expert report is
not warranted. Moreover, the Court determined that the Plaintiffs
are inadequate class representatives under FRCP 23(a). Accordingly,
the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and a motion to exclude
under Rule 702 portions of the expert reports of Dr. Lee were
denied.
The appellate case is captioned Adrian Bombin, et al. v. Southwest
Airlines Co., Case No. 23-8040, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on September 21, 2023. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners ADRIAN BOMBIN, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Kristen L. Cardoso, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq.
Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG
1 W. Las Olas Boulevard, 5th Floor
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 990-2218
(954) 525-4100
- and -
Glenn Chappell, Esq.
Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
- and -
Spencer S. Hughes, Esq.
Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI
1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 254-6808
- and -
Neil Swartzberg, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW
555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1205
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 433-9000
- and -
Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW
328 Barry Avenue South, Suite 200
Wayzata, MN 55391
Telephone: (612) 389-0600
Defendant-Respondent SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. is represented by:
Milton R. Goldberg, Esq.
STINSON
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 728-3005
- and -
James V. Leito, IV, Esq.
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT
370 Southpointe Boulevard
Southpointe Energy Complex, Suite 300
Canonsburg, PA 15317
- and -
James T. Moughan, Esq.
BENNETT BRICKLIN & SALTZBURG
1500 Market Street, Center Square, 32nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 665-3402
- and -
Todd A. Noteboom, Esq.
STINSON
50 S. 6th Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 335-1500
- and -
Michael A. Swartzendruber, Esq.
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT
2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600
Dallas, TX 75201
SSM HEALTH: Files 8th Cir. Appeal in Doe Suit
---------------------------------------------
SSM HEALTH CARE CORPORATION has filed an appeal in the lawsuit
entitled John Doe, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SSM Health Care Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00022-SRC, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Missouri Circuit Court Twenty-Second
Judicial Circuit, City of St. Louis, to the United States District
Court of the Eastern District of Missouri, is brought against SSM
Health challenging its practices on its "websites", which violate
Missouri law. The Plaintiff alleges that SSM Health deploys "source
code" on its website that causes personally identifiable
information to be transmitted to third parties.
On July 16, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case
to State Court, which the Court granted through an Order entered by
Judge Stephen R. Clark on Aug. 22, 2023. SSM Health moved pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 62(a) for the Court to
temporarily stay its Order remanding the case to the Circuit Court
for the City of St. Louis. SSM noted that Doe does not consent to
the requested relief.
On Aug. 23, 2023, the Court stayed the order of remand for 30 days.
The Court ordered this stay provisionally to allow Doe, if he
wishes, to oppose the motion. The Court recalled the notice of
remand sent to the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis.
The appellate case is captioned John Doe v. SSM Health Care
Corporation, Case No. 23-3138, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on September 22, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant SSM Health Care Corporation brief is due on
November 1, 2023;
-- Appendix is due on November 1, 2023; and
-- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
John Francis Garvey, Jr., Esq.
Ellen Thomas, Esq.
STRANCH & JENNINGS
Suite 1510
701 Market Street
Saint Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 374-6306
Defendant-Appellant SSM HEALTH CARE CORPORATION is represented by:
David Alan Carney, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER
Key Tower, Suite 2000
127 Public Square
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 621-0200
- and -
John D. Comerford, Esq.
Adam Joseph Simon, Esq.
DOWD & BENNETT
Suite 1900
7676 Forsyth Boulevard
Saint Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 889-7300
- and -
Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER
Suite 4400
1801 California Street
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 764-4013
TRAEGER PELLET: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Yates Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
TRAEGER PELLET GRILLS, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order
granting the Plaintiffs' amended motion to certify class in the
lawsuit entitled Michael Yates and Norman L. Jones, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Traeger Pellet Grills, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00723-BSJ,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
contends that the Defendant wrongfully and unfairly deceived the
public and its customers by misrepresenting that its wood pellets
comprise one type of wood, when in fact the pellets comprise a
different type of less expensive wood containing flavored oils to
masquerade as more expensive, sought-after grilling woods. The
complaint asserts claims for false advertising under the Utah
Consumer Sales Practices Act and California's Unfair Competition
Law, False Advertising Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
On May 31, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class.
