/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231102.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, November 2, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 220
Headlines
3M CO: Military Veterans Accept Earplug Class Suit Settlement
ADG MANAGEMENT: Seeks to Remove Exhibits from Public Record
ALDER PROTECTION: Court Extends Ennis Class Cert Reply to Nov. 9
ALDER PROTECTION: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Reply
ALIGN TECH: Plaintiffs Seek to File Class Cert Reply Under Seal
ALIGN TECH: Snow Seeks to File Class Cert Reply Portions Under Seal
AMAZON.COM INC: Court Enters Order on Submissions in Mahone
API INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 26, 2024
ARBORWORKS LLC: Ortiz Suit Stayed Pending Ruling in Gonzalez Suit
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert. Bid
ARTSAICS INC: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ATHENE ANNUITY: Weissman Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
AW AUTHENTIC: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AZTECH MOUNTAIN: Martin Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BANK OF NEW YORK: Class Cert. Bid Reply Due Nov. 13
BANK OF NEW YORK: Waldens Seek Extension of Class Cert Deadlines
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 28, 2024
BE WELL PRIMARY: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BEN'S CRAB: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BESOS RESTAURANT: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Chavez
BISSELL INC: Collects Data Without Consent, Baldwin Alleges
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Mecke Suit
BLUSH BRUNCH: Pereida Files Suit Over Alleged Tip Skimming
BOARD OF ELECTIONS: Sherr Seeks Conditional Status of Action
BOJANGLES RESTAURANTS: Class Cert Bid Partly Granted in Stafford
BRILLIANT JEWELERS: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Stiner Suit Seeks Certification of Subclasses
BROTHER'S BOND: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BROWN & BROWN: Meseck Suit Removed to C.D. California
BY THE YARD INC: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CAPITAL ONE: Court Tosses Davis Bid to Certify Class
CARLISLE ETCETERA: Tarr Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CAROLINE CONSTAS: Tarr Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CHAMBERLAIN COFFEE: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CHECKERS DRIVE-IN: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
CHRISTIANBOOK LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Dec. 6
CITY OF SAINTS COFFEE: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CJ LOGISTICS: Wells Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Gelt Loses Bid to Extend Discovery Deadline
CONNECTICUT: Vega "Radon Exposure" Suit Seeks Class Certification
COOPERSTOWN BAT COMPANY: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Flores Sues Over False and Misleading Advertising
CREDIT SUISSE: Class Settlement in FLHL Suit Gets Final Nod
DAVID L RAMSEY: Loses Bid to Strike Patrick's Class Allegations
DC PORTFOLIO: Burrows Seeks to Send Notice to Settlement Class
DELAWARE NORTH: Judge Recommends Class Cert Denial in Vega
DIGITAL DOLPHIN: Scofield Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
DJ FINANCIAL: Filing of Closing Docs Due Nov. 2 in Huynh
DUNE SUNCARE: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EARTHLINK HOLDINGS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition
EIGER BIOPHARMACEUTICAL: Shareholder Suit over COVID Drug Dismissed
ELDER STATESMAN: Tarr Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EPIC AIRCRAFT: Hanney Reply to Class Cert Bid Due Nov. 17
EQUIFAX FAIR: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Jan. 15, 2025
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 18, 2024
FASTAFF LLC: Parties Seek Conditional Collective Certification
FRESH VINE WINE: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FUNNY WATER: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GARDNER WHITE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bell Suit Alleges
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: King Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
GENWORTH LIFE: Behrens Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
GENWORTH LIFE: Hauser Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
GENWORTH LIFE: Silverstein Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
GEORGIA: Johnson Relieved After Transgender Healthcare Suit Deal
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Seeks Extension of Briefing Deadlines
GOOGLE LLC: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Reply by Nov. 29
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Collect Data Without Consent, Arndt Says
HIGHGATE HOTELS: Seeks to Decertify Claims in Henkel Suit
HK MARBLE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barahona Suit Alleges
HORIZON REALTY: Class Settlement in Rosenberg Suit Gets Final Nod
HP INC: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due August 30, 2024
HQ MILTON INC: Tarr Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HSBC BANK: Ni Suit Seeks Conditional Collective Certification
HSGI INC: Palazuelos Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
HYATT CORPORATION: Nov. 16 Class Cert Hearing Vacated
INDIVIOR PLC: Settles Suboxone Monopoly Class Suit for $385M
INSTAGRAM LLC: 9th Circuit Court Affirms Copyright Suit Dismissal
INWOOD BEER GARDEN: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
JGL RESTAURANT: Initial Case Management Order Entered in Zamora
K & SODA INC: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KARTOON STUDIOS: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal
KITCHEN ENTHUSIASTS: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KUBIYA GAMES: Tarr Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LAUREN KING: David-Merritt Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
LOBEL FINANCIAL: Williams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
LORI WEAVER: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Detained Persons
MASA SUSHI: Chen Seeks Reconsideration of Certain Items in Order
MASON SUPPLY: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MAXIMUS INC: Buzzell Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
MAXIMUS INC: Harding Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
MAXIMUS INC: Wilt Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
MDL 2873: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Robinson Suit Alleges
MDL 2873: Aldrine Suit Claims Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
MDL 2873: Exposed Military Members to Toxic Chemicals, Pacheco Says
MDL 2873: Faces Beni Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
MDL 2873: Faces Hopkins Suit Over AFFF Products' Harmful Effects
MDL 2873: Faces Thompson Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
MDL 2873: Hooper Sues Over Side Effects of Using AFFF Products
MDL 2873: Lunsford Sues Over AFFF Products' Risk to Human Health
MDL 2873: Nelson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
MDL 2873: Palumbo Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
MERRICK GARLAND: Chang Suit Stayed Pending Resolution in Enriquez
MERRICK GARLAND: Initial Pretrial Conference Schedule Canceled
MHM HEALTH: Cupp FLSA Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification
MILLIMAN INC: W.D. Wash Fed. Ct. Modifies Previous Order in Mattson
MILLIMAN SOLUTIONS: Gregory Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
MORNING CHEF: Thomas Must Make Settlement Demand by Nov. 30
MTA: Fact Discovery in Paulino-Santos Class Suit Due Sept. 30, 2024
MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing in CA Court
NATIONAL FREIGHT: Class Cert Factual Discovery Due March 1, 2024
NEVADA: Nunn Must File Complaint vs. Ely State Prison by Dec. 12
NEW YORK, NY: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 17
ONS CLOTHING: Martin Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ORTOALASKA LLC: Byers Files Suit in D. Alaska
PEDEGO HOLDINGS: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PENSION BENEFIT: Golestani Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
PERFORMANCE HEALTH: Malo Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
PESTIE INC: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PIEDMONT AIRLINES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 8, 2024
PLANTRONICS INC: Filing for Class Status Bid Due Feb. 8, 2024
POWER SOLUTIONS: Faces Securities Suit Over BIPA Violations
PRICELESS CLOTHING: Gonzalez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PRO'S CLOSET: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Mosqueda Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
QUALVOICE LLC: Court OK's Class & Collective Action Settlement
RAY ALLEN MANUFACTURING: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RC JEWELS INC: Tarr Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
REFINERY LTD: Gonzalez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ROCKWELL COLLINS: Leeman Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensations
ROLLS-ROYCE HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit Over Corruption Scandal
SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Court Lifts Stay of Fox Class Action
SECURED INVESTMENT: Ramsey Suit Removed to C.D. California
SEWING DOWN SOUTH: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SHARKNINJA INC: Faces Class Suit Over Nonstick Cookware False Ads
SHAUN FERGUSON: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to May 17, 2024
SIDWELL AIR: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 12, 2024
SIMON'S AGENCY: 3rd Cir. Vacates Class Cert. Order in Huber Suit
SLEEP LOFT: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
STURM RUGER & CO: Copeland Suit Consolidated with Existing Action
SUTTER HEALTH: Class Certification Opposition Due June 18, 2024
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Carlson Loses Bid to Move Suit to State Court
TABACALERA USA: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
TATA MOTORS: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Oct. 4, 2024
TAX SERVICES: Committee Seeks Leave to Appear as Amicus Curiae
TESLA INC: Court Grants Bid to Compel Arbitration in Yeh Suit
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Class Cert Reply Due Nov 3 in Wollam Suit
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Class Cert Discovery Extended to March 1, 2024
TRIIBE INC: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TRUSTCO BANK: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Feb. 16, 2024
TURQUOISE HILL: Class Oral Argument Rescheduled to Feb. 22, 2024
TURQUOISE HILL: Lead Plaintiff Seeks Class Certification
UNION BANK AND TRUST: Scott Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
UNITED PARCEL: Todd Suit Removed to E.D. California
US NURSING CORPORATION: Rubel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
USA TODAY: Stevens Seek Conditional Certification of Class
VILLAGE FAMILY: Aprahamian Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
WAWA INC: $28.5MM Settlement in Data Security Suit Has Prelim. OK
WAWA INC: Settlement Claims in Data Security Suit Due Feb. 6, 2024
WELLPATH LLC: Faling-Davis Must File Class Cert by April 30, 2024
WYNN RESORTS: Court OK's Class Certification in Ferris Class Suit
WYNN RESORTS: Plaintiffs Must Submit Program & Schedule for Notice
YOUNG LIVING: Court OK's O'Shaughnessy Bid to Seal Exhibits
ZAGE GROUP: Court OK's Plaintiff's Bid to Compel Responses
*********
3M CO: Military Veterans Accept Earplug Class Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Col. Preston McLaughlin of The Hill reports that as the USS Gerald
R. Ford Carrier Strike Group deploys off Israel in the wake of the
Hamas mass terror attacks, I'm reminded of the strike on the Marine
Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, killing 241 U.S. service members 40
years ago this month.
I was a brand-new Marine second lieutenant at The Basic School in
Quantico at the time and remember the nation was shocked such a
thing could happen during a “peacekeeping” mission. The
military is a dangerous profession.
During my 27 years in the Marine Corps, I deployed to multiple
combat zones -- from Kuwait in the early 1990s to Afghanistan
decades later. Like more than 5 million other veterans, my
service-related injuries resulted in disability benefits from the
Veterans Administration (VA). While those payments have been a
blessing, they can be elusive, slow to approve and complicated to
maintain.
With that in mind, I was intrigued to learn about 3M's recent
settlement of more than $6 billion dollars to veterans who suffered
hearing loss while using earplugs from a subsidiary company called
Aearo Technologies during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Having personally worn those dark green and yellow conical earplugs
in Afghanistan, my experience was positive. And having served for
decades in the Assault Amphibious Vehicle community with a loud
environment just going to work, let alone plenty of time in live
fire situations, I'm fortunate to never have suffered permanent
hearing loss.
I know plenty of veterans who have, though. They ought to be
compensated.
However, I'm concerned that many eligible veterans in this lawsuit
won't, despite the recent court ruling in their favor. That's
because the settlement terms stipulated that if fewer than 98
percent of them accept the deal within six months, it can be
nullified.
My fellow veterans would be wise to accept the deal.
Even though the earplug lawsuits started out as a trickle, they're
now a flood, counting hundreds of thousands of cases consolidated
through a court in Florida. It’s the biggest domestic tort case
in our nation's history.
As the numbers of litigants grow, some think the $6 billion won't
be enough and want to hold out for more. It's a bad strategy,
because if 3M is allowed to walk away from this deal, more lawsuits
are inevitable and will likely stretch out for years. This will
delay much-needed resources to impacted veterans and closure that
many of them are searching for.
In such a case, how many veterans won't even be alive to collect?
And what about if judges rule that their claims are invalid, as
they have in other bellwether cases that have been litigated?
Veterans wouldn't get anything at all.
With the clock ticking to settlement time, there is an even greater
risk to veterans than simply not getting paid. In October 22,
2023's legal and financial world, some might find themselves in
serious debt themselves.
Unfortunately, many companies offer loans in anticipation of
lawsuit settlements, often at high interest rates. Claimants could
get a loan with rates as high as 60 percent and then would be
responsible for it -- even if the deals fall apart. While the judge
has warned against such things, how many veterans won’t get the
word and will get burned?
Class-action lawsuits are wildly popular now, with Forbes citing
$63 billion in settlements in 2022 alone. It's plausible that such
litigation might benefit law firms and their investors more than
those who suffered a loss and filed claims. Even fast-food chains
like McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's and Taco Bell are facing a
375 percent increase in class-action lawsuits over false
advertising, staring at multimillion-dollar payouts like Dr. Pepper
forked over, incredibly.
In one positive sign, the Veteran Service Organization (VSO)
community is getting involved to help veterans make a more fully
informed decision. The Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) released a
statement last month titled, "3M Lawsuit Ends in Victory for
Veterans" which gets it right and sees the forest through the
trees.
Put another way with a time-tested adage, "it's better to have one
bird in hand than two in the bush."
Veterans should reject those who keep digging for the chance at
more money, which could jeopardize the billions already on the
table. They have sacrificed too much already. It's time to get paid
and move on. [GN]
ADG MANAGEMENT: Seeks to Remove Exhibits from Public Record
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHANA COLON, CHRISTINE
RUNDBERG, and ANTHONY WOMACK, as the representative of a Class of
similarly situated person, and on Behalf of the Advanced Diagnostic
Group Employee Stock Ownership Program, v. KEVIN G. JOHNSON, DALE
L. HERSEY, NATHAN S. WARD, SHAUN L. McGRUDER, MICHAEL SCHMICKLE,
LEIGH FERNANDES, JOSHUA A. BLACKSTEN, ADG MANAGEMENT HOLDINGS, LLC,
and GREATBANC TRUST CO., Case No. 8:22-cv-00888-TPB-TGW (M.D.
Fla.), the Defendants file an emergency motion to strike and remove
exhibits from Public Record:
1. PBCD and ADGMH filed their Response in Opposition to
Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification on October 18, 2023.
2. Four exhibits (DE 224-7, DE 224-8, DE 224-9, and DE 224-10)
attached to the Response contained personal identifying
information which was inadvertently not redacted and
therefore
those exhibits should be stricken and removed from the public
record.
3. PBCD and ADGMH have now redacted the exhibits (attached) and
those will be filed for substitution in place of the
unredacted
exhibits.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 19, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/45CmFY4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam J. Hodkin, Esq.
HODKIN STAGE, PLLC
1200 N. Federal Highway, Suite 200
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 810-1600
Facsimile: (561) 300-2128
E-mail: ahodkin@hswlawgroup.com
- and -
Robert H. Smeltzer, Esq.
Alyssa H. Friedman, Esq.
John R. Neeleman, Esq.
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
175 W. Jackson Boulevard, Suite 950
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 354-2500
E-mail: rsmeltzer@kilpatricktownsend.com
afriedman@kilpatricktownsend.com
jneeleman@kilpatricktownsend.com
- and -
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
WENZEL, FENTON, CABASSA, P.A.
1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 224-0431
E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
lcabassa@wfclaw.com
aheystek@wfclaw.com
- and -
Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
Brandon Thomas McDonough, Esq.
Jennifer K. Lee, Esq.
Mark Thomson, Esq.
Charlie Gokey, Esq.
Engstrom Lee McDonough, Esq.
THOMPSON & THOMSON
1330 Lagoon Ave, 4th Floor
Minneapolis, MN 55408
cengstrom@engstromlee.com
bmcdonough@engstromlee.com
jlee@engstromlee.com
mthomson@engstromlee.com
cgokey@engstromlee.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Daniel L. Buchholz, Esq.
Lindsey R. Camp, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
100 North Tampa Street, Suite 4100
Tampa, FL 33602
E-mail: Daniel.buchholz@hklaw.com
Lindsey.camp@hklaw.com
ALDER PROTECTION: Court Extends Ennis Class Cert Reply to Nov. 9
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHADRACH ENNIS, NICOLAAS
VANLEEUWEN, and TERRANCE JESCLARD, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. ALDER PROTECTION HOLDINGS, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; ALDER HOLDINGS, LLC, a Utah
limited liability company; ADAM SCHANZ, an individual; ADAM
CHRISTIAN, an individual; KYLE DEMORDAUNT, an individual; DANE
MCCARTNEY, an individual; COVE SMART, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; and
DOES I–X, Case No. 2:19-cv-00512-CW-DBP (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge
Clark Waddoups entered an order granting stipulated motion to
extend deadline for the Plaintiffs to reply to their Motion to
Certify Class.
The Court orders that the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their
reply to their Motion to Certify Class is Nov. 9, 2023.
Alder is a privately owned and operated company offering security,
home automation, and life safety services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46YPVtc at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew A. Steward, Esq.
Shaunda L. McNeill, Esq.
Victoria B. Finlinson, Esq.
CLYDE SNOW & SESSIONS
One Utah Center, Suite 2200
201 South Main Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2216
Telephone (801) 322-2516
E-mail: mas@clydesnow.com
slm@clydesnow.com
vbf@clydesnow.com
ALDER PROTECTION: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Reply
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHADRACH ENNIS, NICOLAAS
VANLEEUWEN, and TERRANCE JESCLARD, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. ALDER PROTECTION HOLDINGS, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; ALDER HOLDINGS, LLC, a Utah
limited liability company; ADAM SCHANZ, an individual; ADAM
CHRISTIAN, an individual; KYLE DEMORDAUNT, an individual; DANE
MCCARTNEY, an individual; COVE SMART, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; and DOES I–X, Case No. 2:19-cv-00512-CW-DBP
(D. Utah), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting a
two-week extension of the deadline for Plaintiffs to Reply to their
Motion to Certify Class.
The Plaintiffs and Defendants stipulate that the new deadline for
Plaintiffs to file their reply to the Motion will be November 9,
2023.
Alder is a privately owned and operated company offering security,
home automation, and life safety services.
A copy of Parties' motion dated Oct. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Q6gO7t at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew A. Steward, Esq.
Shaunda L. McNeill, Esq.
Victoria B. Finlinson, Esq.
CLYDE SNOW & SESSIONS
One Utah Center, Suite 2200
201 South Main Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2216
Telephone (801) 322-2516
E-mail: mas@clydesnow.com
slm@clydesnow.com
vbf@clydesnow.com
The Defendants are represented by:
J. Ryan Mitchell, Esq.
Christopher A. Langston, Esq.
Mika Hillery, Esq.
MITCHELL BARLOW & MANSFIELD, P.C.
9 Exchange Pl
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 998-8888
ALIGN TECH: Plaintiffs Seek to File Class Cert Reply Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SIMON AND SIMON, PC d/b/a
CITY SMILES and VIP DENTAL SPAS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No.
3:20-cv-03754-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs file an administrative
motion to consider whether another party's material should be
sealed.
The Plaintiffs bring this administrative motion pursuant to Civil
Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5, and under the Stipulated Protective
Order entered April 28, 2021, to file under seal the Plaintiffs'
Reply Memorandum in Support of Their Motion for Class
Certification.
Align Technology is an American manufacturer of 3D digital scanners
and Invisalign clear aligners used in orthodontics.
A copy of Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s5abul at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua P. Davis, Esq.
Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
Michael Kane, Esq.
Daniel J. Walker, Esq.
Hope Brinn, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625
San Francisco, 94111
Telephone: (415) 689-9292
Facsimile: (215) 875-5707
E-mail: jdavis@bm.net
ecramer@bm.net
mkane@bm.net
dwalker@bm.net
hbrinn@bm.net
- and -
John Radice, Esq.
April Lambert, Esq.
Daniel Rubenstein, Esq.
RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C.
475 Wall Street
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (646) 245-8502
Facsimile: (609) 385-0745
E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com
alambert@radicelawfirm.com
drubenstein@radicelawfirm.com
Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
Steven N. Williams, Esq.
Kevin E. Rayhill, Esq.
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 500-6800
Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
krayhill@saverilawfirm.com
Daniel J. Mogin, Esq.
Timothy Z. LaComb, Esq.
MOGINRUBIN LLP
600 West Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 687-6611
Facsimile: (619) 687-6610
E-mail: dmogin@moginrubin.com
tlacomb@moginrubin.com
Kevin Landau, Esq.
Miles Greaves, Esq.
TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
123 William St, Suite 1900A
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 931-0704
Facsimile: (212) 931-0703
E-mail: klandau@tcllaw.com
mgreaves@tcllaw.com
ALIGN TECH: Snow Seeks to File Class Cert Reply Portions Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MISTY SNOW, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALIGN
TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-03269-VC (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff file an administrative motion pursuant to Civil Local
Rules 7-11 and 79-5, to partially file under seal the following:
-- Portions of Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Class
Certification (Reply)
-- Sur-Rebuttal Expert Report of William B. Vogt, Ph.D. in
Support
of Class Certification and Merits.
-- A public redacted version of the Reply was filed as required
by
the Court's Civil Local Rules.
-- Subsection (f) of Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth procedures
that apply when a party (seeks to file information designated
as
confidential by another party or non-party.
Align Technology is an American manufacturer of 3D digital scanners
and Invisalign clear aligners used in orthodontics.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 24, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FxToDb at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Theodore Wojcik, Esq.
Joey Kingerski, Esq.
Rio S. Pierce, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
tedw@hbsslaw.com
joeyk@hbsslaw.com
riop@hbsslaw.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Court Enters Order on Submissions in Mahone
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YASMINE MAHONE and BRANDON
TOLE, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., ET AL., Case No. 2:22-cv-00594-MJP (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge Marsha J. Pechman entered an order granting
in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' submission and granting
the Defendant's submission.
-- Amazon must produce documents responsive to RFP No.
1—Amazon's
agreements with the Reed Group—within seven days of entry of
this
Order.
-- Amazon must produce revised interrogatory responses to
Interrogatory Nos. 24-26 consistent with this Order within
14 days of its entry.
Both Parties have further work to do in this matter to produce
relevant and discoverable materials. The Court has set short
timelines for the production of responsive materials and for the
completion of further depositions in order to assist the Court in
resolving Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Court expects the Parties to comply with these deadlines which
are unlikely to be extended, and to cooperate fully so that
discovery will move forward efficiently.
The Court agrees with Amazon that Plaintiffs must supplement their
initial disclosures and discovery responses as to Plaintiff Tole.
There are two distinct reasons why Plaintiff Tole must supplement
his responses.
Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company focusing
on e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital
streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/405Rpzs at no extra charge.[CC]
API INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 26, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRETT STEWART, v. A.P.I.,
INC. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01788-CB (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Cathy Bissoon entered a case management order in compliance with
the provisions of Local Rule 16.1.B shall occur as follows:
1. The parties shall exchange initial Nov. 17, 2023
disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1)
on or before:
2. The parties shall file any motion to Dec. 15, 2023
add new parties on or before:
3. The parties shall file any motion to Dec. 15, 2023.
amend the pleadings on or before:
4. The parties have elected mediation as Jan. 18, 2024
their preferred form of Alternative
Dispute Resolution. A mediation before
the Hon. Kenneth J. Benson, will take
place on or before:
5. The parties shall complete all class March 20, 2024
certification discovery on or before:
6. The Plaintiff's motion for class April 26, 2024
certification, including all materials
in support thereof is due by:
7. The Defendants' opposition papers are June 3, 2024
due by:
8. The Plaintiff's reply is due by: June 17, 2024
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3M9bzmA at no extra charge.[CC]
ARBORWORKS LLC: Ortiz Suit Stayed Pending Ruling in Gonzalez Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESUS JULIAN GUTIERREZ
ORTIZ, an individual, and on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, v. ARBORWORKS, LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company; ARBORWORKS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, Case
No. 1:23-cv-00578-ADA-SKO (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sheila K.
Oberto entered an order staying action pending a ruling on class
certification of prior filed Action and vacating October 24, 2023,
scheduling conference:
1. The action is stayed pending a ruling on class certification
in
the prior filed action Ramon Tovar Gonzalez v. Arborworks,
LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv01030-ADA-SKO;
2. The October 24, 2023, Scheduling Conference is vacated; and
3. Within 14 days of the ruling on class certification in the
prior
filed action, the parties are directed to file a joint status
report, stating whether they wish to lift or extend the stay,
and if necessary, to request a Scheduling Conference for this
action.
ArborWork provides vegetation management and wildfire hazard
mitigation for utilities, highway departments, municipalities,
forestry departments.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Md0u3O at no extra charge.[CC]
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert. Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kenneth Crawford,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Arizona Beverages USA LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00220-DWD (S.D. Ill.),
the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending the time
for them to file opposition to the motion for class certification
to Dec. 15, 2023.
Arizona Beverages is a producer of many flavors of iced tea, juice
cocktails, and energy drinks.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 19, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47jJQrx at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheenan, Esq.
SHEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Road, Suite 409
Great Neck, New York 11021
The Defendant is represented by:
Robert P. Donovan, Esq.
STEVENS & LEE
669 River Drive,Suite 201
Elmwood Park, New Jersey 07407
Telephone: (201) 857-6778
ARTSAICS INC: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Artsaics, Inc. The
case is styled as Colette Stroude, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Artsaics, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07854
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Artsaics -- https://artsaics.com/ -- offers custom mosaics, stone
etching, architectural, design, and water jet cutting
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
ATHENE ANNUITY: Weissman Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Richard Weissman, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Athene Annuity and Life
Company, Pension Benefit Information, LLC, Progress Software
Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-03999 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 20, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12453-ADB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Athene Annuity & Life Company -- http://www.athene.com/-- is a
leading provider of products in the retirement savings market.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Barry J. Gainey, Esq.
GAINEY & MCKENNA
140 Route 17 North, Suite 203
Paramus, NJ 07652
Phone: (201) 225-9001
Fax: (201) 225-9002
Email: bgainey@gaineyandmckenna.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Richard Jon Davis, Esq.
MAYNARD NEXSEN PC
1901 Sixth Avenue North, Ste 1700
Birmingham, AL 35203
Phone: (205) 254-1000
Email: rdavis@maynardnexsen.com
- and -
James Francis Monagle, Esq.
MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC
309 Fellowship Rd., Suite 200
Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054
Phone: (267) 930-1529
Email: jmonagle@mullen.law
AW AUTHENTIC: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AW Authentic, Inc.
The case is styled as Lynn Zelvin, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. AW Authentic, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-09241 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
AW Authentic -- http://www.awauthentic.com/-- maintains an up to
date online database to allow confirmation of the authenticity of
AW certified memorabilia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
AZTECH MOUNTAIN: Martin Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aztech Mountain, LLC.
The case is styled as Damian Martin, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Aztech Mountain, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-07855-FB-SJB (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Aztech Mountain -- https://aztechmountain.com/ -- is a sportswear
company that makes technically appointed clothing for active men
and women.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
BANK OF NEW YORK: Class Cert. Bid Reply Due Nov. 13
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WALDEN, et al., v. THE
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01972
(W.D. Pa., Filed Dec. 21, 2020), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy
entered an order granting motion for extension of time to file
response/reply as to motion to seal document order on motion for
leave to file documents under seal, Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, and motion for summary judgment.
-- The due date for Plaintiffs to file their Nov. 13,
2023
reply in further support of their motion
for class certification and for Defendants
to file their reply in further support of
their motion for summary judgment is
extended:
The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Default.
Bank of New York Mellon is an American investment banking services
holding company.[CC]
BANK OF NEW YORK: Waldens Seek Extension of Class Cert Deadlines
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN WALDEN and LESLIE
WALDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION and BNY
MELLON, N.A., Case No. 2:20-cv-01972-CRE (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order granting the one-week extension of
the due date for the filing of:
(1) The Plaintiffs' reply in further support of their Motion for
Class Certification; and
(2) The Defendants' reply in further support of Defendants'
Motion
for Summary Judgment.
On July 31, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class
Certification and the Defendants filed their Motion for Summary
Judgment.
On September 21, 2023, the Defendants filed their opposition to
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and Plaintiffs filed
their opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.
Bank of New York Mellon is an American investment banking services
holding company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 20, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/495RjMb at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Li Yu, Esq.
Bruce D. Bernstein, Esq.
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 933-1000
E-mail: lyu@dicellolevitt.com
bbernstein@dicellolevitt.com
alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Stephen D. Councill, Esq.
Joshua P. Gunnemann, Esq.
COUNCILL, GUNNEMANN & CHALLY LLC
1201 Peachtree Street N.E.
Building 400, Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30361
Telephone: (404) 407-5250
Facsimile: (404) 600-1624
E-mail: scouncill@cogunn.com
jgunnemann@cogunn.com
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 28, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PRIYA SIDHU, v. BAYER
HEALTHCARE PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-01603-BLF (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered a case management
order as follows:
Event Date or Deadline
Last Day to Request Leave to Amend 60 Days from Date of
the Pleadings per F.R.Civ.P 15 this Order
Last Day File Motion Class June 28, 2024
Certification
Last Day to Hear Dispositive Motions June 26, 2025
Final Pretrial Conference Oct. 2, 2025
Trial Nov. 3, 2025
Bayer manufactures products relating to health and
pharmaceuticals.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FtuTHo at no extra charge.[CC]
BE WELL PRIMARY: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Be Well Primary
Health Care Center, LLC. The case is styled as Colette Stroude, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Be Well
Primary Health Care Center, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-07852-RML
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Be Well Primary Health Care Center LLC --
https://www.bewellmedical.com/ -- is a Medical Group Practice
located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
BEN'S CRAB: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ben's Crab, Corp. The
case is styled as Silvia Martinez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Ben's Crab, Corp., Case No.
1:23-cv-07858 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ben's Crab, Corp. -- https://benscrab.com/ -- offers a collection
of cajun menu items made from the freshest catch from king crab,
snow crab, lobster, the shells families and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
BESOS RESTAURANT: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Chavez
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GABRIELA LOPES CHAVEZ, et
al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. BESOS RESTAURANT BAR & LOUNGE CORP, et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-09196-PAE-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses
entered an order regarding general pretrial management as follows:
-- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related
to
scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or
for
judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary
judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23)
must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's
Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's
website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. Parties
and counsel are cautioned.
-- Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must
be
initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set
by
the Court.
-- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting
discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for
such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil
Rule
37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices.
-- For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion
conferences
are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe
that
an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for
a
motion or narrow the issues.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Mhqefq at no extra charge.[CC]
BISSELL INC: Collects Data Without Consent, Baldwin Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
BRIE BALDWIN; ROLANDA FIELDS; SAMUEL GEMETTE; TYASIA REDDIC;
TERRENCE WILSON; and ERMA TUCKER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BISSELL INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:23-cv-05349-LB (N.D. Cal., Oct. 19, 2023) alleges
Defendant's violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act.
According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint the Defendant is
engaged in surreptitiously monitoring and recording the telephonic
communications between consumers and its customer service
representatives without first providing notice or obtaining the
consumers' consent.
BISSELL INC. provides cleaning products. The Company offers
vacuums, steams, sweepers, floor cleaning formulas, febreze
freshness, mops brooms, and carpet cleaning products. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
Luke W. Sironski-White, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
bscott@bursor.com
lsironski@bursor.com
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Mecke Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Douglas Harpool of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri, Southern Division, grants the Defendants'
Motion to Compel Arbitration in the lawsuit titled DENISE MECKE,
Plaintiff v. BLUEGREEN VACATIONS CORP., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 6:23-cv-03047-MDH (W.D. Mo.).
Before the Court is Defendants Bluegreen Vacations Corporation,
Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc., Dusty Tonkin, Yolanda Armalin,
Susan Saturday, Lynn Brown, Russell Cox, Steve Coen, Howard
Kitchen, Heather Pilkinton, and Kathy Jo Conque's Motion to Compel
Arbitration. Also before the Court is Plaintiff Denise Mecke's
Motion for a Hearing on Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration.
Defendant Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited ("Defendant Bluegreen")
sells and manages timeshare properties throughout the United
States. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant Bluegreen in a variety
of positions from 2002 until 2010, at which point the Plaintiff
voluntarily ended her employment because, she contends, she
observed certain sales practices she found to be unethical.
Nonetheless, in March 2011, she sought reemployment with Defendant
Bluegreen, who then rehired her on April 1, 2011, as sales
representative.
When Defendant Bluegreen rehired her, the Plaintiff signed, among
other documents, an Arbitration Agreement ("the Agreement"),
requiring her to arbitrate, rather than pursue in court, a variety
of disputes that may arise between her and the Defendant, as well
as others. In pertinent part, the Agreement provides that it is
intended to provide the exclusive means of resolving all defined
disputes, which may arise between the parties. The Agreement is to
be enforced under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA").
The Agreement further indicates that "rules governing arbitration
proceedings are contained in the Company's Arbitration Rules, which
are incorporated herein by reference." The Arbitration Rules ("the
Rules"), which the Plaintiff alleges she never reviewed, also
indicate that the Rules "are expressly incorporated into the
parties' Arbitration Agreement." Rule Fifteen provides that
"Bluegreen Corporation may revise these procedures as it deems
necessary consistent with the interests of fairness and due
process."
The Plaintiff does not dispute that she initialed and signed the
Agreement. Her final signature on the Agreement, also signed by a
representative of Defendant Bluegreen, appears just below bold and
underlined text that appears in capital letters, reading "this
contract contains a binding arbitration provision which may be
enforced by the parties." The final section of the Agreement states
that, by signing, both parties agree that they have carefully read
the Agreement, had "an opportunity to examine the Arbitration
Rules", and understand that signing the Agreement means "both
parties waive their right to trial by court or jury."
After signing the Agreement and beginning her work as a sales
representative, the Plaintiff alleges that she observed some
coworkers engage in sales practices she believed to be deceptive
and at odds with company policy. She made audio recordings of some
of her coworkers engaged in practices she found to be deceptive.
She provided some of these recordings to supervisors.
On an Aug. 3, 2022 phone call, Defendant Armalin advised the
Plaintiff she had been terminated for "breach of confidentiality by
covertly recording reps." The Plaintiff believes her termination to
be wrongful and has alleged altogether ten counts against eleven
Defendants, each involved in the circumstances surrounding her
discharge.
Specifically, the Plaintiff's Complaint alleges under Count One
Unlawful Discharge in Violation of RSMO Section 285.575 (Missouri's
whistleblower protection act); Count Two Wrongful Discharge and
Retaliation in Violation of Public Policy; Count Three Unfair
Competition; Count Four Fraud; Count Five Negligent, Retention,
and/or Supervision of Unfit Employees; Count Six Quantum Meruit;
Count Seven Tortious Interference with Business Expectancy; Count
Eight Defamation; Count Nine Civil Conspiracy; and Count Ten
Declaratory Judgment.
The Plaintiff further alleges that, each Defendant is sued
individually and as a partner, agent, and/or employee of Defendants
Bluegreen. Defendants Bluegreen are liable to the Plaintiff for the
acts of the individual Defendants under the legal doctrine of
respondeat superior.
In the present motion, the Defendants ask the Court to dismiss the
Plaintiff's Complaint and compel this matter to arbitration
pursuant to the terms outlined in the Agreement. In the
alternative, the Defendants ask that the Court compel arbitration,
but stay this matter pending a resolution in arbitration.
The Plaintiff, on the other hand, does not argue that she did not
sign the Agreement, nor does she argue the present dispute as
alleged in the Complaint somehow falls outside the scope
contemplated by the Agreement. Rather, the Plaintiff argues the
Agreement is unenforceable because it lacked consideration and is
unconscionable.
As a preliminary matter, the Court finds that the Federal
Arbitration Act ("FAA") applies to the enforcement of the
Agreement. The plain language of the Agreement makes clear the
Parties' intent that the FAA would govern enforcement of the
Agreement. Neither party appears to contest this point.
The Plaintiff argues the Agreement is unenforceable because it
lacks consideration and because it is unconscionable.
Judge Harpool opines that the Plaintiff's position, however,
ignores the plain language of the Agreement, which provides, "In
consideration for their mutual promises, both parties, by entering
into this Agreement, give up their right to trial by court or by
jury." The Court has previously held "parties' mutual promise to
arbitrate constitutes sufficient consideration if that promise was
binding upon both sides."
In the present matter, Judge Harpool holds, Rule Fifteen's
stipulation that no rule modifications will apply to matters
already submitted to arbitration by either party is sufficient to
show that any changes Defendant Bluegreen may pursue cannot apply
retroactively. It is also plain under Missouri law that the Rules
constitute part of the contract that binds the parties.
The Plaintiff argues the Agreement is unenforceable also because it
is unconscionable. She argues, among other things, that the
Agreement is substantively unconscionable because it involves a
class-action waiver.
The Court finds this argument unpersuasive. First, as the
Defendants argue, the Agreement does not require the Plaintiff to
waive class action claims, but instead requires those claims to be
submitted to arbitration. Even if the Agreement did involve a
class-action waiver, however, this is not automatically grounds for
finding unconscionability.
Second, Judge Harpool opines that the relevance of the Plaintiff's
class action argument remains unclear, as she does not seek class
certification and appears to have alleged no facts beyond those
related to her own discharge. This sharply distinguishes her case
from each of the cases she cites in support. Judge Harpool points
out that the Plaintiff's specific allegations in this matter, which
focus solely on her individual situation, provide no occasion to
review the Agreement's provisions regarding class action
allegations.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendants' Motion to
Compel Arbitration.
Judge Harpool explains that it is clear from the plain language of
the Agreement, as well as the Complaint, that this entire
controversy falls within the entire scope of the Agreement and, as
discussed, the parties do not appear to contest this point.
The Plaintiff's Complaint is, therefore, dismissed. Accordingly,
the Plaintiff's Motion for a Hearing is moot.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 12, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5n8mfrs2 from PacerMonitor.com.
BLUSH BRUNCH: Pereida Files Suit Over Alleged Tip Skimming
----------------------------------------------------------
ALEEYA PEREIDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TANYA BENAVIDES; EFREN ANTONIO MORENO II;
and BLUSH BRUNCH LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-01327 (W.D.
Tex., Oct. 19, 2023) seek to recover all tips kept by the
Defendants, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs.
Plaintiff Pereida was employed by the Defendants as a server.
BLUSH BRUNCH LLC operates as a restaurant, providing homemade
dinner recipes, delicious craft cocktails, and artisan baked goods
in the South Town Area in Downtown San Antonio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 10099
Houston, Texas 77206
Telephone: (713) 868-3388
Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
BOARD OF ELECTIONS: Sherr Seeks Conditional Status of Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON D. SHERR,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BOARD OF ELECTIONS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No.
1:23-cv-08693-JLR (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order conditionally certifying a collective action and approving
and authorizing distribution of a notice of collective action
lawsuit to putative party plaintiffs and related relief.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 23, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rXrIVn at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
277 Broadway, Suite 408
New York, NY 10007-2036
Telephone: (212) 229-2249
Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
E-mail: jazeller@zellerlegal.com
BOJANGLES RESTAURANTS: Class Cert Bid Partly Granted in Stafford
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT E. STAFFORD, JR.,
MELISSA BONETTI, HERBERT MALLET, JACQUELINE JOHNSON, CATHRINE
ALLEN, DEVRON JONES, LAURA SHOPE, TABITHA DANIEL, DAMIAN PRENTICE,
LAQUASHA OSAGHEE, And RONDA COLE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. BOJANGLES RESTAURANTS, INC., Case No.
3:20-cv-00266-MOC-SCR (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Max O. Cogburn Jr.
entered an order that:
(1) The Plaintiffs' motion is denied with respect to the
Alabama,
Virginia, Georgia, Tennessee, and Kentucky classes. This
denial
is without prejudice.
(2) The Plaintiffs' motion is granted with respect to the North
and South Carolina classes.
(3) In certifying a class, this Court is required to "define the
class and the class claims, issues, or defenses." FED. R.
CIV.
P. 23(c)(1)(B). The members of the North and South Carolina
classes are "readily identifiable" EQT Prod. Co. v. Adair,
764
F.3d 347, 358 (4th Cir. 2014) and denied as follows:
-- The North Carolina Class:
"All persons who worked as a shift manager at Bojangles
in
the state of North Carolina at any time from three years
prior to the filing of this Complaint to the entry of
judgment in the case."
-- The South Carolina Class
"All persons who worked as a shift manager at Bojangles
in
the state of South Carolina at any time from three years
prior to the filing of this Complaint to the entry of
judgment in the case."
(4) The Plaintiffs Robert E. Stafford, Jr., and Melissa Bonetti
are
designed class representatives for the North Carolina class.
Plaintiffs Herbert Mallet and Jacqueline Johnson are
designated
class representatives for the South Carolina class.