The Court denied the Plaintiffs' class certification motion in its
entirety on January 10, 2023. It held that the Plaintiffs failed to
meet their burden under Rule 23(b)(3) to show the predominance of
common issues because they failed to show that the essential
elements of reliance and damages could be established on a
class-wide basis.
On Jan. 30, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class
certification, which the Court granted in its entirety through an
Order entered by Judge Bruce S. Jenkins on Sept. 7, 2023. The Court
certified classes of consumers in Utah and California.
The appellate case is captioned Traeger Pellet Grills, LLC,
Petitioner, v. Michael Yates and Norman L. Jones, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Respondents, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on
September 21, 2023. [BN]
Defendant-Petitioner TRAEGER PELLET GRILLS, LLC is represented by:
Julianne P. Blanch, Esq.
Juliette P. White, Esq.
PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER
201 South Main Street, Suite 1800
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 532-1234
E-mail: JBlanch@parsonsbehle.com
JWhite@parsonsbehle.com
- and -
James F. Speyer, Esq.
E. Alex Beroukhim, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 243-4000
E-mail: James.Speyer@arnoldporter.com
Alex.Beroukhim@arnoldporter.com
VALLEY NATIONAL: Tawfik Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
-----------------------------------------------------------
ESLAM TAWFIK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VALLEY NATIONAL BANCORP d/b/a VALLEY
NATIONAL BANK, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-20600 (D.N.J., Sept. 22,
2023) seeks remedies including, but not limited to, compensatory
damages, treble damages, punitive damages, reimbursement of
out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief—including improvements
to Valley National's data security systems, future annual audits,
and adequate credit monitoring services funded by Valley National.
The Plaintiff seeks to hold Valley National responsible for the
injuries Valley National inflicted on Plaintiff and thousands of
similarly situated persons due to Valley National's impermissibly
inadequate data security, which caused the personal information of
Plaintiff and those similarly situated to be exfiltrated by
unauthorized access by cybercriminals between May 27 and May 31,
2023. The data that Valley National caused to be exfiltrated by
cybercriminals were highly sensitive. Upon information and belief,
the exfiltrated data included personal identifying information like
individuals' names, addresses, Valley National loan numbers, and
Social Security numbers.
The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered -- and will continue
to suffer -- from the loss of the benefit of their bargain,
unexpected out-of-pocket expenses, lost or diminished value of
their PII, emotional distress, and the value of their time
reasonably incurred to mitigate the fallout of the data breach, the
suit says.
Valley National Bancorp is a regional bank holding company
headquartered in Wayne, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Johan A. Obregon, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
30 Montgomery St., Suite 410
Jersey City, NJ 07302
Telephone: (201) 209-3431
Facsimile: (201) 209-3481
E-mail: jobregon@forthepeople.com
- and -
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Ra O. Amen, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
E-mail: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com
Ramen@forthepeople.com
VANTAGE BANK: Averts Class Action Suit Over Illegal Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Danner, writing for San Antonio Express-News, reports that
a potential class-action lawsuit against San Antonio-based Vantage
Bank Texas over the fees its charges customers has ended badly for
the Pearsall man who filed the action.
Sam Garcia sued the bank in July for more than $1 million in
damages, accusing it of assessing two or more fees on the same item
returned for insufficient funds.
State District Court Judge Cynthia Marie Chapa on Sept. 29 ruled
Garcia should get nothing on his claims against Vantage Bank.
Even worse for Garcia, the judge ordered him to pay the bank's
legal fees and costs -- almost $55,000.
It couldn't be determined whether Garcia's lawyers opposed
Vantage's motion for the case to be dismissed or for summary
judgment. Ryan Thompson, a Dallas lawyer who has filed similar
lawsuits against other financial institutions, didn't respond to a
request for comment.
A Vantage spokeswoman had no comment on the judge's ruling.
Garcia accused Vantage of using overdraft and nonsufficient funds
fees to rake in millions of dollars in revenue.
His suit didn't specify how much he allegedly was improperly
charged, just that he was "assessed multiple fees on an item" in
June 2019.
Garcia sued for breach of contract, unjust enrichment and
violations of the state's Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
Vantage filed a counterclaim, arguing that Garcia had brought
"improper claims."
The bank provided multiple reasons for why a judge should grant a
"take-nothing" judgment on Garcia's claims. He "produced no
evidence to the contrary," the order said.
Garcia had a checking account at Vantage but failed to "timely
report" the fees he objected to, the bank said in court papers.
He did not complain about the disputed fees within 60 days of them
appearing on his monthly bank statement as required under the
account agreement the parties signed, the bank said.
Vantage said many of its customers timely report unauthorized
disbursements, including overdraft fees, and it grants many
requests to reverse or waive them. The bank's website says it
charges $35 each time it pays an overdraft item.
The contract also said that Garcia agrees that the bank may charge
a nonsufficient funds fee "each time a payment is presented if the
amount of money in your account is not sufficient to cover the
payment, regardless of the number of times the payment is
presented." So one check could result in multiple fees.
In addition, the bank argued that Garcia's continued use of the
account after incurring fees shows he consented to be bound by the
fees.
As part of her order, Chapa said that Vantage will be awarded
$30,000 if Garcia files a motion for a new trial or other
post-judgment motions and the bank prevails. If he appeals her
ruling and the bank ultimately wins, he will have to pay it
$75,000.
Vantage is the 44th-largest bank in the state with nearly $3.7
billion in assets as of June 30. It collected more than $4.8
million in service charges on deposit accounts last year, an amount
that included $1.4 million in overdraft fees.
Many banks have reduced or eliminated overdraft and nonsufficient
funds fees in the past year or so. [GN]
VERVENT INC: Turrey Bid to Amend SAC Tossed
-------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HEATHER TURREY, et al., v.
VERVENT, INC., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00697-DMS-AHG (S.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Dana M. Sabraw entered an order:
1. Denying the plaintiffs' motion to amend the second amended
complaint;
2. Granting the Defendants' motion for judgment on the
Pleadings;
and
3. Dismissing the Plaintiffs' UCL claim.
The Plaintiffs argue this case has progressed well beyond those
cited by the Defendants, where courts found no waiver. Similar to
Sonner, Defendants here raised their objection to equitable
jurisdiction on the eve of the UCL trial. The Defendants belated
objection under the circumstances is not a waiver of the
jurisdictional argument.
Accordingly, the UCL claim was scheduled for bench trial following
the jury trial, and the parties submitted additional briefing on
the claim in light of the evidence presented to the jury.
In January 2023, the Court certified five claims for class
treatment: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO"), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), Rosenthal
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("RFDCPA"), UCL, and negligent
misrepresentation.
Vervent is a financial service provider company. The company
specializes in consumer loan and lease services and call center
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 29, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ZCwW5d at no extra charge.[CC]
VILLAS OF HOLLY: Mitchell Suit Seeks Conditional Status of Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANEEN MITCHELL,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
VILLAS OF HOLLY BROOK SENIOR LIVING, LLC, Case No.