(5) L. Michelle Gessner, the attorney of record of the appointed
class representatives, is authorized to serve as class
counsel
to represent the class.
(6) The parties are directed to confer and jointly submit,
within
30 days of the date of this Order, proposed class notice
documents in conformance with Rule 23(c)(2), which the Court
will consider before issuing notice to the class.
The case is a collective action concerning wage and hour claims
raised by current and former Bojangles shift managers. Plaintiffs
allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state
laws.
Bojangles opposes certification of these classes and has also moved
for decertification of Plaintiffs' FLSA class.
Bojangles is an American regional chain of fast-food restaurants
that specializes in Cajun-seasoned fried chicken and buttermilk
biscuits.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Q8RwWn at no extra charge.[CC]
BRILLIANT JEWELERS: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brilliant
Jewelers/MJJ, Inc. The case is styled as Colette Stroude, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Brilliant
Jewelers/MJJ, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07850 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 20,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
MJJ Brilliant -- https://mjjbrilliant.com/ -- is a jewelry
manufacturer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Stiner Suit Seeks Certification of Subclasses
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STACIA STINER; RALPH
CARLSON, in his capacity as Trustee of the Beverly E. Carlson and
Helen V. Carlson Joint Trust; LORESIA VALLETTE, in her capacity as
representative of the Lawrence Quinlan Trust; MICHELE LYTLE, in her
capacity as Trustee of the Boris Family Revocable Trust; RALPH
SCHMIDT, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, HEATHER FISHER;
PATRICIA LINDSTROM, as successorin-interest to the Estate of ARTHUR
LINDSTROM; BERNIE JESTRABEK-HART; and JEANETTE ALGARME; on their
own behalves and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING, INC.; BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITIES,
INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 4:17-cv-03962-HSG (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
leave to file their motion for certification of subclasses and
granting the motion for certification of subclasses.
Brookdale offers a wide range of excellent senior living and
retirement communities and senior care options.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 20, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Q7vBiu at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Guy B. Wallace, Esq.
Mark T. Johnson, Esq.
Jennifer U. Bybee, Esq.
Travis C. Close, Esq.
Rachel L. Steyer, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE,
COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608-1863
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: gwallace@schneiderwallace.com
mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com
juhrowczik@schneiderwallace.com
- and -
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, Esq.
Jenny S. Yelin, Esq.
Benjamin Bien-Kahn, Esq.
Amy Xu, Esq.
ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-1738
Telephone: (415) 433-6830
Facsimile: (415) 433-7104
E-mail: ggrunfeld@rbgg.com
jyelin@rbgg.com
bbien-kahn@rbgg.com
axu@rbgg.com
- and -
Kathryn A. Stebner, Esq.
Brian S. Umpierre, Esq.
STEBNER GERTLER
GUADAGNI & KAWAMOTO
A Professional Law Corporation
870 Market Street, Suite 1285
San Francisco, CA 94102-2918
Telephone: (415) 362-9800
Facsimile: (415) 362-9801
E-mail: kathryn@sggklaw.com
brian@sggklaw.com
- and -
David T. Marks, Esq.
Jacques Balette, Esq.
MARKS, BALETTE, GIESSEL
& YOUNG, P.L.L.C.
7521 Westview Drive
Houston, TX 77055
Telephone: (713) 681-3070
Facsimile: (713) 681-2811
E-mail: davidm@marksfirm.com
jacquesb@marksfirm.com
BROTHER'S BOND: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brother's Bond
Distilling Company, LLC. The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Brother's
Bond Distilling Company, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-09273 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Brother's Bond Distilling Company, LLC --
https://brothersbondbourbon.com/ -- offers Brother's Bond Bourbon
which is distilled & crafted in the tradition of all great
bourbon.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
BROWN & BROWN: Meseck Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Mercedes Meseck, an individual, on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and the general public v. BROWN &
BROWN, INC., a Florida corporation, THE HAYS GROUP, INC., a
Minnesota corporation, HAYS COMPANIES, INC., a Florida corporation
and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
30-2023-01345267-CU-WT-CJC was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Orange, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 20,
2023, and assigned Case No. 8:23-cv-01980.
The Complaint purportedly asserts the following causes of action
against Defendants: discrimination on the basis of gender in
violation of California's Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"),
discrimination on the basis of age in violation of FEHA,
discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, and/or color
in violation of FEHA, retaliation in violation of FEHA; retaliation
in violation of California Labor Code; and wrongful termination of
employment in violation of FEHA.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Ryan L. Eddings, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
5200 North Palm Avenue, Suite 302
Fresno, CA 93704.2225
Phone: (559) 244-7500
Fax: (559) 244-7525
BY THE YARD INC: Jones Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against By The Yard, Inc. The
case is styled as Damon Jones, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. By The Yard, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-09236-MKV
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
By the Yard -- https://bytheyard.net/ -- designs and delivers
maintenance-free luxury outdoor furniture built to last.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
CAPITAL ONE: Court Tosses Davis Bid to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLARENCE DAVIS, v. CAPITAL
ONE, N.A., Case No. 1:22-cv-00903-AJT-IDD (E.D. Va.), the Hon.
Judge Anthony Trenga entered an order:
-- Granting the Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony;
-- Granting the Motion to Strike the Supplemental Declaration;
-- Denying the Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Clarence Davis;
-- Denying the Motion to Certify the Class.
Without resolving whether Capital One is correct about the
limitation of TCPA liability to those who have actually listened to
the voice message, the Court finds that Capital One's contention is
undercut by substantial evidence from which a reasonable juror
could infer that Davis did, in fact, receive and listen to a
pre-recorded voice message from Capital One.
Given this other evidence, Capital One has only demonstrated
minimal, if any, prejudice from the deletion of the pre-recorded
messages. The minimal showing of prejudice here is not sufficient
to warrant the severe sanction of prohibiting the Plaintiff from
testifying at trial.
As part of its customer agreements, Capital One obtains consent
from its customers to call them on an identified number.
In May of 2022, Capital One placed a call to a cellular phone
number listed in its records as belonging to a Capital One customer
who had given consent for such a call and who was delinquent on his
Capital One account.
Davis, on behalf of the putative class, alleges that such phone
calls violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
The Plaintiff has moved to certify a class of all persons or
entities throughout the United States (1) to whom Capital One
initiated a call (2) directed to a number assigned to a cellular
telephone service, but not assigned to a current account holder of
Capital One (3) in connection with which Capital One used an
artificial or prerecorded voice (4) from four years before the
filing of certification.
Capital One offers financial products and services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QqRudM at no extra charge.[CC]
CARLISLE ETCETERA: Tarr Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carlisle Etcetera,
LLC. The case is styled as Ellen Elizabeth Tarr, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Carlisle Etcetera,
LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-09256 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Carlisle Collection -- http://www.carlislecollection.com/-- is
a U.S. fashion design company founded in 1981 by William Rondina,
to offer elegant classic clothing and accessories for women by
private appointment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
CAROLINE CONSTAS: Tarr Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Caroline Constas,
LLC. The case is styled as Ellen Elizabeth Tarr, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Caroline Constas, LLC,
Case No. 1:23-cv-09259 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Caroline Constas -- https://carolineconstas.com/ -- is a luxury
lifestyle brand for the modern day globetrotter.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
CHAMBERLAIN COFFEE: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chamberlain Coffee,
Inc. The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Chamberlain Coffee, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-09288 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Chamberlain Coffee -- https://chamberlaincoffee.eu/ -- is a
manufacturer and retailer of coffee and related products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
CHECKERS DRIVE-IN: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Checkers Drive-In
Restaurants, Inc. The case is styled as Silvia Martinez, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Checkers Drive-In
Restaurants, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07859 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 20,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. -- https://www.checkers.com/ --
is a chain of double drive-thru restaurants in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
CHRISTIANBOOK LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Dec. 6
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY BOZUNG,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CHRISTIANBOOK, LLC f/k/a CHRISTIAN BOOK DISTRIBUTORS CATALOG, LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00304-HYJ-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Hala Y.
Jarbou entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
parties' joint stipulation to modify limited interim deadlines of
the Case Schedule:
1. All current deadlines with respect to Plaintiff's motion to
compel, expert disclosures and corresponding submission of
expert reports from both Parties, and Plaintiff's motion for
class certification shall be vacated;
2. The Plaintiff will file his motion for class certification by
Dec. 6, 2023;
3. The Plaintiff will serve his expert reports by December 6,
2023;
4. The Defendant will serve its expert reports by February 5,
2024;
5. The Parties will work cooperatively to attempt to resolve the
disputes raised in Plaintiff's motion to compel, and, if any
disputes remain, Defendant will file a response to
Plaintiff’s
motion to compel by November 15, 2023; and
6. The Parties will work cooperatively to schedule depositions
and
address other fact discovery issues in a manner that
preserves
February 5, 2024, as the deadline for close of discovery.
Christianbook is a Christian catalog and internet retailer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Fsi9kj at no extra charge.[CC]
CITY OF SAINTS COFFEE: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Saints Coffee
Roasters, LLC. The case is styled as Luis Mercedes, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. City of Saints Coffee
Roasters, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-09250 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
City of Saints Coffee Roasters, LLC --
https://www.cityofsaintscoffee.com/ -- offers freshly roasted
coffee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
CJ LOGISTICS: Wells Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Mike Wells, individually and on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated v. CJ LOGISTICS AMERICA,
LLC, Case No. 2023CH07792 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 Oct. 20, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-15191.
The Complaint asserts one cause of action under the Illinois
Genetic Information Privacy Act ("GIPA"), and alleges CJ Logistics
unlawfully obtained genetic information, including family medical
history, of Plaintiff and a putative class of similarly situated
job applicants who applied for employment with Defendant.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
James P. Fieweger, Esq.
Michael K. Chropowicz, Esq.
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP
444 West Lake Street, Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60606
Email: jpfieweger@michaelbest.com
Michael.sokolowski@michaelbest.com
CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Gelt Loses Bid to Extend Discovery Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Utah, Central Division, issued a Memorandum
Decision and Order denying the Plaintiff's motion to extend fact
discovery deadline in the lawsuit styled GELT TRADING, LTD., a
Cayman Islands limited company, Plaintiff v. CO-DIAGNOSTICS, INC.,
a Utah Corporation, DWIGHT EGAN, JAMES NELSON, EUGENE DURENARD,
EDWARD MURPHY, RICHARD SERBIN, REED BENSON, BRENT SATTERFIELD,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00368-JNP-DBP (D. Utah).
Plaintiff Gelt Trading Ltd., moves the Court to extend the fact
discovery deadline by forty-five days so it can take a 30(b)(6)
deposition of Defendant Co-Diagnostics. Under the Local Rules, the
Court concludes that oral argument is not necessary and, therefore,
decides the Motion on the written memoranda.
The matter is a securities fraud class action against the
Defendants arising from alleged misrepresentations about a Covid-19
test and its accuracy. In February 2023 and June 2023, the Court
granted the parties' stipulated motions to amend the fact discovery
and deposition deadlines. Under the operative scheduling order,
Aug. 18, 2023, is the fact discovery and deposition deadline.
Subsequently, an additional extension was entered that modified
expert reports and motions for summary judgment. A trial date is
not yet scheduled, and class certification was recently decided on
Aug. 18, 2023.
On Aug. 28, 2023, after the fact discovery and deposition deadline
passed, Gelt moved the Court to move the fact discovery deadline by
forty-five days so it could take a 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant
Co-Diagnostics.
Because the relevant discovery deadline has passed, Judge Pead says
the Plaintiff must show both good cause and excusable neglect.
Since good cause requires a greater showing than excusable neglect,
the Court first considers whether the Plaintiff establishes
excusable neglect.
To determine whether excusable neglect is shown, courts consider
four factors. As set forth by the Court previously in another
decision, a court must take into account "all relevant
circumstances surrounding the party's omission." These include four
relevant factors: (1) "the danger of prejudice" to the nonmoving
party; (2) "the length of the delay and its potential impact on
judicial proceedings"; (3) "the reason for the delay, including
whether it was within reasonable control of the movant"; and (4)
"whether the movant acted in good faith."
Admittedly, Judge Pead notes, many of the factors weigh in favor of
finding excusable neglect. The Court finds that the prejudice
imposed upon the Defendant is minimal as it is one deposition.
Granted there would be costs associated with that deposition, but
given the fact that trial is not yet scheduled, it is a
comparatively minimal burden. The length of the delay is also
minimal as Gelt seeks only enough time to conduct the 30(b)(6)
deposition.
And, as to the fourth factor, there is no evidence that the
Plaintiff here has acted in bad faith, Judge Pead holds. Yet,
consideration of the third factor by itself, undermines the
establishment of excusable neglect. As noted, the third factor is
the most important factor in determining whether a movant has shown
excusable neglect. Even an inadequate explanation, may, by itself,
warrant rejecting a finding of excusable neglect.
The Plaintiff's explanation for the delay centers on the decision
to avoid a "costly 30(b)(6) deposition" because Gelt "did not want
the company to waste thousands of dollars in fees and costs when
those funds could be used to settle the matter." In essence, Gelt
waited to take Co-Diagnostics' 30(b)(6) deposition to minimize
discovery costs while the parties actively pursued mediation though
mediation was unsuccessful. Gelt offers no explanation regarding
why it did not, at a minimum, notice a 30(b)(6) deposition prior to
the discovery deadline.
Gelt learned of the potentially spoliated evidence on June 28,
2023, before the discovery deadline. Gelt could have noticed a
30(b)(6) deposition at this time and postponed it with the
Defendant if need be to save costs until completing the mediation.
Noticing a deposition by itself is not costly. Gelt's practical
reasons for avoiding potentially unnecessary discovery does not
excuse its decision to ignore the fact discovery deadline.
Rather, the Plaintiff made a strategic decision to rely on success
in mediation without seeking to preserve its ability to conduct
further discovery if the mediation was unsuccessful. In a similar
matter, the Court noted that the "hope of mediation is insufficient
to establish excusable neglect." Judge Pead points out that there
is no reason to diverge from that principle here.
Judge Pead finds that Gelt fails to establish excusable neglect,
which justifies denying its motion. Although Gelt fails to provide
an adequate explanation for its delay, the Court turns to consider
the higher standard found in good cause as that provides an
additional basis to deny the request.
To demonstrate good cause, Judge Pead notes that Gelt must show the
deadline could not be met despite its diligent efforts. The focus
on a good cause inquiry is on the diligence of the party seeking
leave to modify the schedule.
Gelt learned of the potentially spoliated evidence, which is
asserts justifies the extension, before the deadline. Rather than
acting, Judge Pead notes that Gelt chose to disregard the fact
discovery deadline in the hopes that mediation would be successful
and that it would not have to conduct any further fact discovery.
Judge Pead opines that that does not comport with a finding of
diligence. Further, the fact that the Defendant agreed to move some
deadlines to accommodate certain depositions while not agreeing to
the 30(b)(6) deposition, does not excuse Gelt's lack of diligence.
Therefore, the Plaintiff fails to establish good cause, which
further requires the denial of its motion.
Based upon the foregoing, Judge Pead holds that Gelt fails to
establish excusable neglect and good cause in support of its motion
to extend fact discovery. The Court, therefore, denies the motion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order dated
Oct. 12, 2023, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yvwhetup from
PacerMonitor.com.
CONNECTICUT: Vega "Radon Exposure" Suit Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HARRY VEGA; MICHAEL CRUZ;
KENYA BROWN; JEFFREY PERRY; LEE GRENIER; TAVORUS FLUKER; ANTHONY
ROGERS; THOMAS MARRA; LAWRENCE TOWNSEND; TERRENCE EASTON; LAMONT
SAMUEL; IAN COOKE; JOHN BOSSE; and J. MICHAEL FARREN; BRETT
FENNESSY; EMISAEL TIRADO on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. ANGEL QUIROS, Commissioner of Correction, et
al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00107-MEG (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs seek
certification of two damages classes a Current Inmate Damages Class
and a Former Inmate Damages Class:
"that will include inmates who, either as postconviction
prisoners
or pre-trial detainees, have been exposed, or are continuing to
be
exposed, to dangerous levels of radon in excess of acceptable
standards while housed at Garner Correctional Institution."
The Current Inmate Damages Class and Former Inmate Damages Class
will seek to compensate those who, as a result of radon exposure at
Garner, have developed, or may in the future develop, medical
conditions linked to high radon exposure.
The Plaintiffs also seek certification of an Inmate Injunctive
Relief Class for all persons currently incarcerated at Garner who
are facing ongoing violations of their federal constitutional
rights as a result of Defendants' failure to remediate the
excessive radon levels at Garner and provide the inmates with
proper medical screening and management.
With approximately 40,000 potential class members identified to
date, and 500 already pursuing claims arising from the Defendants'
deliberate indifference to the harmful effects of exposure to
radon, Plaintiffs satisfy the requirements for class certification
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b), and class certification best
serves to fairly and efficiently adjudicate the controversy.
The Defendants include ROLLIN COOK, former Commissioner of
Correction; SCOTT SEMPLE, former Commissioner of Correction; JAMES
DZURENDA, former Commissioner of Corrections; LEO ARNONE, former
Commissioner of Correction; THERESA LANTZ, former Commissioner of
Correction; JAMES ARMSTRONG, former Commissioner of Correction;
LAWRENCE MEACHUM, former Commissioner of Correction; HENRY FALCONE,
Former Warden, Garner Correctional Institution; DENISE DILWORTH,
former Warden, Garner Correctional Institution; ANTHONY CORCELLA,
former Warden, Garner Correctional Institution; AMONDA HANNAH,
Former Warden, Garner Correctional Institution; CRAIG WASHINGTON,
Warden, Garner Correctional Institution; STEVEN LINK, Director,
Department of Correction Engineering and Facilities Management; and
DAVID BATTEN, former Director, Department of Correction Engineering
and Facilities Management; RICHARD PEASE, Environmental Engineering
Services of the Department of Correction, all in their individual
and official capacities.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 20, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46EXZ2r at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Martin J. Minnella, Esq.
MINNELLA, TRAMUTA, & EDWARDS, LLC
40 Middlebury Road
Middlebury, CT 06762
Telephone: (203) 573-1411
Facsimile: (203) 757-9313
E-mail: pcrean@mtelawfirm.com
- and -
David X. Sullivan, Esq.
Thomas J. Finn, Esq.
Paula Cruz Cedillo, Esq.
Justyn P. Stokely, Esq.
McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
CityPlace I, 36th Floor, 185 Asylum Street
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 275-6700
Facsimile: (860) 724-3397
E-mail: dsullivan@mccarter.com
tfinn@mccarter.com
pcedillo@mccarter.com
jstokely@mccarter.com
COOPERSTOWN BAT COMPANY: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cooperstown Bat
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Lynn Zelvin, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Cooperstown Bat
Company, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-09252 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Cooperstown Bat Company -- https://www.cooperstownbat.com/ -- is a
manufacturer of baseball bat.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Flores Sues Over False and Misleading Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eduardo Flores, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Case No. 5:23-cv-05367
(M.D. Cal., Oct. 19, 2023), is brought asserting claims for
violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"),
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), False Advertising Law ("FAL"),
breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and unjust
enrichment as a result of the Defendant's false and misleading
marketing and advertising.
Nasal decongestants are over-the-counter medications that are
marketed to alleviate sinus pressure and sinus congestion. The
Defendant has made millions of dollars selling its nasal
decongestant product: Kirkland Multi-Symptom Cold & Flu Severe (the
"Product"). The Defendant markets the Product as having the ability
to provide relief to nasal congestion. The Defendant attributes the
Product's ability to provide nasal decongestion relief to the
inclusion of one active ingredient: 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 ("FDA") unanimously
agreed (16-0) that oral PE is not effective at relieving nasal
congestion, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the Kirkland Multi-Symptom Cold & Flu
Severe product multiple times.
The Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells the Product
throughout the state of California and the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Ave., Suite 1420
Miami, FL 33131-2800
Phone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
Email: swestcot@bursor.com
- and -
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
CREDIT SUISSE: Class Settlement in FLHL Suit Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FUND LIQUIDATION HOLDINGS
LLC, as assignee and successor-in-interest to SONTERRA CAPITAL
MASTER FUND LTD., et al., v. CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE
AG, JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., NATWEST MARKETS PLC, UBS AG, DEUTSCHE
BANK AG, DB GROUP SERVICES UK LIMITED, TP ICAP PLC, TULLETT PREBON
AMERICAS CORP., TULLETT PREBON (USA) INC., TULLETT PREBON FINANCIAL
SERVICES LLC, TULLETT PREBON (EUROPE) LIMITED, COSMOREX AG, ICAP
EUROPE LIMITED, ICAP SECURITIES USA LLC, NEX GROUP LIMITED,
INTERCAPITAL CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, GOTTEX BROKERS SA, VELCOR SA AND
JOHN DOE NOS. 1-50, Case No. 1:15-cv-00871-SHS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Sidney H. Stein entered a final approval order of class
action settlement.
-- The Court finally certifies the Settlement Class:
"All Persons (including both natural persons and entities) who
purchased, sold, held, traded, or otherwise had any interest in
Swiss Franc LIBOR-Based Derivatives3 during the Class Period,
provided that, if Representative Plaintiffs expand the Class in
any subsequent amended complaint, class motion, or settlement,
the
defined Class in this Agreement shall be expanded so as to be
coterminous with such expansion."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are the Defendants and any
parent, subsidiary, affiliate or agent of any Defendant or any
co-
conspirator whether or not named as a Defendant, and the United
States Government."
-- Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. is appointed Class Counsel to the
Settlement Class for the purposes of the Settlement
The Plaintiffs include FRONTPOINT EUROPEAN FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT
FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT HEALTHCARE FLAGSHIP
ENHANCED FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT HEALTHCARE FLAGSHIP FUND, L.P.,
FRONTPOINT HEALTHCARE HORIZONS FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL
HORIZONS FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT UTILITY AND ENERGY FUND L.P.,
HUNTER GLOBAL INVESTORS FUND I, L.P., HUNTER GLOBAL INVESTORS
OFFSHORE FUND LTD., HUNTER GLOBAL INVESTORS SRI FUND LTD., HG
HOLDINGS LTD., HG HOLDINGS II LTD., RICHARD DENNIS, and the
CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated.
Credit Suisse is a global investment bank and financial services
firm founded and based in Switzerland.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FwrMya at no extra charge.[CC]
DAVID L RAMSEY: Loses Bid to Strike Patrick's Class Allegations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James L. Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, denies the Lampo Defendants'
motion to strike the Plaintiffs' class allegations in the lawsuit
titled ANNA PATRICK, et al., Plaintiffs v. DAVID L. RAMSEY, III, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00630-JLR (W.D. Wash.).
Before the Court is Defendants David L. Ramsey, III, and The Lampo
Group's (together, the "Lampo Defendants") motion to dismiss and/or
strike the Plaintiffs' complaint. The 17 named Plaintiffs, who
bring this action on behalf of themselves and a proposed class,
oppose the Lampo Defendants' motion.
The Plaintiffs are individuals, who signed contracts with and paid
money to non-party Reed Hein & Associates, doing business under the
name "Timeshare Exit Team," for assistance in "exiting" their
obligations with respect to timeshares they owned at various resort
properties. They allege that Reed Hein charged them money up front
for its services and promised a "100% money-back refund if they
were not relieved of their timeshare obligations."
Nevertheless, Reed Hein allegedly failed to terminate the
Plaintiffs' timeshare obligations, made false statements about its
services, and refused to refund their money when the "exits" were
unsuccessful or resulted in the timeshare companies foreclosing on
their timeshares. The Plaintiffs, however, are not suing Reed Hein
in this action—instead, they are suing the parties who promoted
Reed Hein's business.
The Plaintiffs allege that Reed Hein hired Defendant Happy Hour
Media Group, a Kirkland, Washington-based marketing firm that acts
as Reed Hein's "in-house marketing department"; Defendant Dave
Ramsey, a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host who offers
"biblically based" financial advice; and Mr. Ramsey's wholly-owned
company, Defendant The Lampo Group, to promote its timeshare exit
services through Mr. Ramsey's popular radio shows, podcasts,
seminars, websites, "Financial Peace University," and newsletters.
The Plaintiffs further allege that Reed Hein paid Mr. Ramsey and
The Lampo Group over $30 million "to make false claims and instruct
Mr. Ramsey's faithful listeners to hire Reed Hein." According to
the Plaintiffs, Mr. Ramsey "assured his listeners that he had
vetted Reed Hein," "promised them that the company was the only
trustworthy method to get out of their timeshare contracts," and
"made false statements about Reed Hein's knowledge, skill, and
ability to get customers out of timeshare obligations."
The Plaintiffs assert that Mr. Ramsey continued to promote Reed
Hein even after listener complaints, multiple lawsuits, and
arbitrations filed against Reed Hein should have placed him on
notice that Reed Hein was defrauding his followers.
By March 2021, Reed Hein had started to lose money after failing to
serve its customers and it stopped paying Mr. Ramsey to promote its
services. Subsequently, Mr. Ramsey stopped recommending Reed Hein's
services to his followers.
The Plaintiffs filed their proposed class action complaint in the
Court on April 28, 2023. They allege claims against the Lampo
Defendants and Happy Hour Media Group for violations of the
Washington Consumer Protection Act ("WCPA"); negligent
misrepresentation under Washington common law; and conspiracy to
make deceptive and fraudulent statements. They also allege a claim
against only the Lampo Defendants for unjust enrichment under
Washington common law.
The Plaintiffs assert these claims "for the maximum time period
allowable by law" on behalf of themselves and the following
proposed class:
All individuals who, during the applicable statute of
limitations, paid money to Reed Hein and Time Share Exit
Team for the purpose of obtaining an "exit" from their
timeshare obligations after being exposed to, and/or in
reliance on, the statements and other representations made
by Dave Ramsey, and The Lampo Group.
The Lampo Defendants filed this motion to dismiss or to strike the
class allegations on Aug. 10, 2023. The Plaintiffs filed a timely
response in accordance with the parties' agreed briefing schedule,
and the Lampo Defendants filed a timely reply. The Lampo
Defendants' motion is now ripe for decision. The Lampo Defendants
move the Court to (1) dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim for unjust
enrichment; (2) strike certain of the Plaintiffs' class
allegations; and (3) dismiss the claims of certain Plaintiffs as
time-barred.
The Court denies the Lampo Defendants' motion to strike class
allegations as premature. Judge Robart opines that this case is in
its earliest stages: the Lampo Defendants have not filed an answer
and the Court has not yet issued a scheduling order for discovery
or class certification.
Although the Court has doubts as to whether this case may
ultimately be maintained as a class action--particularly with
respect to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)'s predominance
and superiority requirements--it cannot at this time conclude that
the class is uncertifiable as a matter of law. Therefore, the Court
denies the Lampo Defendants' motion to strike the Plaintiffs' class
allegations and denies their motion to dismiss this action for lack
of jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").
The Lampo Defendants urge the Court to (1) dismiss the Plaintiffs'
unjust enrichment claim because the Plaintiffs never directly
conferred any benefit on the Lampo Defendants, and (2) dismiss
certain claims brought by certain Plaintiffs as barred by the
statutes of limitations.
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim
for unjust enrichment. Because the Plaintiffs have not plausibly
alleged the first element of their unjust enrichment claim, the
Court grants the Lampo Defendants' motion to dismiss the claim.
On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a district court should grant leave to
amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it
determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the
allegation of other facts.
The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs can plead no facts
consistent with the allegations in their complaint that would
enable them to cure their unjust enrichment claim. Therefore, the
Court dismisses the unjust enrichment claim with prejudice and
without leave to amend.
Judge Robart notes that the Plaintiffs filed this action on April
28, 2023. Thus, absent an applicable exception, the relevant
statutes of limitations bar negligent misrepresentation and
conspiracy claims that accrued before April 28, 2020, and WCPA
claims that accrued before April 28, 2019.
The Lampo Defendants urge the Court to dismiss (1) all claims
brought by Plaintiffs Robert and Samantha Nixon and Marilyn Dewey,
who signed their contracts with Reed Hein before April 28, 2019;
and (2) negligent misrepresentation and civil conspiracy claims
brought by Plaintiffs Leisa Garrett, David and Rosemarie
Bottonfield, Tasha Ryan, and Peter and Rachael Rollins, who
contracted with Reed Hein after April 28, 2019, but before April
28, 2020.
The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs' first argument that their
claims accrued when it became apparent that Reed Hein had breached
its contracts with them, rather than when they entered into those
contracts.
The Plaintiffs assert that they could not have known that Reed Hein
had defrauded them--and as a result, that the Lampo Defendants had
made false statements about Reed Hein and misrepresented its
services--until after the 18-month or three-year time contractual
time period expired without Reed Hein successfully "exiting" them
from their timeshares or providing the promised refunds.
The Court agrees. Because the contracts provided Reed Hein either
18 months or three years to complete a timeshare exit, the
Plaintiffs could not have known that Reed Hein would not honor its
commitments and that the Lampo Defendants had misrepresented Reed
Hein's services until after that contractual time period expired.
Furthermore, the Plaintiffs did not suffer damage until Reed Hein
breached their contracts by failing to perform its promises.
As a result, the Plaintiffs could not establish each element of
their claims, and thus their claims did not accrue, until Reed Hein
breached their contracts. Adding either three years or 18 months to
the dates the Plaintiffs entered into their contracts with Reed
Hein results in accrual dates for the Plaintiffs' claims after
April 28, 2019 (in the case of the WCPA claim) or April 28, 2020
(in the case of the remaining claims).
The Lampo Defendants' argument that the Plaintiffs either knew or
should have known about Reed Hein's problems before April 28, 2019,
or April 28, 2020, is not persuasive because whether they knew or
should have known about complaints or litigation in 2017, 2018, or
2019 is not apparent on the face of the complaint, Judge Robart
opines. Accordingly, the Court denies the Lampo Defendants' motion
to dismiss certain Plaintiffs' claims as barred by the statute of
limitations.
For these reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part the
Lampo Defendants' motion to dismiss and/or strike the Plaintiffs'
complaint. Specifically, the Court (1) denies the Lampo Defendants'
motion to strike the Plaintiffs' class allegations; (2) grants the
Lampo Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' unjust
enrichment claim; (3) dismisses the unjust enrichment claim with
prejudice and without leave to amend; and (4) denies the Lampo
Defendants' motion to dismiss in all other respects.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 12, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yzvcp7cs from PacerMonitor.com.
DC PORTFOLIO: Burrows Seeks to Send Notice to Settlement Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as William Burrows, Jr., on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. DC
Portfolio Services, LLC, Abrahamsen Ginden, LLC, and Joshua Gindin
Case No. 2:22-cv-00260-ESK (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order granting his motion to make a front end
determination that it is appropriate to send Notice to the proposed
Settlement Class under Rule 23(c)((2)(B).
The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint his Counsel as Interim
Counsel to represent the proposed Settlement Class pursuant to
Rule 23(g)(3); and to schedule a hearing to determine if the
proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate pursuant to
Rule 23(e)(2).
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 23, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tOgK57 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David C. Ricci, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID C. RICCI, LLC
51 JFK Parkway, First Floor West
Short Hills, NJ 07078
Telephone: (973) 218-2627
Facsimile: (973) 206-6955
E-mail: dricci@NJConsumerLawyer.com
DELAWARE NORTH: Judge Recommends Class Cert Denial in Vega
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA SOCORRO VEGA, v.
DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES, INC., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00484-ADA-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley A. Boone
entered an order finding that the Plaintiff has not established
commonality, typicality, nor that class issues predominate over
individual issues, and the Court finds Plaintiff's motion for class
certification should be denied.
The Plaintiff Maria Socorro Vega, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, maintains this putative class action
alleging wage and hour violations.
The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class which is defined as:
"All non-exempt employees of DNC Parks during the period of
February 28, 2015, through the date of the order granting class
certification."
In addition, the Plaintiff seeks to certify the following
sub-classes:
-- Meal Period Subclass
"All non-exempt employees of Tenaya who worked one or more
shifts over five hours during the Class Period."
-- Second Meal Period Subclass:
"All non-exempt employees of Tenaya who worked one or more
shifts over ten hours during the Class Period."
-- Rest Break Subclass
"All non-exempt employees of Tenaya who worked one or more
shifts of 3.5 hours or more during the Class Period."
The Plaintiff seeks certification of the above-defined class and
sub-classes for the claims alleged in the SAC for
(1) failure to provide require meal periods,
(2) failure to provide required rest breaks, and
(3) violation of the UCL.
The Plaintiff seeks to appoint herself, Maria Socorro Vega, as a
representative for the proposed classes, and counsel Matern Law
Group, PC, Matthew J. Matern, Mikael H. Stahle, and Irina A.
Kirnosova as class counsel for the proposed classes.
Delaware North is a global food service and hospitality company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 20, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46NKNbK at no extra
charge.[CC]
DIGITAL DOLPHIN: Scofield Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Digital Dolphin
Products, LLC. The case is styled as Michael Joseph Scofield,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Digital Dolphin Products, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-14324-AMC (S.D.
Fla., Oct. 22, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Constitutional - State Statute.
Digital Dolphin Supplies, LLC -- https://ddp.us/ -- distributes
office supplies. The Company specializes in ink, toner, wide
format, binders, carbon paper, stamps, batteries, chargers,
monitors, and other office equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
31 Samana Drive
Miami, FL 33133
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
- and -
Stefan Louis Coleman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
201 S Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor
Miami, Fl 33131
Phone: (877) 333-9427
Fax: (888) 498-8946
Email: law@stefancoleman.com
DJ FINANCIAL: Filing of Closing Docs Due Nov. 2 in Huynh
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Huynh v. DJ Financial
Services Inc., Case No. 9:23-cv-80909 (S.D. Fla., Filed June 13,
2023), the Hon. Judge entered an order setting deadline to file
closing documents.
-- Appropriate closing documents shall be filed within 10 days, or
no
later than November 2, 2023.
The nature of suit states Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
DJ Financial provides annuities, retirement planning, medicare,
life, health, dental, and long-term care insurance services.[CC]
DUNE SUNCARE: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dune Suncare, Inc.
The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Dune Suncare, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-09286-AT (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Dune Suncare, Inc. -- https://dunesuncare.com/ -- offers
revolutionary invisible gel suncare packed with skincare
benefits.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
EARTHLINK HOLDINGS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT MURRAY, on Behalf
of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. EARTHLINK HOLDINGS
CORP., SUSAN D. BOWICK, JOSEPH F. EAZOR, KATHY S. LANE, GARRY K.
MCGUIRE, R. GERARD SALEMME, JULIE A. SHIMER, MARC F. STOLL, WALTER
L. TUREK, WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS, INC., CAROL B. ARMITAGE, SAMUEL E.
BEALL III, JEANNIE H. DIEFENDERFER, ROBERT E. GUNDERMAN, JEFFREY T.
HINSON, WILLIAM G. LAPERCH, LARRY LAQUE, KRISTI MOODY, MICHAEL G.
STOLTZ, TONY THOMAS AND ALAN L. WELLS, Case No. 4:18-cv-00202-JM
(E.D. Ark.), the Defendants submit to the Court a Motion for
Extension of Time to file their Opposition to Lead Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification.
On October 12, 2023, Lead Plaintiff filed its Motion for Class
Certification. Under Local Rule 7.2, the Defendants' Opposition is
currently due on October 26, 2023.
The Defendants respectfully request that the Court extend their
deadline to file their Opposition to Lead Plaintiff’s Motion for
Class Certification to November 16, 2023.
EarthLink provides technology, network, and communication services
to individual and business consumers.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 19, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FrhWOj at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Noelle M. Reed, Esq.
Wallis M. Hampton, Esq.
Virginia Milstead, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 6800
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 655-5122
Facsimile: (713) 483-9122
E-mail: noelle.reed@skadden.com
virginia.milstead@skadden.com
- and -
Gary D. Marts, Jr., Esq.
WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP
200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 371-0808
Facsimile: (501) 376-9442
E-mail: gmarts@wlj.com
- and -
Richard S. Krumholz, Esq.
Peter A. Stokes, Esq.
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600
Dallas, TX 75201-7932
Telephone: (214) 855-8000
E-mail: richard.krumholz@nortonrosefulbright.com
peter.stokes@nortonrosefulbright.com
EIGER BIOPHARMACEUTICAL: Shareholder Suit over COVID Drug Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eiger BioPharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended August 14, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2023, that on April 10, 2023,
the lead plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without
prejudice with regards to a putative securities class action
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on November 8, 2022 alleging that
the company and two former executives violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5.
The complaint alleged generally that between March 2021 and October
2022, material misstatements and omissions were made to
shareholders regarding the study of peginterferon lambda for the
treatment of COVID-19 as well as the likelihood of FDA approval of
an Emergency Use Authorization for peginterferon lambda. The court
appointed a lead plaintiff on March 2, 2023.
Eiger BioPharmaceuticals, Inc. is a commercial-stage
biopharmaceutical company focused on the development of innovative
therapies for rare metabolic diseases.
ELDER STATESMAN: Tarr Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Elder Statesman,
LLC. The case is styled as Ellen Elizabeth Tarr, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. The Elder Statesman,
LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-09272-GHW (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Elder Statesman -- https://elder-statesman.com/ -- is an LA
based luxury lifestyle brand founded in 2007 by Greg Chait.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
EPIC AIRCRAFT: Hanney Reply to Class Cert Bid Due Nov. 17
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hanney, et al., v. Epic
Aircraft, LLC, Case No. 6:21-cv-01199 (D. Or., Filed Aug. 13,
2021), the Hon. Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai entered an order granting
the parties' e-mail correspondence regarding an error in the
Defendant's Motion for Stay Epic's Motion to Deny Class
Certification Pending the Outcome of Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify
Class and to Modify the Briefing Schedule for Plaintiffs' Motion to
Certify.
-- The Plaintiffs' reply to their Motion to Certify the Class is
due
by Nov. 17, 2023.
The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract.
Epic Aircraft is a general aviation aircraft manufacturer
headquartered in Bend, Oregon. The company produces the Epic E1000
GX single engine turboprop design. Founded in 2004, the company
initially manufactured and sold kits for the Epic LT.[CC]
EQUIFAX FAIR: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Jan. 15, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Equifax Fair Credit
Reporting Act Litigation, Case No. 1:22-cv-03072-LMM (N.D. Ga.),
the Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May entered a scheduling order as
follows:
-- Close of fact discovery: July 15, 2024
-- Plaintiffs' expert report(s) due: Aug. 16, 2024
-- Defendants' expert report(s) due: Sept. 30, 2024
-- Plaintiffs' rebuttal expert Nov. 14, 2024
report(s) due:
-- Close of expert discovery: Dec. 20, 2024
-- Plaintiffs' motion for class Jan. 15, 2025
certification due:
-- Defendants' opposition to Feb. 21, 2025
motion for class certification
due:
-- Plaintiffs' class certification March 28, 2025
reply due:
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tRoVO4 at no extra charge.[CC]
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 18, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON ROTHMAN,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
EQUINOX HOLDINGS, INC. and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
2:20-cv-09760-CAS-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Christina A.
Snyder entered an order extending deadline for class certification
and briefing schedule:
1. The Plaintiff shall file a Motion for Jan. 18,
2024
Class Certification on or before:
2. The Defendant shall file its Opposition April 30,
2024
to the Motion for Class Certification
on or before:
3. The Plaintiff shall file any Reply in June 14,
2024
support of Motion for Class
Certification on or before:
Equinox is an American luxury fitness company which operates
several lifestyle brands.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tOIUwD at no extra charge.[CC]
FASTAFF LLC: Parties Seek Conditional Collective Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THERESA EGAN, BRIAN
BARKER, and SABRINA BUDDEN-WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. FASTAFF, LLC and U.S. NURSING
CORPORATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-03364-MEH (D. Colo.), the Parties
ask the Court to enter an order granting the Joint Stipulation and
Motion and conditionally certifying the collective and denying as
moot the earlier Motion for Conditional Certification of Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) Collective Action.
Fastaff offers staffing services.
A copy of Parties' motion dated Oct. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FqQnVc at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
George A. Hanson, Esq.
Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
Crystal Cook Leftridge, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
moore@stuevesiegel.com
ricke@stuevesiegel.com
cook@stuevesiegel.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Bronwyn H. Pepple, Esq.