2:22-cv-02269-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA):
(1) Conditionally certifying the proposed collective FLSA class;
(2) Implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
Plaintiff's FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail, e-mail, and
text-message) to:
"All current and former hourly patient facing care providers
who worked for villas of Holly Brook Senior Living, LLC,
anywhere in the United States, at any time from December 13,
2019 through the final disposition of this matter;"
(3) Approving a Reminder Email and Text-Message to be sent to
Putative Collective Members halfway through the 90-day
notice
period; and
(4) Requiring Defendant to, within 14 days of this Court's
order,
identify all Putative Collective Members by providing a list
in
electronic and importable format, of the names, addresses,
cell
phone numbers, and e-mail addresses of all Putative
Collective
Members who worked for Defendant at any time from beginning
three years immediately preceding the filing of the Original
Complaint through the present.
Villas offers senior living in central Illinois and beyond,
featuring independent, assisted living, and memory care options.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 2, 2023, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rHYd9B at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin Anderson, Esq.
Carter T. Hastings, 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
carter@a2xlaw.com
- and -
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
James B. Zouras, Esq.
Anna M. Ceragioli, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 233-1550
Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 f
E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
jzouras@stephanzouras.com
aceragioli@stephanzouras.cm
WALMART INC: Plaintiff Must File Class Cert Bid by March 14, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN GAGETTA, et al., v.
WALMART, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-03757-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguin entered a case management scheduling
order:
Event Deadline
Last day to add parties or amend Oct. 30, 2023
pleadings
Plaintiff's motion for class March 14, 2024
certification and class certification
expert reports
Defendant's opposition to motion for May 10, 2024
class certification and opposing class
certification expert reports, Daubert
motion(s)
Plaintiff's reply in support of motion June 14, 2024
for class certification and rebuttal
class certification expert reports,
Daubert motions, and opposition(s) to
Defendant's Daubert motion(s)
Defendant’s reply in support of Daubert June 28, 2024
motion, opposition to Plaintiff’s Daubert
motion(s)
Plaintiff's reply in support of Daubert July 12, 2024
motion
Close of fact discovery July 24, 2024
Hearing on motion for class certification Aug. 22, 2024
and Daubert motions
Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores in the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 2, 2023, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48HuApB at no extra charge.[CC]
WASHINGTON HOSPITAL: Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jan Doe, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Washington Township Health Care District,
Washington Hospital Healthcare System, Washington Hospital,
Washington Hospital Healthcare Foundation, Case No. 23CV041046 was
removed from the Alameda County Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on Sept. 29,
2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:23-cv-05016-AGT to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is state as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Washington Hospital Healthcare System -- https://www.whhs.com/ --
has grown to include a 415-bed, acute-care hospital, ready to serve
our community's health needs.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Teresa Carey Chow, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
Phone: (310) 820-8800
Fax: (310) 820-8859
Email: tchow@bakerlaw.com
WEST VIRGINIA: Video Depositions Submitted as Evidence in Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Rubin, writing for Eyewitness News, reports that video
depositions obtained by Eyewitness News show how former top jail
administrators under West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice have struggled
to deal with dire conditions in the state's correctional
facilities.
The depositions are being used as evidence in a federal injunction
that claims mounting repair needs of the facilities, estimated at
more than $200 million and an alarming number of correctional
officer shortages were ignored over the years by the governor and
legislature.
On Sept. 28, attorneys representing current and former Southern
Regional Jail inmates are going before a federal magistrate to
argue that the state has been destroying evidence in their
separate, ongoing investigation as part of a class-action lawsuit
into the facility that saw 13 inmates die in 2022.
As part of the lawsuit, numerous videos and pictures have been
submitted as evidence in the case that show instances of cells with
no water, toilets that won't flush, showers that don't work, mold
infested areas and general unsanitary living conditions.
"It was just a powder keg at the Southern Regional Jail for the
longest time," Beckley attorney Stephen New of New, Taylor &
Associates said. New is one of the attorneys who filed the
class-action suit regarding conditions at the Southern Regional
Jail. He's also involved in the injunction seeking to force the
state to spend $330 million to improve prison and jail conditions
and fill worker vacancies.
"This isn't being soft on crime. The 8th Amendment to the United
States Constitution, the West Virginia Constitution, talk about
cruel and unusual punishment," New said. "There is lots of case law
about where the line gets crossed from 'this is jail and it was not
designed to be a comfortable situation,' to the point where it does
get unconstitutional. I believe we crossed that line in West
Virginia a long time ago."
Corrections commissioner Billy Marshall previously told Eyewitness
News that inmates made up claims of inhumane treatment and told
relatives to spread them.
"I frankly take it as an insult to our employees here at DCR,"
Marshall said. "Our people work tirelessly, very hard each and
every day to make sure our facilities are in good shape."
New said that some of the strongest evidence comes from the
testimony of corrections officials or from the photographs and
videos they have provided.
"If their credibility is an issue, we have pictures, videos and
testimony," New said.
New has been involved in numerous of depositions in the case and
provided videos and transcripts to Eyewitness News. Former top
corrections officials, deposed for hours, testified that the
governor's office and the legislature have been repeatedly told
about the dire conditions and needs at the facilities that have
gone unmet and unfunded for years.
"Prior to every legislative session, we have meetings with the
budget office. We provide them with our needs," former West
Virginia Department of Homeland Security Cabinet Secretary Jeff
Sandy said. "Our needs were clearly articulated, along with all
other Homeland Security agencies. They're advised of that.
Transparent. We tell them."
"Did you ask the question, 'how did we get here?' How did we get to
$200 million of deferred maintenance?'" New asked former West
Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation Commissioner
Betsy Jividen.
"I'm sure everybody asks that question and the answer is, we depend
on the money that is allotted to us," Jividen responded. "Every
year there is a certain amount that is allotted for maintenance but
it doesn't touch what the overarching bill is. I just know we
didn't get what we needed."
Jividen said she was pressured to resign in July 2022 over the
death of a family member of one of the governor's cabinet
secretaries.
"Who gave you word that the governor wanted you gone?" New asked
her.
"Jeff Sandy," she said.
"And why did the governor want you gone?" he asked before she said
could say what Sandy told her.
"Jeff Sandy told me that Brian Abraham was upset about Secretary
Wriston's nephew dying in the hospital after being incarcerated at
Southern and that he had gone to the governor and that's when the
governor had asked for my resignation," she said.
Jimmy Wriston is Justice's Transportation Secretary. He did not
respond to a request for comment on Jividen's statement.
During his deposition, Sandy denied saying that. Jividen also said
she had been debating stepping down before the incident out of
sheer frustration.
"Not being able to get the pay raises, not being able to do the
maintenance. It was very frustrating," she said.
The depositions also paint a questionable picture of an
investigation ordered by Justice into the Southern Regional Jail in
March 2022. Sandy said he was ordered to go to the facility by
Justice's chief of staff Brian Abraham.
"Why did the governor order this investigation?" New asked.
"Because of all of the negative media that was out there concerning
Southern Regional Jail," Sandy replied.
Allegations had been made in the press that inmates were drinking
out of toilets, not being given toilet paper and were sleeping on
the floor.
"Those were the main things that they were interested in. Water,
toilet paper and mattresses," Sandy said.
Less than a month before Sandy's visit, Quantez Burks, 37, died
after being at the Southern Regional Jail less than 48 hours. The
state had said he died of natural causes but a private autopsy done
by Burks' family allegedly proved otherwise.
"He walked in and got carried out in a body bag. That's not right,"
Burks' fiancée Latasha Williams recently told Eyewitness News.
None of that was part of the investigation that Sandy was ordered
to conduct. Nothing about staffing, overcrowding, a growing number
of inmate deaths at the time, or anything other than water, toilet
paper and mattresses. Sandy said he only talked to three inmates
who were picked by jail leaders and several correctional officers.
Ten more inmates were interviewed by another investigator a week
later. He testified that he did not step foot inside a cell, didn't
check sinks, showers, or toilets.