Mairead Dolan, Esq.
WILLIAMS WEESE PEPPLE & FERGUSON PC
1801 California Street, Suite 3400
Denver, CO 80202
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (303) 861-2828
E-mail: bpepple@williamsweese.com
mdolan@williamsweese.com
FRESH VINE WINE: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fresh Vine Wine, Inc.
The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Fresh Vine Wine, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-09276 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Fresh Vine Wine -- https://freshvinewine.com/ -- is an exclusive
collection of premium low-carb, low-calorie, gluten-free, wines
available nationwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
FUNNY WATER: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Funny Water, Inc. The
case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Funny Water, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-09284 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Funny Water -- https://www.funnywater.com/ -- is alcohol-infused
water with natural flavors, electrolytes, antioxidants, and no
bubbles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
GARDNER WHITE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bell Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID BELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GARDNER WHITE FURNITURE CO., INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-12648-SJM-EAS (E.D. Mich., Oct. 19,
2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Bell was employed by the Defendant as a staff.
GARDNER WHITE FURNITURE CO., INC. is an American furniture
retailer. Founded in 1912, the company is based in Auburn Hills,
Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
Kalamazoo, MI 49007
Telephone: (269) 250-7500
Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Town Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
- and -
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
Laura Supanich, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C.
1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 824-3828
Email: jm@melmedlaw.com
lms@melmedlaw.com
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: King Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Delilah King, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Genworth Financial Inc., Case No.
3:23-cv-00426 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on Oct. 20, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12448-ADB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Genworth Financial -- https://www.genworth.com/ -- provides life
insurance, long-term care insurance, mortgage insurance, and
annuities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Kirchgessner, Esq.
WOEHRLE DAHLBERG YAO PLLC
2016 Lafayette Blvd., Suite 101
Fredericksburg, VA 22401
Phone: (540) 898-8881
Email: jkirchgessner@lawfirmvirginia.com
- and -
Andrew Tate, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP
235 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 400
Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone: (314) 669-3600
Email: atate@peifferwolf.com
- and -
Brandon Michael Wise, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP
One US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950
St. Louis, MO 63101
Phone: (314) 833-4827
Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Robert Keeling, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP
1501 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 736-8000
Email: rkeeling@sidley.com
GENWORTH LIFE: Behrens Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Peter Behrens, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Genworth Life Insurance Company, Case
No. 3:23-cv-00515 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 20, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12451-ADB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for
Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle.
Genworth Financial -- https://www.genworth.com/ -- provides life
insurance, long-term care insurance, mortgage insurance, and
annuities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lee Adair Floyd, Esq.
Sarah Gallo Sauble, Esq.
BREIT BINIAZAN
2100 East Cary Street, Ste. 310
Richmond, VA 23223
Phone: (703) 517-3514
Email: lee@bbtrial.com
sarah@bbtrial.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
One W. Las Olas Blvd.
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 525-4100
Fax: (954) 525-4300
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
GENWORTH LIFE: Hauser Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Patrice Hauser, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Genworth Life Insurance Company, Case
No. 3:23-cv-00486 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 20, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12449-ADB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for
Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle.
Genworth Financial -- https://www.genworth.com/ -- provides life
insurance, long-term care insurance, mortgage insurance, and
annuities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lee Adair Floyd, Esq.
Sarah Gallo Sauble, Esq.
BREIT BINIAZAN
2100 East Cary Street, Ste. 310
Richmond, VA 23223
Phone: (703) 517-3514
Email: lee@bbtrial.com
sarah@bbtrial.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (847) 208-4585
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Sarah Gallo Sauble, Esq.
BREIT BINIAZAN
2100 East Cary Street, Suite 310
Richmond, VA 23223
Phone: (804) 522-0065
Fax: (757) 670-3939
Email: sarah@bbtrial.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Robert Keeling
SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP
1501 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 736-8000
Email: rkeeling@sidley.com
GENWORTH LIFE: Silverstein Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Genworth Life
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Dr. Martin Silverstein, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Genworth
Life Insurance Company, Case No. 3:23-cv-00684 (E.D. Va., Oct. 20,
2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract.
Genworth Life Insurance Company is a subsidiary of Genworth
Financial -- https://www.genworth.com/ -- provides life insurance,
long-term care insurance, mortgage insurance, and annuities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kathleen Joanna Lynch Holmes, Esq.
HOLMES COSTIN & MARCUS PLLC
908 King Street, Ste. 330
Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: (703) 260-6401
Fax: (703) 439-1873
Email: kholmes@hcmlawva.com
GEORGIA: Johnson Relieved After Transgender Healthcare Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Solen Aref of 13WMAZ reports Benjamin Johnson has been
transitioning for about six years, and he said it hasn't been a
walk in the park.
"It's been hard living in areas where you're not really accepted
and being comfortable, and feeling safe," Johnson said.
That's why he moved to Macon. He said he found it more welcoming
than other cities. In 2020, Johnson started a job in the city
working as a media clerk at McKibben Lane Elementary School.
"I felt very comfortable in Macon because they have such a large
community, LGBTQ community here," Johnson said.
But after he started his job, he realized his community, those
seeking gender-affirming care, weren't covered under the State
Health Benefit Plan.
"I was panicking because I know you know, you can go through the
appeal process with insurance and stuff, and sometimes get that
taken care of. But I just felt like my heart sank," Johnson said.
Last December, Johnson and two state employees filed a class action
lawsuit against the state, citing discrimination.
On October 19, 2023, the case was settled, and the state agreed to
pay for gender-affirming health care for state employees, public
school teachers, and former employees covered by a state health
insurance plan.
As part of the settlement, the state agreed to pay $365,000 to the
plaintiffs and their lawyers.
"Future transgender Georgians can now access the health care that
they need and that's what they've been longing for," Johnson said.
While Johnson is glad the state recognized his right to medical
care, he said it wasn't asking for much in the first place.
"We're all Americans; we're all human beings. We all deserve the
equal access to health care and everything. I mean, I'm no
different from you or anybody else in this town or state," Johnson
said.
The Department of Community Health, which oversees the insurance
plan, is closed on October 21, 2023 so 13 WMAZ could not reach them
for comment. We'll check in with them on October 23, 2023. [GN]
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Seeks Extension of Briefing Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA M. MOORE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS (US) LLC; and PFIZER
INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-09077-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Parties file
joint stipulation to modify Briefing schedule re: Plaintiff's
motion to exclude the Defendants' class certification Expert Steven
Dentali, PhD.
The Parties further stipulate and agree that the dates and
deadlines set forth by the Court regarding the briefing schedule on
Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Dr. Dentali shall be continued as
follows:
-- Defendants' opposition: Nov. 7, 2023
-- Plaintiff's reply: Nov. 1, 2023
-- Hearing: Dec. 1, 2023
O Dec. 16, 2020, the Plaintiff filed her Class Action Complaint in
this action against Defendants, the alleged manufacturers,
marketers, and sellers of certain ChapStick brand lip care
products, which Plaintiff alleges are deceptively labeled and
advertised as "Natural" in violation of California consumer
protection laws and related common law, because the products
allegedly contain ingredients that are either artificial,
synthetic, or overly processed.
On Jan. 26, 2021, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Class Action
Complaint, pursuant to the Parties stipulation, for the limited
purpose of adding a claim for damages under the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, codified at Cal. Civ. Code sections
1750.
On Feb. 26, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the FAC
that Plaintiff opposed on March 12, 2021, to which the Defendants
replied on March 19, 2021, and the Court denied on Aug. 6, 2021.
On August 20, 2021, the Defendants filed their Answer to the
Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint, in which
Defendants deny that the advertising or labeling of ChapStick
products are deceptive in any way, and further deny that the
ChapStick products at issue contain any purportedly "non-natural"
ingredients.
On November 8, 2021, the Court vacated the Initial Case Management
Conference and set dates and deadlines through the class
certification hearing. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 20,
2023 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Q98V1l
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Katherine A. Bruce, Esq.
Kelsey J. Elling, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
kbruce@clarksonlawfirm.com
kelling@clarksonlawfirm.com
- and -
Christopher D. Moon, Esq.
Kevin O. Moon, Esq.
MOON LAW APC
228 Hamilton Ave., 3rd Fl
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (619) 915-9432
Facsimile: (650) 618-0478
E-mail: chris@moonlawapc.com
kevin@moonlawapc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Matthew F. Williams, Esq.
Christina G. Sarchio, Esq.
Jacqueline Harrington, Esq.
DECHERT LLP
One Bush Street, Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94104-4446
Telephone: (415) 262-4518
Facsimile: (415) 262-4555
E-mail: matthew.williams@dechert.com
christina.sarchio@dechert.com
jacqueline.harrington@dechert.com
GOOGLE LLC: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Reply by Nov. 29
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Google RTB Consumer Privacy
Litigation Case No. 4:21-cv-02155-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Parties
stipulate as follows, subject to Court approval:
-- Google will serve its document production Nov. 1, 2023
for Suneeti Vakharia by:
-- Ms. Vakharia will appear for deposition Nov. 15, 2023
in Burlingame, California, between the
hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. (PST)
on:
-- The due date for Plaintiffs' reply in Nov. 29,
2023.
Support of their motion for class
certification is extended from
Nov. 17, 2023 to:
On June 1, 2023, the Court entered a scheduling order, approving a
class certification briefing schedule as stipulated to by the
parties that provides as follows:
-- Motion: July 14, 2023
-- Opposition: Sept. 29, 2023
-- Reply: Nov. 17, 2023
-- Hearing: To be reset
later
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48XKtZc at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
Jonathan K. Levine, Esq.
Bethany Caracuzzo, Esq.
PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
1900 Powell Street, Suite 450
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 692-0772
Facsimile: (415) 366-6110
E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com
jkl@pritzkerlevine.com
bc@pritzkerlevine.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael G. Rhodes, Esq.
Whitty Somivichian, Esq.
Aarti G. Reddy, Esq.
Kyle C. Wong, Esq.
Reece Trevor, Esq.
Anupam Dhillon, Esq.
Elizabeth Sanchez Santiago, Esq.
Robby L.R. Saldaña, Esq.
Khary J. Anderson, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
3 Embarcadero Center, 20th floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4004
Telephone: (415) 693-2000
Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
E-mail: rhodesmg@cooley.com
wsomivichian@cooley.com
areddy@cooley.com
kwong@cooley.com
rtrevor@cooley.com
adhillon@cooley.com
lsanchezsantiago@cooley.com
rsaldana@cooley.com
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Collect Data Without Consent, Arndt Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY ARNDT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-02842-DLB (D. Md., Oct. 19, 2023)
alleges Defendant's violations of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and
Electronic Surveillance Control Act and the Maryland Wiretapping
and Electronic Surveillance Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant is engaged in the unlawful
procurement of the interception of the Plaintiff's and Class
members' electronic communications through the use of third party
"session replay" spyware that allowed Defendant to surreptitiously
watch and record Plaintiff's and the Class members' communications
when they filled out online forms requesting quotes from the
Defendant.
The Defendant knowingly and intentionally procured undisclosed
third parties to intercept the electronic communications at issue
without the knowledge or prior consent of Plaintiff or the Class
members. The Defendant did so for its own financial gain and in
violation of Plaintiff's and the Class members' rights to be free
of intrusion upon their private affairs and to control information
concerning their person under WESCA and the MWESA, the suit says.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY is a private American auto
insurance company with headquarters in Chevy Chase, Maryland. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street N.W. Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
- and -
Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street
Fourteenth Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 357-1100
Email: snathan@hausfeld.com
- and -
Joseph H. Kanee, Esq.
MARCUS ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 695-3282
Fascimile: (732) 298-6256
Email: joseph@marcuszelman.com
HIGHGATE HOTELS: Seeks to Decertify Claims in Henkel Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHELSEA HENKEL, et al., on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. HIGHGATE
HOTELS, L.P. and COVE HAVEN, INC., Case No. 3:15-cv-01435-JPW (M.D.
Pa.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order:
-- Decertifying the Plaintiffs' claims as a collective action
under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and
-- Dismissing the improperly joined Plaintiffs without prejudice.
The Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs' claims under the FLSA
should be decertified because they cannot be fairly litigated in a
collective manner. The uniqueness of each Plaintiff's working
environment, the inherently individualized nature of Defendants
defenses, and principles of fundamental fairness and due process
preclude collective adjudication of their claims."
More specifically, the Plaintiffs cannot meet their heightened
burden of showing that they are similarly situated because there is
no representative evidence regarding the Plaintiffs’ claims and
Defendants’ defenses that would permit a judge or jury to dispose
of this action in one fell swoop, the Defendants add.
Highgate Hotels operates as a real estate investment and
hospitality management company.
A copy of Defendants' motion dated Oct. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QrWbEh at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Patrick F. Hulla, Esq.
Evan B. Citron, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
700 West 47th Street, Suite 500
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 410-2226
Facsimile: (816) 471-1303
E-mail: patrick.hulla@ogletreedeakins.com
evan.citron@ogletreedeakins.com
HK MARBLE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barahona Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
CIRO BARAHONA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HK MARBLE & TILE CORP.; and HIU IAM SZE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-07803 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 19, 2023) is an
action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, provide meals and rest periods, and provide
accurate wage statements.
Plaintiff Brahona was employed by the Defendants as a manual
laborer.
H K MARBLE & TILE CORP. was founded in 2008. The Company
specializes in retail masonry materials and supplies. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
STEVENSON MARINO LLP
445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 1500
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (212) 939-7229
HORIZON REALTY: Class Settlement in Rosenberg Suit Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT ROSENBERG, an
individual, Plaintiff / Class Representative, v. HORIZON REALTY
ADVISORS LLC, a Washington limited liability company, and HRA
STADIUM PARK LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Case No.
6:22-cv-00278-MC (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Michael J. McShane
entered an order granting final approval of class action
settlement:
-- The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
Action
and over the Parties, including all members of the following
Settlement Class:
"All persons listed as a "Lessee" on a rental agreement for a
dwelling unit within any Oregon apartment complex managed by
Horizon Realty Advisors and which rental agreement required the
payment of a utility charge from April 1, 2019 to September 30,
2022 (the "Class Period")
-- The Court finds that the Parties and their attorneys have
complied
with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11
throughout the Action.
-- The Court finds and concludes that Class Notice was
disseminated
to members of the Settlement Class in accordance with the terms
set forth in the Settlement Agreement and that Class Notice and
its dissemination were in compliance with this Court's
Preliminary
Approval Order.
-- The Court finally approves the Settlement Agreement and the
Settlement contemplated, and finds that the terms constitute,
in
all respects, a fair, reasonable, and adequate settlement as to
all Settlement Class Members in accordance with Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and directs its consummation
pursuant to its terms and conditions.
Horizon is a real estate investment company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QbG647 at no extra charge.[CC]
HP INC: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due August 30, 2024
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HENRY SO and DANIEL DYKE,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, v. HP, INC. d/b/a HP COMPUTING AND PRINTING INC., a
Delaware Corporation, Case No. 5:22-cv-02327-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered Case Management Schedule as
follows:
Event Proposed Date
Deadline to Amend Pleadings Oct. 27, 2023
Deadline to file class certification Aug. 30, 2024
motion and for Plaintiffs to serve
any expert disclosures and reports
pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2) relating to
class certification.
Deadline to file opposition to class Oct. 25, 2024
certification motion and for Defendant
to serve any rebuttal expert disclosures
and reports pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)
relating to class certification; and move
to limit or exclude Plaintiff's class
certification expert testimony.
Deadline to file reply re class Nov. 27, 2024
certification and move to limit or exclude
HP's class certification expert testimony
Last day to conduct mediation Dec. 15, 2024
Deadline to designate opening expert Jan. 17, 2025
testimony and full Opening Expert
Reports under 26(a)(2)
Opposition Expert Reports Due Feb. 28, 2025
Rebuttal expert disclosures due Mar. 21, 2025
Expert discovery cut−off Apr. 4, 2025
Close of fact discovery Apr. 4, 2025
HP Inc. is an American multinational information technology
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46MIEgs at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael F. Ram, Esq.
Marie N. Appel, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 358-6913
Facsimile: (415) 358-6293
E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com
mappel@forthepeople.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Megan O'Neill, Esq.
Justin T. Goodwin, Esq.
David Ramirez-Galvez, Esq.
Nicole G. Malick, Esq.
DTO LAW
2400 Broadway, Suite 200
Redwood City, CA 94063
Telephone: (415) 630-4100
Facsimile: (415) 630-4105
E-mail: moneill@dtolaw.com
jgoodwin@dtolaw.com
dramirezgalvez@dtolaw.com
nmalick@dtolaw.com
HQ MILTON INC: Tarr Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HQ Milton, Inc. The
case is styled as Ellen Elizabeth Tarr, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. HQ Milton, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-09264 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
HQ Milton, Inc. -- https://hqmilton.com/ -- offers an exceptional
collection of vintage and modern watches and timepieces for
sale.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
HSBC BANK: Ni Suit Seeks Conditional Collective Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY NI, JERRY GARCIA,
and KEVONI HAYRANIAN on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. HSBC BANK USA, N.A., Case No.
1:23-cv-00309-AS-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting conditional collective certification and
for court facilitation of notice Pursuant to 29 u.s.c. section
216(b).
HSBC is a bank with its operational head office in New York City
and its nominal head office in McLean, Virginia.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 24, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QvYMx0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
HSGI INC: Palazuelos Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Palazuelos, individually and for others similarly situated
v. HSGI, Inc., a Georgia for-profit corporation, Case No.
4:23-cv-00478-RM (D. Ariz, Oct. 23, 2023) alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay overtime wages under Fair Labor Standards
Act and failed to timely pay earned wages under Arizona Wage Act.
Mr. Palazuelos brings this class and collective action to recover
unpaid wages and other damages from HSGI. Although Palazuelos
regularly worked more than 40 hours in a week, HSGI did not pay him
overtime at the proper premium rate required by the FLSA. Instead,
HSGI uniformly paid Palazuelos (and other workers like him) per
diems that HSGI intentionally excluded when calculating these
workers' regular rates of pay for overtime purposes, the suit
says.
Plaintiff Palazuelos was employed by HSGI as an Aircraft
Maintenance Technician in Tucson, Arizona.
HSGI, Inc. is an eerospace, IT and engineering staffing &
consulting company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel R. Randall, Esq.
RANDALL LAW PLLC
4742 North 24th Street, Suite 300
Phoenix, Arizona 85016
Telephone: (602) 328-0262
Facsimile: (602) 926-1479
E-mail: srandall@randallslaw.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mails: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, Texas 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
HYATT CORPORATION: Nov. 16 Class Cert Hearing Vacated
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Insixiengmay v. Hyatt
Corporation et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02993 (E.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Troy L Nunley entered an order vacating the class
certification hearing set for Nov. 16, 2023.
On the Court's own motion, Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class and
Preliminarily Approve Settlement is hereby SUBMITTED without oral
argument.
The suit alleges labor-related violations.
Hyatt is an American multinational hospitality company.[CC]
INDIVIOR PLC: Settles Suboxone Monopoly Class Suit for $385M
------------------------------------------------------------
Yadarisa Shabong in Bengaluru and Brendan Pierson in New York of
Reuters report that Indivior (INDV.L) on October 23, 2023 agreed to
pay $385 million to settle lawsuits in the U.S. brought by drug
wholesalers on claims it illegally suppressed generic competition
for its opioid addiction treatment Suboxone.
The company's London-listed shares closed 5% higher as the latest
settlement marks the end of long-running litigation relating to
Suboxone.
Indivior in June agreed to pay $102.5 million to settle related
claims by dozens of U.S. states. In August, it agreed to pay $30
million to settle a similar class action lawsuit by health plans.
A trial on the wholesalers' claims that had been scheduled for Oct.
30 has now been called off.
The wholesalers are representing a class of about 70 Suboxone
buyers, including other wholesalers and clinics.
"The resolution of this litigation, which was filed over a decade
ago, provides greater certainty for all Indivior stakeholders," CEO
Mark Crossley said in a statement. The company did not admit
liability under the settlement.
A lawyer for the wholesalers did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.
The settlement requires approval by the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Indivior expects
the $385 million to be paid next month.
Suboxone won U.S. approval in 2002, with Indivior holding exclusive
rights to sell the treatment in tablet form until 2009.