"I went to the observation area and looked down on multiple pods,"
he said.
"Did you test the water from there?" New asked him.
"Did not test the water from there, sir," Sandy responded.
Sandy also said he hadn't been told about walkthrough and
documentation of the shape of the jail just a few months prior when
numerous pictures and videos were taken by a lieutenant.
He later testified he wished he had been told.
About a month later, Justice's office published Sandy's 14-page
report that concluded nothing was wrong at the jail.
"These were incredibly serious allegations, so I instructed our
people at DHS to get to the bottom of it as quickly as possible,"
Justice said in a news release at the time. "Our investigators
talked with a bunch of people and pulled a bunch of records and, at
the end of the day, they determined that the allegations were
simply not true."
Sandy said he stood by the report.
While the lawsuits cite inaction by the Justice administration, the
governor declared a state of emergency over staffing at the
correctional facilities more than a year ago and called in the West
Virginia National Guard to help.
"We've been dealing with this situation for way too long," Justice
said on Aug. 8, the day he signed several bills meant to prop up
the decaying facilities that have a roughly 30% overall vacancy
rate. The bills were passed during a recent special session of the
legislature to reduce vacancies in the state's jails and prisons,
increase pay scales for correctional officers and offer retention
incentives for non-uniform correctional staff.
He was joined by his new DHS Cabinet Secretary, Mark Sorsaia, and
Marshall.
"Now we're on a pathway to making things better for a lot of folks
that are here," Justice said. "Not only that, we are on a pathway
to hopefully be able to have adequate staffing to where everybody
can do their job, do their job safely, do their job correctly and
do their job humanely in every way."
"It is incredibly important our hardworking correctional officers
get paid what they deserve," Justice said in a news release that
day. "This legislation is just a drop in the bucket but it will go
a long way in filling our vacant positions and upgrading our jails
around the state. We have been working with lawmakers for a while
to make this happen, and I am thrilled to see it cross the finish
line. This is a big win for West Virginia."
Gov. Jim Justice held a ceremony on Aug. 8, 2023 at the Gene
Spadaro Juvenile Center in Mount Hope where he signed into law
several bills passed in a recent special session of the West
Virginia Legislature. The bills are designed to reduce vacancies in
the state's jails and prisons, increase pay scales for correctional
officers and offer retention incentives for non-uniform
correctional staff. (WV Governor's Office)
New thinks the new legislation is simply too little, too late.
"Within the Justice administration they have the ability to fix a
lot of these issues," he contended. "Especially when a state is
sitting on a $1.8 billion budget surplus."
New thinks it's an issue that every West Virginian should be
concerned about.
"It's the person that gets picked up on a Friday night for a DUI.
It's the person who shoplifts $37 at the dollar store, or
something, who finds themselves in a regional jail. They are in
there with the rapists or the sexual predators or the murderers,"
he said. "If that were someone's family member, they would want
them to be as safe as they could be for as long as they could be,
in the most humane conditions possible."
Eyewitness News has filed a Freedom of Information Act Request
seeking the total number of deaths at Southern Regional Jail in
2023 but it has gone unanswered.
"These were incredibly serious allegations, so I instructed our
people at DHS to get to the bottom of it as quickly as possible,"
Justice said in a news release at the time. "Our investigators
talked with a bunch of people and pulled a bunch of records and, at
the end of the day, they determined that the allegations were
simply not true."
Sandy said he stood by the report.
While the lawsuits cite inaction by the Justice administration, the
governor declared a state of emergency over staffing at the
correctional facilities more than a year ago and called in the West
Virginia National Guard to help.
"We've been dealing with this situation for way too long," Justice
said on Aug. 8, the day he signed several bills meant to prop up
the decaying facilities that have a roughly 30% overall vacancy
rate. The bills were passed during a recent special session of the
legislature to reduce vacancies in the state's jails and prisons,
increase pay scales for correctional officers and offer retention
incentives for non-uniform correctional staff.
He was joined by his new DHS Cabinet Secretary, Mark Sorsaia, and
Marshall.
"Now we're on a pathway to making things better for a lot of folks
that are here," Justice said. "Not only that, we are on a pathway
to hopefully be able to have adequate staffing to where everybody
can do their job, do their job safely, do their job correctly and
do their job humanely in every way."
"It is incredibly important our hardworking correctional officers
get paid what they deserve," Justice said in a news release that
day. "This legislation is just a drop in the bucket but it will go
a long way in filling our vacant positions and upgrading our jails
around the state. We have been working with lawmakers for a while
to make this happen, and I am thrilled to see it cross the finish
line. This is a big win for West Virginia."
New thinks the new legislation is simply too little, too late.
"Within the Justice administration they have the ability to fix a
lot of these issues," he contended. "Especially when a state is
sitting on a $1.8 billion budget surplus."
New thinks it's an issue that every West Virginian should be
concerned about.
"It's the person that gets picked up on a Friday night for a DUI.
It's the person who shoplifts $37 at the dollar store, or
something, who finds themselves in a regional jail. They are in
there with the rapists or the sexual predators or the murderers,"
he said. "If that were someone's family member, they would want
them to be as safe as they could be for as long as they could be,
in the most humane conditions possible."
Eyewitness News has filed a Freedom of Information Act Request
seeking the total number of deaths at Southern Regional Jail in
2023 but it has gone unanswered. [GN]
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Sells Defective Refrigerators, Reed Says
--------------------------------------------------------
KIM REED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-01037-UNA (D. Del., Sept. 22, 2023) arises from the
Defendant's engagement in deceptive and unfair acts and practices
by concealing and misrepresenting defects when offering for sale
and selling Whirlpool refrigerators in violation of the New York
General Business Law.
According to the complaint, Defendant designs, manufactures, and
sells consumer appliances throughout the United States, including
certain refrigerators purchased by Plaintiff and Class members that
suffer from a defect whereby the evaporator accumulates frost,
fails to properly defrost, and thereby develops refrigerant leaks,
resulting in the unit failing to properly cool. The alleged defect
is material because it was not disclosed to purchasers and it
substantially diminishes the value of the refrigerators which was
represented by Defendant, says the suit.
Had Plaintiff or Class members known about the defect, they would
have not purchased the refrigerators or would have paid
substantially less, the suit asserts.
Whirlpool Corporation is an American multinational manufacturer and
marketer of home appliances.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
DELEEUW LAW LLC
1301 Walnut Green Road
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 274-2180
Facsimile: (302) 351-6905
E-mail: brad@deleeuwlaw.com
- and -
Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
Nicholas J. Elia, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com
dmagagna@lfsblaw.com
nelia@lfsblaw.com
- and -
D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
Sara Watkins, Esq.
ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES
707 Grant Street, Suite 125
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (844) 383-0565
E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com
swatkins@peircelaw.com
- and -
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H Street N.E., Suite 302
Washington, D.C. 20002
Tel: (202) 470-3520
E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
jrathod@classlawdc.com
WM CORPORATE: Banguis Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Mariah Banguis, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. WM CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
STK-CV-UWT-2023-0006934 was removed from the Superior Court for the
State of
California, County of San Joaquin, to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California on Sept. 29, 2023, and
assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02147-JDP.
The Plaintiff alleges that she is entitled to economic damages. The
Complaint alleges that Defendant improperly terminated Plaintiff's
employment on January 31, 2023. The Plaintiff omits facts in her
Compliant specific to her wages while employed with Defendant, or
to any subsequent employment after her termination.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Britney N. Torres, Esq.
Christa A. Hall, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000
Sacramento, California 95814
Phone: 916.830.7200
Fax: 916.561.0828
Email: btorres@littler.com
chhall@littler.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2023. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***