The lawsuit filed by health plans and drug wholesalers claimed
Indivior switched to an oral film version of Suboxone from a tablet
to extend its monopoly, just as generic manufacturers were poised
to sell their own lower-cost pills.
The company also agreed in 2020 to pay $600 million to resolve U.S.
government allegations that it fraudulently promoted Suboxone,
including by marketing the film version as safer and less
abuse-prone than similar drugs.
More than 900,000 people have died of drug overdoses in the United
States since 1999, with opioids playing an outsized role, according
to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[GN]
INSTAGRAM LLC: 9th Circuit Court Affirms Copyright Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcela Ballard, Maria R. Sinatra and Alexandra L. Kolsky of
Lexology report that On 17 July 2023, in Hunley et al v Instagram,
LLC,(1) the Ninth Circuit affirmed the applicability of the "Server
Test" to embedded content on third-party sites and affirmed
dismissal of a copyright action in favour of defendant, social
media platform Instagram. In its decision, the Court declined to
narrow its landmark holding in the 2007 case Perfect 10 v Amazon,
ultimately finding that the embedded conduct was non-infringing
because the "embedding website does not store a copy of the
underlying image".
Facts
In Hunley, two photographers appealed dismissal of a copyright
class action suit brought against Instagram, alleging that the
photo-sharing site violated their exclusive public display right by
permitting third-party sites to embed user content on their own
platforms.
The suit arose after the online news publications Buzzfeed and Time
used the embed function to feature the plaintiffs' photographs
alongside original news content. These organisations did not seek
to license the works, but rather displayed the plaintiffs' public
Instagram posts in their entirety via the embed function -
including their user handles, the photos themselves and the photo
caption.
The plaintiffs brought suit against Instagram on a theory of
secondary liability. Thus, any potential recovery hinged on the
direct liability of Buzzfeed and Time. The district court found
that the Ninth Circuit's decision in Perfect 10 v Amazon precluded
the plaintiffs' suit and dismissed the action.
The Copyright Act grants authors the exclusive right to display
their copyrighted works publicly.(2) Infringing this exclusive
right essentially requires the transmission of an unauthorised copy
of the copyrighted work. As the Ninth Circuit explained in Hunley,
"[a] copy means either an original or a duplicate that is fixed,
and fixation requires embodiment in a perceivable format".
Decision
In its analysis, the Ninth Circuit provided a fulsome summary of
embedding technology, and how the technology works. When a website
embeds Instagram content in a webpage, it does not store or display
a copy of the embedded content from its own server. Rather, it
employs a set of HTML instructions that direct the browser to
retrieve and display content from Instagram's server. The host
server retains control over the image and is able to allow or
disallow embedding, or make changes to the embedded content, for
example by replacing or deleting images.
In Perfect 10, the Ninth Circuit had addressed embedded content in
the context of Google Image's search function, holding that the
Google Image search function did not violate the right of public
display by including pared-down thumbnail images or by embedding
full-size images from third-party websites in its results list. The
Court noted that the full-size embedded images were not actually
embodied in the computer's server.
Thus, the Court devised the "Server Test," arguing that liability
for a violation of the right of public display in the computer
context arises only where a copy of the complained-of work is
"fixed in the computer's memory". Because the Google Image search
results had merely embedded the photographs rather than displayed
an embodiment from the company's server, Google did not maintain a
copy and therefore did not violate the right to public display.
The Ninth Circuit found the embedded Instagram posts in the Hunley
case were no different. By posting photographs to a public
Instagram profile, the plaintiffs stored copies of those images on
the Instagram server. The third-party news sites Buzzfeed and Time
then embedded the content hosted on Instagram's servers and
displayed it alongside original newswriting. These sites did not
store copies of the underlying copyrighted photographs and were
"not guilty of direct infringement". In the absence of direct
infringement, Instagram could not be held secondarily liable.
The Court rejected the plaintiffs' request to limit the Server Test
to search engines, reiterating that the application of the test
depends on the method used for displaying a photo and not the
context in which it is displayed. The Court also rejected the
plaintiffs' arguments that Perfect 10 is inconsistent with American
Broadcasting Company v Aereo(3) and certain passages of the
Copyright Act's legislative history. In affirming the importance of
Perfect 10, the Ninth Circuit noted that its decision "does not
foreclose other avenues to relief for future technologies that
configure retransmission in a new way".
Comment
Going forward, content creators and businesses should be cognisant
of the application of the Server Test where copyrighted content is
embedded and should consult legal counsel if questions involving
said content arise.
For further information on this topic please contact:
Marcella Ballard, Esq.
Maria Sinatra, Esq.
Alexandra L. Kolsky, Esq.
Venable LLP
Telephone: (410) 244-7400
E-mail: mballard@venable.com
mrsinatra@venable.com
alkolsky@venable.com
The Venable LLP website can be accessed at www.venable.com.
Endnotes
(1) No. 22-15293, Ninth Circuit, 17 July 2023.
(2) Section 106(5) of Title 17 of the US Code.
(3) 573 US 431 (2014). [GN]
INWOOD BEER GARDEN: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Inwood Beer Garden &
Bistro, Inc. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v Inwood Beer Garden &
Bistro, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-07857 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Inwood Beer Garden & Bistro, Inc. -- https://inwoodlocal.com/ -- is
a chill neighborhood hangout featuring upscale pub fare, craft
beers, a back beer garden & live music.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
JGL RESTAURANT: Initial Case Management Order Entered in Zamora
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNARDO CASILLO ZAMORA,
JOSE EDWIN MENDEZ, and JAVIER DIAZ PLAZA, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, v. JGL RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a
ITALIAN VILLAGE PIZZA and JOSE LEON, Case No. 1:22-cv-05739-ALC-SLC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah L. Cave entered a scheduling
initial case management conference order as follows:
-- All pretrial motions and applications, including those relating
to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss
or
for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for
summary
judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23)
must be made to Magistrate Judge Cave and must comply with her
Individual Practices, available on the Court’s website at
https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-sarah-l-cave.
-- No initial case management conference yet having taken place in
this action, it is ordered that an initial conference in
accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 will be held on Monday,
November 20, 2023 at 11:00 a.m. on the Court's conference line.
-- Counsel shall meet and confer in accordance with Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(f) no later than 21 days before the Initial Case
Management
Conference. No later than November 13, 2023, the parties shall
file a Report of Rule 26(f) Meeting and Proposed Case
Management
Plan, via ECF, signed by counsel for each party. A template is
available at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-sarah-l-cave.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Q1We8m at no extra charge.[CC]
K & SODA INC: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against K & Soda, Inc. The
case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. K & Soda, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-09278
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
K & Soda, LLC doing business as 818 Spirits --
https://drink818.com/ -- provides Hand-crafted tequila.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
KARTOON STUDIOS: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Kartoon Studios, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 14, 2023, that the case captioned "In
re Genius Brands International, Inc. Securities Litigation," Master
File No. 2:20-cv-07457 DSF (RAOx) filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California has been dismissed by the
Court. The Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of the case.
Lead plaintiffs alleged generally that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
issuing allegedly false or misleading statements about the company,
initially over an alleged class period running from March into
early July 2020. Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages on behalf of
the alleged class of persons who invested in the company's common
stock during the alleged class period. Defendants moved to dismiss
lead plaintiffs' amended complaint, and in a decision issued on
August 30, 2021, the court dismissed the amended complaint but
granted lead plaintiffs a further opportunity to plead a claim.
On September 27, 2021, lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint, naming the same defendants. The new complaint alleged
again that the company made numerous false or misleading statements
about the company's business and business prospects, this time over
an expanded alleged class period that extended into March 2021;
they again alleged that these misstatements violated Section 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Lead plaintiffs again sought
unspecified damages on behalf of an alleged class of persons who
invested in the company's common stock during the expanded alleged
class period.
In November 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint. On July 15, 2022, the court issued a decision
dismissing the second amended complaint in its entirety and with
prejudice. On August 12, 2022, lead plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Briefing of the appeal has concluded, and calendar inquiries from
the Court of Appeals suggest that it may entertain a hearing on the
appeal in either November or December 2023.
Kartoon Studios, Inc. is a global content and brand management
company that creates, produces, licenses, and broadcasts timeless
and educational, multimedia animated content for children.
KITCHEN ENTHUSIASTS: Mercedes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kitchen Enthusiasts,
Inc. The case is styled as Luis Mercedes, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Kitchen Enthusiasts, Inc. doing
business as: Butcher Block Co., Case No. 1:23-cv-09251 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Kitchen Enthusiasts, Inc. doing business as Butcher Block Co. --
https://butcherblockco.com/ -- are builders of the world's best
butcher block surfaces.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
KUBIYA GAMES: Tarr Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kubiya Games, LLC.
The case is styled as Ellen Elizabeth Tarr, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Kubiya Games, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-09266 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Kubiya Games -- https://kubiyagames.com/ -- is a Brooklyn based
company specializing in handmade wooden mechanical puzzles, brain
teasers, games & toys.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
LAUREN KING: David-Merritt Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Farson David-Merritt, and other People similarly
situated v. Lauren Jennifer King, Case No. 23-00002-17435-6-SEA was
removed from the King County Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington on Oct. 20, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-01615 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Lauren Jennifer King is an American attorney who is a United States
district judge of the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Timothy M. Durkin, Esq.
US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
920 W. Riverside Suite 340
Spokane, WA 99210-1494
Phone: (509) 462-3788
Email: USAWAE.TDurkinECF@usdoj.gov
LOBEL FINANCIAL: Williams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lobel Financial
Corporation. The case is styled as B. Williams individually on
behalf of himself the general public and on behalf of all other
persons and class similarly situated that is a class of claimants
whose rights were violated as were Williams v. Lobel Financial
Corporation, Case No. 23STCV25694 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., Oct. 20, 2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Lobel Financial Corporation -- https://www.lobelfinancial.com/ --
are a consumer finance company specializing in purchasing and
servicing automobile contracts.[BN]
LORI WEAVER: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Detained Persons
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. LORI
WEAVER, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01039-LM (D.N.H.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:
(1) Certify the proposed class of all person "who are currently
being, have been, or will be involuntarily detained under
RSA
135-C:27-CC without receiving prompt and meaningful due
process
or a meaningful probable cause hearing within three days
(not
including Sundays and holidays) of the completion of the
[IEA]
certificate";
(2) Approving Plaintiffs John Doe, Charles Coe, Jane Roe,
Deborah
A. Taylor, H.M., and J.S. as class representatives;
(3) Re-appointing Plaintiffs' counsel to represent the class;
and
(4) granting such other and further relief as this Court deems
just
and proper in the circumstances Plaintiffs do not seek class
notice at this time in light of Judge DiClerico's prior
ruling.
Nevertheless, Plaintiffs respectfully reserve their rights to seek
class notice in the future if it becomes necessary to "ensure that
the interests of unnamed class members are adequately protected."
The Plaintiffs brought this class action lawsuit five years ago to
stop the Commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Health and
Human Services from denying adequate due process to people who are
involuntarily detained because they are suspected of experiencing a
mental health crisis.
New Hampshire state law requires that individuals who are
involuntarily detained under RSA 135-C:27–33 receive a probable
cause hearing within three days of the completion of their
involuntary emergency admission (IEA) certificate.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 24, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s6UGlu at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gilles R. Bissonnette, Esq.
Henry R. Klementowicz, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
18 Low Avenue
Concord, NH 03301
Telephone: (603) 224-5591
E-mail: gilles@aclu-nh.org
henry@aclu-nh.org
- and -
Theodore E. Tsekerides, Esq.
Aaron J. Curtis, Esq.
A.J. Green, Esq.
Sherry Safavi, Esq.
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
Telephone: (212) 310-8000
Facsimile: (212) 310-8007
E-mail: theodore.tsekerides@weil.com
aaron.curtis@weil.com
a.j.green@weil.com
sherry.safavi@weil.com
MASA SUSHI: Chen Seeks Reconsideration of Certain Items in Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUJIE CHEN, CHENLI LIN,
XIA LIN, QING CHEN, and BAOZHU WEI, individually and on their own
behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees, v.
MASA SUSHI HIBACHI AND BAR PA LLC d/b/a MASA SUSHI HIBACHI AND BAR,
ZHENGGUAN CHI and FANNY GUNAWAN, Case No. 5:22-cv-05206-KNS (E.D.
Pa.), the Defendants file a motion for reconsideration of certain
items in the E.D. Pa. Court's October 12, 2023 order:
The Plaintiffs, Lujie Chen, Chenli Lin, Xia Lin, Qing Chen, and
Baozhu Wei -- five former Masa employees -- filed a Complaint
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
Pennsylvania state wage and hour laws on December 28, 2022.
On June 21, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Conditional
Collective Action Certification and Judicial Notice Pursuant to
Section 26(b) of the FLSA.
Only July 21, 2023, the HE Defendants opposed the Plaintiffs'
Motion. In its opposition, the Defendants expressly requested that,
in accordance with established precedent, if the Court granted
conditional certification, the parties be directed to meet and
confer regarding the form and content of the notice to putative
plaintiffs.
On August 11, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a Reply Brief in Further
Support of Named Plaintiffs' Motion on August 11, 2023, in which
Plaintiffs did not object to Defendants’ request to meet and
confer regarding the content of the proposed notice.
On September 12, 2023, during a telephone Status Conference with
the Court, the Defendants’ counsel again requested the right to
provide input regarding the form and content of the notice to
putative plaintiffs.
On October 12, 2023, this Court entered an order granting Named
Plaintiffs' motion, which relevant to this Motion, ordered as
follows:
1. The following FLSA Collective Action Class is conditionally
certified pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 716(b):
"Any and all individuals currently or formerly employed by
Defendants within the United States as non-exempt employee[s]
at
any time from December 28, 2019, to the present."
No later than October 23, 2023, Masa Sushi shall provide FLSA Class
Counsel a computer-readable file containing the names (last names
first), last-known physical addresses, last-known mailing
addresses, telephone numbers, WhatsApp account addresses, WeChat
IDs, Facebook usernames (if applicable), and dates of employment of
all putative collective action members employed by Masa Sushi from
December 18, 2019, through October 22, 2023.
No later than November 13, 2023, FLSA Class Counsel shall provide
notice of this action and an opt-in consent form to all putative
collective action members by first-class mail to the last known
address of each putative plaintiff and by e-mail to the last known
e-mail address of each putative plaintiff.
Putative members of the FLSA class who wish to opt in to the
collective action must submit to FLSA Class Counsel a completed
consent to joint he conditionally certified collective action by
February 9, 2024. Consent to joint he conditionally certified
collective action shall be effective only if the Plaintiff Consent
Form is dated and postmarked, faxed, or emailed by February
9, 2024.
Masa Sushi is an authentic Japanese restaurant.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40b7Hr2 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ziyi Gao, Esq.
HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
136029 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
Flushing, NY 11354
Telephone: (718) 353-8588
Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
E-mail: zgao@hanglaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Brad M. Kushner, Esq.
Michael G. Greenfield, Esq.
STEVENS & LEE
1500 Market Street, East Tower
Suite 1800
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 751-1946
E-mail: brad.kushner@stevenslee.com
michael.greenfield@stevenslee.com
MASON SUPPLY: Bassaw Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mason Supply, Inc.
The case is styled as Shivan Bassaw, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Mason Supply, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-09237 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Masons Supply Company -- https://www.masco.net/ -- provides the
largest inventory of masonry, concrete, and concrete forming
accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick William Gallagher, Esq.
MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (347) 745-0445
Email: pgallagher@mizrahikroub.com
MAXIMUS INC: Buzzell Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Linden Buzzell, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. MAXIMUS, INC. and MAXIMUS FEDERAL
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-01028 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 20,
2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12441-ADB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Property.
Maximus Inc. -- https://maximus.com/ -- is an American government
services company, with global operations in countries including the
United States, Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amanda Jamison Allen, Esq.
William Peerce Howard, Esq.
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC
401 E. Jackson St., Ste. 2340
Tampa, FL 33602-5226
Phone: (813) 500-1500
Fax: (813) 435-2369
Email: amanda@theconsumerprotectionfirm.com
Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
- and -
Bart David Cohen, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP (PA-NA)
1622 Locus St
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 274-9420
Fax: (304) 342-1110
Email: bcohen@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Casey Shannon Nash, Esq.
James Patrick McNichol, Esq.
KELLY GUZZO PLC
3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: (703) 424-7571
Fax: (703) 591-0167
Email: casey@kellyguzzo.com
pat@kellyguzzo.com
- and -
Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
SUROVELL ISAACS PETERSEN & LEVY, PLC
4010 University Dr., Suite 200
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: (703) 277-9774
Fax: (703) 591-2149
Email: kkelly@siplfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jon M. Talotta, Esq.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP (VA)
8350 Broad Street, 17th Flr.
Tysons, VA 22102
Phone: (703) 610-6156
Email: jmtalotta@hhlaw.com
- and -
Allison Marie Holt Ryan, Esq.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP (DC-NA)
555 13th St NW
Washington, DC 20004-1109
Phone: (202) 637-5600
Fax: (202) 637-5910
Email: allison.holt-ryan@hoganlovells.com
MAXIMUS INC: Harding Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Carlos Harding, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. MAXIMUS, INC. and MAXIMUS FEDERAL
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-01045 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 20,
2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12443-ADB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle.
Maximus Inc. -- https://maximus.com/ -- is an American government
services company, with global operations in countries including the
United States, Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Barrett Jay Vahle, Esq.
Brandi S. Spates, Esq.
Jillian Rebecca Dent, Esq.
Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP (MO-NA)
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Phone: (816) 714-7100
Fax: (816) 714-7101
Email: vahle@stuevesiegel.com
spates@stuevesiegel.com
dent@stuevesiegel.com
siegel@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
Eleanor Michelle Drake, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC (MN-NA)
1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Phone: (612) 594-5999
Fax: (612) 584-4470
Email: emdrake@bm.net
- and -
Mark Blaise DeSanto, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE, PC (PA-NA)
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 875-3000
Fax: (215) 875-4604
Email: mdesanto@bm.net
- and -
Steven T. Webster, Esq.
WEBSTER BOOK LLP
300 N Washington Street, Suite 404
Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: (888) 987-9991
Fax: (888) 987-9991
Email: swebster@websterbook.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jon M. Talotta, Esq.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP (VA)
8350 Broad Street, 17th Flr.
Tysons, VA 22102
Phone: (703) 610-6156
Email: jmtalotta@hhlaw.com
- and -
Allison Marie Holt Ryan, Esq.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP (DC-NA)
555 13th St NW
Washington, DC 20004-1109
Phone: (202) 637-5600
Fax: (202) 637-5910
Email: allison.holt-ryan@hoganlovells.com
MAXIMUS INC: Wilt Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Leo Wilt, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MAXIMUS, INC. and MAXIMUS FEDERAL
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-01108 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 20,
2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12445-ADB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Property.
Maximus Inc. -- https://maximus.com/ -- is an American government
services company, with global operations in countries including the
United States, Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven T. Webster, Esq.
WEBSTER BOOK LLP
300 N Washington Street, Suite 404
Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: (888) 987-9991
Fax: (888) 987-9991
Email: swebster@websterbook.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jon M. Talotta, Esq.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP (VA)
8350 Broad Street, 17th Flr.
Tysons, VA 22102
Phone: (703) 610-6156
Email: jmtalotta@hhlaw.com
MDL 2873: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Robinson Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN RASHUN ROBINSON, SR., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota
Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.;
AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-05310-RMG (D.S.C., October 23, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate
warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment,
breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn
military members and/or civilian firefighters, including the
Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants'
PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without
significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate
warning about the products' danger. The Plaintiff relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products,
says the suit.
As a result of the alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer.
The Robinson case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
E-mail: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
MDL 2873: Aldrine Suit Claims Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL J. ALDRINE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-05281-RMG (D.S.C., October 23, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate
warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment,
breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn
military members and/or civilian firefighters, including the
Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants'
PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without
significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate
warning about the products' danger. The Plaintiff relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products,
says the suit.
As a result of the alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer.
The Aldrine case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
E-mail: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
MDL 2873: Exposed Military Members to Toxic Chemicals, Pacheco Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MERLEENE JOY PACHECO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-05308-RMG (D.S.C., October 23, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate
warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment,
breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn
military members and/or civilian firefighters, including the
Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants'
PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without
significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate
warning about the products' danger. The Plaintiff relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products,
says the suit.
As a result of the alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer.
The Pacheco case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
E-mail: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
MDL 2873: Faces Beni Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW DWAYNE BENI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-05287-RMG (D.S.C., October 23, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate
warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment,
breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film
forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and military
members, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or
exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due
to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals
and was diagnosed with kidney cancer, says the suit.
The Beni case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
E-mail: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
MDL 2873: Faces Hopkins Suit Over AFFF Products' Harmful Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY HOPKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-05303-RMG (D.S.C., October 23, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate
warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment,
breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and military
members, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or
exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due
to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals
and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, says the suit.
The Hopkins case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
E-mail: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
MDL 2873: Faces Thompson Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
PIERRO L. THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-05315-RMG (D.S.C., October 23, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate
warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment,
breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with liver cancer, says the
suit.
The Thompson case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
E-mail: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
MDL 2873: Hooper Sues Over Side Effects of Using AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH HOOPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-05297-RMG (D.S.C., October 23, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate
warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment,
breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and military members, including the Plaintiff, who they
knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products.
The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, says the suit.
As a result of the alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer.
The Hooper case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
E-mail: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
MDL 2873: Lunsford Sues Over AFFF Products' Risk to Human Health
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARCELIOUS LUNSFORD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-05307-RMG (D.S.C., October 23, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate
warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment,
breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, says the
suit.
The Lunsford case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
E-mail: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
MDL 2873: Nelson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
----------------------------------------------------------
RICKY NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-05275-RMG (D.S.C., October 23, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate
warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment,
breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film
forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with colon cancer, says the
suit.
The Nelson case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
E-mail: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
MDL 2873: Palumbo Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN F. PALUMBO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants,
Case No. 2:23-cv-05309-RMG (D.S.C., October 23, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate
warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment,
breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, the suit
alleges.
The Palumbo case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
E-mail: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
MERRICK GARLAND: Chang Suit Stayed Pending Resolution in Enriquez
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YOWSEE CHANG, v. MERRICK
B. GARLAND, U.S. Attorney General, et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-04693-PKC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge P. Kevin Castel
entered an order staying case pending resolution of the class
certification motion in Enriquez.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/493O8oi at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sam F. Haddad, Esq.
LAW OFFIC OF SAM F. HADDAD, ESQ.
10720 Joeger Rd.
Auburn, CA 95602
Telephone: (530) 305-1242
E-mail: shaddadlaw@gmail.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Joseph A. Pantoja, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
86 Chambesrs St, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 637-2758
E-mail: Joseph.pantoja@usdoj.gov
MERRICK GARLAND: Initial Pretrial Conference Schedule Canceled
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chaohua Yang v. Garland,
et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-06102-A (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Arun
Subramanian entered an order that:
1. The Clerk of Court is directed to stay all deadlines until
further order of the Court.
2. The initial pretrial conference scheduled is canceled.
3. The parties are ordered to submit a letter to the Court
within
14 days of any order disposition of the class certification
motion.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Q7iMo7 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Damian Williams, Esq.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
Leslie A. Ramirez-Fisher
LESLIE A. RAMIREZ-FISHER
86 Chambers Street, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 637-0378
E-mail: leslie.ramirez-fisher@usdoj.gov
MHM HEALTH: Cupp FLSA Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN CUPP, Individually
and for Others Similarly Situated, v. MHM HEALTH PROFESSIONALS,
INC. d/b/a CENTURION HEALTH, Case No. 4:23-cv-00071-SRC (E.D. Mo.),
the Plaintiff ask the Court to enter an order:
(1) Conditionally certify action as a collective action pursuant
to
Section 216(b) of the FLSA; and
(2) Directing Centurion provide names, last known addresses,
telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, work locations, and
dates
of employment of all putative class members.
The Plaintiff contends that MHM Health unlawfully withheld overtime
wages from its hourly healthcare workers, including as Nurses,
EMTs, and Dental Workers (Hourly Direct Care Workers), to avoid
paying them overtime wages required under federal law.
Centurion instead maintained a uniform pay practice of automatic
meal break deductions from the Hourly Direct Care Workers’ shifts
despite requiring attendance to patient needs through their meal
breaks. This practice violates the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
the Plaintiff adds.
Cupp seeks to allow her coworkers in Florida, Indiana, and
Kansas—other Hourly Direct Care Workers working for Centurion who
received an automatic meal break deduction -- to receive notice of
this collective action and stop the statute of limitations from
running on their valuable back wage claims.
Cupp and the Hourly Direct Care Workers are similarly situated
because they all:
(1) were classified as non-exempt;
(2) paid on an hourly basis;
(3) provided direct patient care; and
(4) were subjected to Centurion's automatic meal break
deduction
policy.
Centurion is a leading national provider of healthcare and
behavioral health services to incarcerated, justice-involved, and
other special populations.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 20, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/471teo9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
cfitz@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
MILLIMAN INC: W.D. Wash Fed. Ct. Modifies Previous Order in Mattson
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOANNA P. MATTSON, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. MILLIMAN,
INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00037-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge Thomas S. Zilly entered an order granting the Plaintiff's
unopposed motion, for modification of the Court's previous Order,
on Plaintiff's motion to certify class, appoint a class
representative, and appoint class counsel.
The Courts previous Order is modified as follows:
(a) Charles Field of Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP is appointed as
Class Counsel in place of David Sanford. David Sanford will
no
longer serve as Class Counsel.
(b) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to
all counsel of record.
Milliman offers research, management, financial, and consulting
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SsB06D at no extra charge.[CC]
MILLIMAN SOLUTIONS: Gregory Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Betty Gregory, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Milliman Solutions, LLC, CMFG Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 3:23-cv-00559 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Oct. 19,
2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12432-ADB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Milliman Solutions LLC -- https://www.milliman.com/ -- was founded
in 2016. The company's line of business includes providing
insurance agent and broker services for a range of insurance
types.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
One W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 525-4100
Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
- and -
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Daniel E. Feinberg, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
One North Franklin, Suite 800
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 980-6781
Email: dfeinberg@grsm.com
- and -
Michael D. Leffel, Esq.
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
150 East Gilman Street
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: (608) 258-4216
Email: mleffel@foley.com
- and -
Anne-Louise T. Mittal
FOLEY & LARDNER
777 E Wisconsin Ave
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Phone: (414) 319-7215
Email: amittal@foley.com
MORNING CHEF: Thomas Must Make Settlement Demand by Nov. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RACHEL THOMAS, v. MORNING
CHEF, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-02719-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered a preliminary Pretrial
Order as follows:
-- Any initial disclosures shall be Nov. 3, 2023
made by:
-- Any motion to amend the pleadings Nov. 17, 2023
or to join additional parties shall
be filed by:
-- The parties agree that the motion for April 1, 2024
authorized notice shall be filed by:
-- All pre-notice discovery shall be March 1, 2024
completed by:
-- Any proposed protective order or Nov. 17, 2023.
clawback agreement shall be filed
with the Court by:
-- The Plaintiff shall make a settlement Nov. 30, 2023
demand by:
-- The Defendants shall respond by: Dec. 29, 2023
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant improperly paid the tipped
minimum wage for non-tipped work, resulting in subminimum wages
being paid to her and other similarly-situate tipped employees.
The Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant's conduct was a
willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and that
the Defendant's violation was not based on a good faith belief that
its conduct conformed with the requirements of the act.
The Defendant denies any wrongdoing and asserts that Plaintiff and
the employees she purports to represent were properly paid for all
hours worked. There is a jury demand.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MbXy7s at no extra charge.[CC]
MTA: Fact Discovery in Paulino-Santos Class Suit Due Sept. 30, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Paulino-Santos, et al. v.
MTA et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-03471-JGLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Jessica G. L. Clarke entered a civil case management plan and
scheduling order as follows
-- All fact discovery shall be completed Sept. 30,
2024
no later than:
-- All expert discovery, including expert Jan. 20, 2025
reports and depositions, shall be
completed no later than:
-- Affirmative expert disclosures pursuant Nov. 3, 2024
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) shall be
made no later than:
-- Rebuttal s expert disclosures pursuant Dec. 15, 2024
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) shall be
made no later than:
MTA is a public benefit corporation responsible for public
transportation in the New York City metropolitan area.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FzLM2V at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Maia Goodell, Esq.
Emily Bass, Esq.
VLADECK, RASKIN & CLARK, P.C.
111 Broadway, Suite 1505
New York, NY 10006
E-mail: mgoodell@vladeck.com
- and -
Britney Wilson, Esq.
NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL
LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
185 West Broadway
New York, NY 10013
E-mail: Britney.Wilson@nyls.edu
The Defendants are represented by:
Allan J. Arffa, Esq.
Gregory F. Laufer, Esq.
Tamar Holoshitz
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND,
WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
E-mail: aarffa@paulweiss.com
MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing in CA Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mullen Automotive Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in August 14, 2023, that it is currently facing
a class action complaint filed on May 5, 2022 by plaintiff Margaret
Schaub, a purported stockholder, in the United States District
Court Central District of California against Mullen Automotive,
Inc., as well as its Chief Executive Officer, David Michery, and
the Chief Executive Officer of a predecessor entity, Oleg Firer.
This lawsuit was brought by Schaub both individually and on behalf
of a putative class of the company's shareholders, claiming false
or misleading statements regarding the company's business
partnerships, technology, and manufacturing capabilities, and
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
Schaub Lawsuit seeks to certify a putative class of shareholders,
and seeks monetary damages, as well as an award of reasonable fees
and expenses.
On August 4, 2022, the court issued an order consolidating the
Schaub Lawsuit with the later-filed suit, and appointing lead
plaintiff and lead counsel.
On September 23, 2022, Lead Plaintiff filed her Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint against the company, Mr. Michery,
and the company's predecessor, Mullen Technologies, Inc., premised
on the same purported violations of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5, seeking to certify a putative class of shareholders, and
seeking an award of monetary damages, as well as reasonable fees
and expenses. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint on November 22, 2022.
Mullen Automotive Inc., is a Southern California-based
development-stage electric vehicle company that operates in various
verticals of businesses focused within the automotive industry.
NATIONAL FREIGHT: Class Cert Factual Discovery Due March 1, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STOYAN KOLEV, et al., v.
NATIONAL FREIGHT, INC., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-15107-JHR-EAP
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Pascal entered an amended
scheduling order as follows:
1. Pretrial factual discovery March 1, 2024
will expire on:
2. All expert reports and expert March 15, 2024.
disclosures pursuant to FED. R.
CIV. P. 26(a)(2) on behalf of
Plaintiffs shall be served upon
counsel for Defendants no later
than:
3. All expert reports and expert April 15, 2024
disclosures pursuant to FED. R.
CIV. P. 26(a)(2) on behalf of
Defendants shall be served upon
counsel for Plaintiffs no later
than:
4. If no expert discovery is conducted April 15, 2024
class certification motions shall
be filed with the Clerk of the
Court no later than:
National Freight provides logistics services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/40fgMz2 at no extra charge.[CC]
NEVADA: Nunn Must File Complaint vs. Ely State Prison by Dec. 12
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled TYRONE NOEL NUNN, Plaintiff v. ELY STATE
PRISON DISTRICT OF NEVADA, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-00463-MMD-CSD (D. Nev.), U.S. Magistrate Judge Craig S.
Denney of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada grants
the Plaintiff until Dec. 12, 2023, to submit a complaint.
On Sept. 20, 2023, the Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the
Nevada Department of Corrections ("NDOC"), submitted a document
titled "Ex Parte Motion for the Appointment of Counsel and
Affidavit of: Harassment, Racial Profiling, Racial Discrimination,
Racial Slander. Class Action Suit." The Plaintiff did not file a
complaint or an application to proceed in forma pauperis in this
matter.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3, a civil action is
commenced by filing a complaint with the court. The Court grants
the Plaintiff until Dec. 12, 2023, to submit a complaint to this
Court.
The Court notes that a civil-rights complaint filed by a person who
is not represented by an attorney must be submitted on the form
provided by this court or must be legible and contain substantially
all the information called for by the court's form. The Court will
direct the Clerk of the Court to send to the Plaintiff the approved
form for filing a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 complaint and instructions
for the same.
The Court will grant the Plaintiff an opportunity to file a
complaint and a fully complete application to proceed in forma
pauperis containing all of the required documents, or in the
alternative, pay the full $402 filing fee for this action on or
before Dec. 12, 2023.
For these reasons, Judge Denney ordered that the Plaintiff will
submit a complaint to this Court on or before Dec. 12, 2023. It is
further ordered that the Clerk of the Court will send to the
Plaintiff the approved form for filing a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
complaint and instructions for the same. The Clerk of the Court
will also send Plaintiff a copy of his "Ex Parte Motion for the
Appointment of Counsel."
The Clerk of the Court will send the Plaintiff the approved form
application to proceed in forma pauperis by an inmate, as well as
the document entitled information and instructions for filing an in
forma pauperis application.
On or before Dec. 12, 2023, the Plaintiff will either pay the full
$402 filing fee or file a fully complete application to proceed in
forma pauperis with all three required documents: (1) a completed
application with the inmate's two signatures on page 3, (2) a
completed financial certificate that is signed both by the inmate
and the prison or jail official, and (3) a copy of the inmate's
trust fund account statement for the previous six-month period.
The Plaintiff is cautioned that this action will be subject to
dismissal without prejudice if the Plaintiff fails to timely comply
with this order. A dismissal without prejudice allows the Plaintiff
to refile the case with the Court, under a new case number, when
the Plaintiff can file a complaint and a complete application to
proceed in forma pauperis or pay the required filing fee.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 12, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/rvx6vexe from PacerMonitor.com.
NEW YORK, NY: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 17
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHINESE AMERICAN CITIZENS
ALLIANCE GREATER NEW YORK, et al., v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-08964-LAK-GS (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Gary Stein entered an order re Proposed Case Management
Plan and Scheduling Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(f) and the Court's Order dated September 20, 2023:
-- Deadline to amend pleadings or join Nov. 17, 2023
any other parties:
-- Deadline by which a class certification Dec. 17, 2023
motion, if any, shall be filed
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23:
-- Deadline for initial document Dec. 17, 2023.
requests, initial interrogatories,
and requests for admission shall be
served:
-- Plaintiff Depositions, Defendant March 31, 2024.
Depositions:
-- Deadline for non-expert discovery: April 30, 2024
-- Deadline for disclosures of March 31, 2024
identities and reports of experts
pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2):
-- Deadline for depositions of experts: April 30, 2024
This action was brought by a Plaintiff organization, Chinese
American Citizens Alliance Greater New York (CACAGNY) and five of
its individual members as a putative class action. Plaintiffs
allege that their constitutional and New York State law rights were
violated during a February 4, 2020 Town Hall Meeting where
Plaintiffs were protesting DOE policies.
The Plaintiffs allege they faced race-based discrimination as they
attempted to enter the meeting. Defendants deny that there were any
discriminatory acts committed. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief and personal injury damages arising from injuries suffered
by Plaintiff Siu-Lin Linda Lam.
New York City Department manages the city's public school system.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3S79Lyb at no extra charge.[CC]
ONS CLOTHING: Martin Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ons Clothing, LLC.
The case is styled as Damian Martin, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Ons Clothing, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-07856-NGG-JRC (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
O.N.S Clothing -- https://onsclothing.com/ -- is a menswear brand
offering top quality & versatile styles in men's Button Up Shirts,
Pants, T-shirts, Polos & Outerwear.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
ORTOALASKA LLC: Byers Files Suit in D. Alaska
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ortoalaska, LLC. The
case is styled as Thomas Byers, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Ortoalaska, LLC, Case No.
3:23-cv-00242-SLG (D. Alaska, Oct. 20, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
OrthoAlaska -- https://www.orthoak.net/ -- is an integrated group
of orthopedic and rheumatology providers in Alaska, created to
address the rising costs of healthcare in Alaska.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th Street, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Phone: (510) 891-9800
Email: sec@colevannote.com
PEDEGO HOLDINGS: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pedego Holdings, Inc.
The case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Pedego Holdings, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-09249 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Pedego Electric Bikes -- https://pedegoelectricbikes.com/ -- is a
manufacturer of electric bikes with a built-in electric hub motor
to provide additional assistance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
PENSION BENEFIT: Golestani Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jian Golestani, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Pension Benefit Information, LLC
doing business as: PBI Research Services, Case No. 0:23-cv-02478
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on Oct. 19, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12439-ADB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Pension Benefit Information -- https://www.pbinfo.com/ -- provides
pension management service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Ra O. Amen, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 223-5505
Fax: (813) 222-2434
Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
ramen@forthepeople.com
- and -
Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 South Washington Avenue, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401-2179
Phone: (612) 339-6900
Fax: (612) 339-0981
Email: Khriebel@locklaw.com
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Claudia D. McCarron, Esq.
Paulyne Gardner, Esq.
MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC
426 W. Lancaster Avenue, Suite 200
Devon, PA 19333
Phone: (267) 930-4770
Fax: (267) 930-4771
Email: cmccarron@mullen.law
pgardner@mullen.law
- and -
Emily Liebman, Esq.
Keiko L. Sugisaka, Esq.
MASLON LLP
3300 Wells Fargo Center
90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 750-0548
Email: emily.liebman@maslon.com
keiko.sugisaka@maslon.com
PERFORMANCE HEALTH: Malo Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Katelin Malo, individually, and as natural
parent and next friend of A.M., a minor; Corrinna Reed, Joann
Kindred, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Performance Health Technology, Ltd., Case No.
6:23-cv-01149 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on Oct. 19, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12438-ADB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
Performance Health Technology -- https://phtech.com/ -- provides a
range of business process outsourcing services to Medicaid and
Medicare customers to meet their business needs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
One W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 525-4100
Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
- and -
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Daniel E. Feinberg, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
One North Franklin, Suite 800
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 980-6781
Email: dfeinberg@grsm.com
PESTIE INC: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pestie, Inc. The case
is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Pestie, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-09282
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Pestie -- https://pestie.com/ -- sends customized pro-grade pest
control right to your door.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
PIEDMONT AIRLINES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 8, 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE LUJANO as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PIEDMONT AIRLINES, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
8:23-cv-00405-FWS-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fred W. Slaughter
entered an order re joint stipulation to continue case deadlines as
follows:
-- Last Date to File Motion for Class April 8, 2024
Certification:
-- Last Date to File Opposition to March 29, 2024
Motion for Class Certification:
-- Last Date to File Reply to Motion May 13, 2024
for Class Certification:
-- Hearing on Motion for Class June 6, 2024
Certification:
-- Last Date to Hear Motion to Amend April 11, 2024
Pleadings /Add Parties:
-- Expert Disclosure (Initial): April 15, 2024
-- Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal): April 29, 2024
-- Expert Discovery Cut-Off: May 13, 2024
Piedmont provides scheduled passenger services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tLGvmx at no extra charge.[CC]
PLANTRONICS INC: Filing for Class Status Bid Due Feb. 8, 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Plantronics, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 4:19-cv-07481-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Jon S. Tigar entered an order amending class certification briefing
and modifying discovery deadlines as follows:
-- Corrected Motion to Amend: Oct. 20, 2023
-- Motion to Amend Opp.: Nov. 21, 2023
-- Motion to Amend Reply: Dec. 21, 2023
-- Motion to Amend Hearing: Jan. 25, 2024
-- Plaintiffs File Class Certification Feb. 8, 2024
Motion:
-- Written Discovery Cutoff: Feb. 22, 2024
-- Defendants' Class Opposition: March 21, 2024
-- Fact Discovery Cutoff: April 9, 2024
-- Plaintiffs' Proposed Class Reply: April 18, 2024
-- Opening Expert Reports: May 10, 2024
-- Hearing for Class Certification May 2024
-- Opposing Expert Reports: June 26, 2024
-- Reply Expert Reports: Aug. 16, 2024
-- Expert Discovery Cutoff: Aug. 29, 2024
-- Deadline to file dispositive Sept. 10, 2024
Motions:
-- Deadline to file oppositions Oct. 21, 2024
to dispositive motions:
-- Deadline to file replies for Nov. 22, 2024
dispositive motions:
-- Hearing on dispositive motions: Dec. 19, 2024
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46Y9pOs at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Sean R. Matt, Esq.
Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
karlb@hbsslaw.com
reed@hbsslaw.com
lucasg@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq.
Lauren A. Ormsbee, Esq.
Alexander T. Payne, Esq.
William Freeland, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER &
GROSSMANN LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 819-3470
E-mail: jonathanu@blbglaw.com
lauren@blbglaw.com
alex.payne@blbglaw.com
billy.freeland@blbglaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Susan S. Muck, Esq.
Kevin P. Muck, Esq.
Noah S. Guiney, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND
DORR LLP
One Front Street, Suite 3500
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (628) 235-1002
Facsimile: (628) 235-1001
E-mail: susan.muck@wilmerhale.com
kevin.muck@wilmerhale.com
noah.guiney@wilmerhale.com
POWER SOLUTIONS: Faces Securities Suit Over BIPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Power Solutions International, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for
the quarterly period ended August 14, 2023, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2023, that the
company is facing a punitive class-action complaint filed in
October 2018 against the company and NOVAtime Technology, Inc. in
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
In December 2018, NOVAtime removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division under
the Class Action Fairness Act. Plaintiff has since voluntarily
dismissed NOVAtime from the lawsuit without prejudice and filed an
amended complaint in April 2019.
The operative, amended complaint asserts violations of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) in connection with
employees' use of the time clock to clock in and clock out using a
finger scan and seeks statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and
injunctive and equitable relief. An aggrieved party under BIPA may
recover (i) $1,000 per violation if the company is found to have
negligently violated BIPA or (ii) $5,000 per violation if the
Company is found to have intentionally or recklessly violated BIPA
plus reasonable attorneys' fees.
In May 2019, the company filed its motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's amended complaint. In December 2019, the court denied
the Company’s motion to dismiss. In January 2020, the company
moved for reconsideration of the court's order denying the motion
to dismiss, or in the alternative, to stay the case.
In February 2020, the court denied the company's motion for
reconsideration, but required the parties to submit additional
briefing on the company's motion to stay. In April 2020, the court
granted the company's motion to stay and stayed the case pending
the Illinois Appellate Court's ruling in McDonald v. Symphony
Healthcare. In October 2020, after the McDonald ruling, the court
granted the parties' joint request to continue the stay of the case
for 60 days. The court also ordered the parties to schedule a
settlement conference with the Magistrate Judge in May 2021 which
went forward without a settlement being reached. On May 22, 2023,
the company filed the answer to the amended complaint. The case is
in discovery proceedings.
Power Solutions International, Inc. is a global producer and
distributor of a broad range of high-performance, certified,
low-emission power systems, including alternative-fueled power
systems for original equipment manufacturers of off-highway
industrial equipment and certain on-road vehicles and large
custom-engineered integrated electrical power generation systems.
PRICELESS CLOTHING: Gonzalez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Priceless Clothing
Company. The case is styled as Yanilza Gonzalez, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Priceless Clothing
Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-09206 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 19, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Priceless -- https://www.shoppriceless.com/ -- offers the latest
fashion trends for women and teens.[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
PRO'S CLOSET: DiMeglio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Pro's Closet,
Inc. The case is styled as Maria DiMeglio, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. The Pro's Closet, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-09244-ALC (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Pro's Closet -- https://www.theproscloset.com/ -- is a
re-Commerce company that specializes in premium pre-owned bike and
bike component sales.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Mosqueda Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Rosemary Mosqueda, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION
and PENSION BENEFIT INFORMATION, LLC d/b/a PBI RESEARCH SERVICES,
Case No. 0:23-cv-02278 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on Oct. 19, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12440-ADB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Property Damage.
Progress Software Corporation -- https://www.progress.com/ -- is an
American public company that offers software for creating and
deploying business applications.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE P.C.
43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414
Phone: (612) 594-5933
Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
Email: emdrake@bm.net
- and -
Mark B. DeSanto, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE, PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 875-3000
Fax: (215) 875-4604
Email: mdesanto@bm.net
QUALVOICE LLC: Court OK's Class & Collective Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDY FREDERICK, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. QUALVOICE LLC and
RODNEY NEDD, individually, Case No. 1:21-cv-02689-MMH (E.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Marcia M. Henry entered an order approving class and
collective action settlement.
The Court finds that the Settlement reached by the parties is fair,
reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Plaintiffs
and the Rule 23 Plaintiffs as defined in the Court’s Preliminary
Approval Order and satisfies all requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), as well as Section 216(b) of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The Court has previously certified and now grants in light of the
date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, final
certification to the following two Settlement Classes:
(a) all individuals employed by Defendants as cable
installers/technicians, who, at any time during the period
of
October 10, 2018, to August 31, 2021, worked for Defendants
in New York; and
(b) all individuals employed by Defendants as cable
installers/technicians, who, at any time during the period
of
October 10, 2018, to August 31, 2021, worked for Defendants
in
New York, and who timely submit a Claim Form, thereby opting
into the settlement and, in so doing, releasing their FLSA
claims.
The Court makes the following findings of fact:
(a) Class Counsel has vigorously prosecuted this case and
conducted
extensive investigation of the governing law, relevant
facts,
and relevant documents. During the prosecution of the
litigation, Class Counsel and Defendants’ counsel
undertook
meaningful and sufficient investigation and the parties
exchanged sufficient and adequate discovery to fully and
fairly
evaluate the claims and defenses asserted by the parties,
and
to make an informed decision about the Settlement.
(b) The distribution of the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
equitable.
(c) Class Members were required to submit claim forms or to have
already opted in to the conditionally certified collective
in
this matter, of which a combined total of 15 Class Members
will
be mailed a check for their individual settlement amounts,
calculated based on the formula found in the Parties'
Settlement Agreement,
(d) The Settlement provides for a service award to the Named
Plaintiff Andy Frederick in the amount of $15,000.00.
(e) The Settlement also provides for a payment of $143,170.00,
or
the equivalent of 31.8% of the total Settlement amount as
attorneys' fees, plus $6,830.00 for Class Counsel's out-of-
pocket expenses, to be paid to Class Counsel.
(f) Class Administrator fees are to be paid to Arden Claims
Service
LLC in the amount of $12,000.00.
(g) Given the disputed issues of fact and law and the risks to
the
Class Members, and the further delay that would be caused by
continued litigation, including potential trial, and the
subsequent appeal of any judgment after trial, the
Settlement
is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the Class
Members.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/49ggn3s at no extra charge.[CC]
RAY ALLEN MANUFACTURING: Castro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ray Allen
Manufacturing, LLC. The case is styled as Felix Castro, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Ray Allen
Manufacturing, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-09203-KPF (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 19,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ray Allen Manufacturing -- https://www.rayallen.com/ -- is your
source for police K9 equipment, military working dog gear and
professional K-9 supplies.[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
RC JEWELS INC: Tarr Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RC Jewels, Inc. The
case is styled as Ellen Elizabeth Tarr, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. RC Jewels, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-09269 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
RC Jewels, Inc. -- https://www.rcjewels.in/ -- is a manufacturer
and dealer of Choco, Metric and Bahubali Chains.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
REFINERY LTD: Gonzalez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Refinery Ltd. Co.
The case is styled as Yanilza Gonzalez, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. The Refinery Ltd. Co., Case No.
1:23-cv-09211 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 19, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Refinery -- https://shop-therefinery.com/ -- offer trendy
styles of clothing and accessories at affordable prices.[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
ROCKWELL COLLINS: Leeman Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Leeman, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved
Employees v. ROCKWELL COLLINS INC., a California Stock Corporation,
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 23SM CV04978 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 19, 2023), is brought pursuant
to the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004
as a result of the Defendants failure to pay the Plaintiff proper
compensations.
The Defendants failed to provide employment records in violation of
Labor Code; failed to pay overtime and double time in violation of
Labor Code and the applicable Wage Orders; failed to provide rest
and meal periods in violation of Labor Code and the applicable Wage
Orders; failed to pay minimum wage in violation of Labor Code and
the applicable Wage Orders; failed to keep accurate payroll records
and provide itemized wage statements in violation of Labor Code,
and the applicable Wage Orders; failed to pay reporting time wages
in violation of California Code of Regulations Title 8; failed to
pay split shift wages in violation of California Code of
Regulations; failed to pay all wages earned on time in violation of
Labor Code; failed to pay all wages earned upon discharge or
resignation in violation of Labor Code; failed to reimburse
necessary, business related expenses in violation of Labor Code;
failed to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual in violation
of Labor Code; employers, and individuals acting on behalf of
employers, violating or causing to be violated a section of the
Labor Code or any Wage Order in violation of Labor Code, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is an individual who resides in California and was
employed by The Defendants from February 07, 2022 until about May
29, 2023.
The Defendants are designers, producers, and marketers of
electronic communications, avionics and in-flight entertainment
systems.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
Melissa Robinson, Esq.
HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: 1-818-696-2306
Facsimile: 1-818-696-2307
Email: haig@hbklawyers.com
melissa@hbklawyers.com
ROLLS-ROYCE HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit Over Corruption Scandal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Cunha of MorningStar reports that Rolls-Royce Holdings PLC may
face a class action lawsuit worth GBP350 million from shareholders
related to a corruption scandal from back in 2017, the Telegraph
reported on October 22, 2023.
Investors are working with lawyers to receive compensation,
believing the jet engine maker made misrepresentations to the
market about the scandal.
The Telegraph reported that Rolls-Royce has turned to Slaughter &
May to stave off a litigation, the same law firm it used during the
corruption scandal.
More information on the alleged scandal at
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/10/22/rolls/
Back in January 2017, Rolls-Royce said it will have to pay GBP671.0
million relating to bribery and corruption charges in a number of
overseas markets.
It reached a deferred prosecution agreement with the UK Serious
Fraud Office after passing concerns regarding bribery and
corruption involving intermediaries to the SFO from 2012 onwards.
It also reached a deferred prosecution agreement with the US
Department of Justice and a leniency agreement with Brazil's
Ministerio Publico Federal. [GN]
SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Court Lifts Stay of Fox Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS A. FOX, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF SAGINAW,
by its BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-11887-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Thomas L.
Ludington entered an order:
-- lifting stay,
-- denying as moot three motions to Temporarily lift stay,
-- denying plaintiff's motion for clarification that the class
remains certified,
-- granting Plaintiff's motion to file second amended complaint,
and
-- directing plaintiff to file second amended complaint,
The Plaintiff Fox owed $3,091.23 in delinquent property taxes. So,
as was required by Michigan law, Gratiot County foreclosed on his
property, sold it at auction for $25,500, and then retained the
$22,408.77 in surplus proceeds that exceeded his delinquent
property-tax bill.
In June 2019, he filed a class-action lawsuit against 27 counties
in the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging the counties violated
property owners' state and federal constitutional rights each time
they followed the statutorily prescribed tax-foreclosure scheme by
foreclosing on properties and retaining the surplus proceeds.
Saginaw County contains three cities, 27 townships and six
incorporated villages.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Fx1vjr at no extra charge.[CC]
SECURED INVESTMENT: Ramsey Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Clint Ramsey, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Secured Investment Corp., Does 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 23STCV22178 was
removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 19, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-08826-FLA-AGR to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Secured Investment Corp. -- https://securedinvestmentcorp.com/ --
is one of the fastest growing companies in the private money
marketplace in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
Meghan Elisabeth George, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN
21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Joshua M Briones, Esq.
Grecia Rivas, Esq.
MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY AND POPEO P.C.
2049 Century Park East Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 586-3200
Fax: (310) 586-3202
Email: jbriones@mintz.com
garivas@mintz.com
SEWING DOWN SOUTH: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sewing Down South,
LLC. The case is styled as Nadreca Reid, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Sewing
Down South, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-09235 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sewing Down South, LLC -- https://www.sewingdownsouth.com/ --
offers pillows, hats, totes and tee shirts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
SHARKNINJA INC: Faces Class Suit Over Nonstick Cookware False Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Richards of Channel News reports that can you heat up a fry
pan to 17,000 degrees Celsius or 16,648 degrees? SharkNionja who
are flogging frying pans in Australia claim you can, now they are
about to be taken to court with claims that this is impossible.
A class action lawsuit, which claims the advertising for
SharkNinja's nonstick cookware violates the laws of physics and
thermodynamics, has kicked off in a US court with the person
spearheading the campaign claiming that NASA recently said the
“surface of the Sun is a blisteringly hot 17,100 degrees
Celsius,” meaning SharkNinja's manufacturing process reaches
about three times that temperature.
Mann & Noble is the distributor of this product in Australia where
it is sold under the Ninja brand.SharkNinja is best known in
Australia for their Shark robovacs, and Ninja kitchen gadgets sold
at the likes of The Good Guys and JB Hi Fi as well as Harvey
Norman.
The legal actions target the Companies Premium Cookware collection,
which the Company advertises as having superior nonsticking and
nonflaking qualities thanks to its manufacturing process.
The frypan costs $199 in Australia, but after being discounted out
to $79 locally, now has a sold-out sticker or the Company has
stopped selling the product because of the legal action.
Both Myer and Catch are selling the SharkNionja product.
Most none stick pans are manufactured at 480-degrees however
SharkNinja says it heats up the cookware to a maximum of 17,000
degrees Fahrenheit a process that the Company claims fuses
“plasma ceramic particles” to the surface of the pan.
They claim that this process creates a super-hard textured surface
that interlocks with their exclusive coating for a superior bond.
But Patricia Brown, the person who filed the lawsuit in the USA as
part of a class action, isn't buying it according to documents
filed in a Californian Court.
Brown claims that heating up SharkNinja's pans to this temperature
are a “physical impossibility,” given that aluminium vaporizes
into gas at 2,470 degrees Celsius.
Her claim also points out that SharkNinja advertises the pan as
oven-safe up to only 260 degrees Celsius.
Some observers claim that SharkNinja's claims could be accurate
citing an article from The Washington Post that describes a ceramic
coating process that sounds close to what SharkNinja advertises:
The newest high-tech wrinkle in nonstickiness is a coating called
ceramic-titanium, developed in Denmark, and used on Scanpan
cookware. A mixture of titanium and a ceramic, so hot (17,000
degrees Celsius) that their atoms are broken down into a cloud of
charged particles (Techspeak: a plasma), is fired at supersonic
speed at the surface of an aluminium pan, where it anchors itself
right into the metal, making an extremely hard, unscratchable
surface.
Brown claims that SharkNinja's claims “are little more than a
glitzy, deceptive marketing technique” that convinces customers
to purchase its NeverStick products, which are more expensive than
the nonstick pans from competitors.
This is a court case worth watching. [GN]
SHAUN FERGUSON: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to May 17, 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REMINGTYN A. WILLIAMS, ET
AL. v. SHAUN FERGUSON, ET AL., Case No. 2:21-cv-00852-DJP-MBN (E.D.
La.), the Hon. Judge Darrel James Papillion entered an order
granting in part and denying in part the parties' joint motion to
modify the current scheduling order.
To the extent the parties jointly seek an April 12, 2024, deadline
to move for class certification and a May 17, 2024, discovery
deadline, the parties' motion is granted.
To the extent the parties seek a status conference, the motion is
denied. On or before October 27, 2023, the parties shall advise the
Court in writing of the dates each party proposed and upon which
the parties could not agree, after which the Court will issue an
amended scheduling order.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QozosV at no extra charge.[CC]
SIDWELL AIR: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 12, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAKOTA ROBERTS and DAWN
MARIE HACKER, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, v. SIDWELL AIR FREIGHT, INC, and DHL EXPRESS (USA) INC.,
d/b/a DHL EXPRESS, Case No. 3:21-cv-05912-TMC (W.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright entered an order on stipulated
motion and proposed order setting class certification briefing
schedule
and amended case schedule:
-- The Plaintiffs file their motion for April 12, 2024
class certification:
-- The Defendants file their class May 10, 2024
certification response:
-- The Plaintiffs file their class May 24, 2024
certification reply:
-- The Defendants file their motion to Aug. 30, 2024
Decertify:
-- The Plaintiffs file their Sept. 20, 2024
Decertification response:
-- The Defendants' file their Sept. 27, 2024
decertification reply:
-- Dispositive Motion Deadline: Nov. 1, 2024
-- Motions in limine should be Jan. 27, 2025
filed pursuant to Local
Rule CR 7(d)(4) by:
-- Agreed pretrial order filed with Feb. 10, 2025
the Court by:
-- Pretrial conference will be Feb. 18, 2025
held at 01:30 PM on:
-- Trial briefs, proposed voir dire, Feb. 10, 2025
jury instructions, agreed neutral
statement of the case and
deposition designations due by:
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FqJXFI at no extra charge.[CC]
SIMON'S AGENCY: 3rd Cir. Vacates Class Cert. Order in Huber Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JAMIE HUBER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SIMON'S AGENCY, INC., Appellant,
Case No. 22-2483 (3d Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit affirms that the Appellant violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, and vacates class certification order.
The matter is on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 2-19-cv-01424, District
Judge: Honorable Anita B. Brody).
Since it entered the scene in 1989, the informational injury
doctrine of Article III standing has generated its share of
confusion, and with each new case, its contours have come into
sharper focus, says Circuit Judge Cheryl Ann Krause, writing for
the Panel. In this case, Appellee Jamie Huber and the class of
consumers she seeks to represent brought suit under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Sections
1692–1692p, after receiving confusing collection letters from
Appellant Simon's Agency, Inc. (SAI).
The District Court agreed the letters were "misleading and
deceptive" in violation of the Act, certified the class, and
granted summary judgment in SAI's favor. It also rejected SAI's
jurisdictional challenge to the Plaintiffs' standing under Article
III. It holds that while confusion from the letter would not
suffice, Huber had standing under the informational injury doctrine
because she suffered a concrete financial consequence as a result
of her confusion. The other class members also had standing under
"the same theory" because they "inevitably" could be expected to
suffer the same harm.
The Panel agrees with the District Court that Huber has standing,
but not under the informational injury doctrine. After the District
Court rendered its ruling, the Court of Appeals decided Kelly v.
RealPage Inc., 47 F.4th 202, 213 (3d Cir. 2022), which clarified
that a plaintiff, who seeks to establish standing based on an
"informational injury," must identify omitted information to which
she has entitlement.
Judge Krause opines that Huber did not do so and, therefore, did
not suffer an informational injury. But she does have standing on a
different basis--that the financial harm she suffered in reliance
on the letter bears a "close relationship" to the harm associated
with the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation, citing Spokeo, Inc.
v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 341 (2016). If the other proposed class
members can also make that showing, they, too, will have standing,
but confusion alone does not constitute concrete injury, and the
present record does not reflect whether any of the class members
suffered any consequences beyond confusion, Judge Krause points
out.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirms the District
Court's determination that SAI's letter violated the FDCPA, 15
U.S.C. Section 1692e, and that Huber herself has standing, but it
remands for the District Court to consider the extent to which
unnamed class members may have standing to "recover individual
damages," and the implications of that determination for class
certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).
Ms. Huber filed this putative class action against SAI in 2019
alleging, among other things, that the fourth collection letter
constituted a "false, deceptive, or misleading" means of collecting
a debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e. She also alleged
that SAI's letter failed to disclose the "amount of the debt" as
required by 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(1). But the District Court
remarked that the letter straightforwardly stated that the "Amount"
of Huber's fourth debt was $178, so there was no actionable failure
to disclose.
Accordingly, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor
of SAI on Huber's Section 1692g(a)(1) claim, and Huber does not
challenge that ruling on appeal. Following discovery, both parties
moved for summary judgment on Huber's Section 1692e claim, and she
prevailed. Applying the Court's objective "least sophisticated
debtor standard," the District Court observed such a debtor could
reasonably read SAI's collection letter in two ways: the
recipient's total debt could be either the sum of the "Amount" and
the "Various Other Accounts Total Balance," or the latter already
representing that sum. Because the former reading is
inaccurate--the "Various Other Accounts Total Balance" in fact
represents the total debt--the District Court ruled that SAI's form
letter was indeed deceptive and therefore violated Section 1692e as
a matter of law.
Claiming that hundreds of other debtors were also subject to this
violation, Huber moved to certify a class under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). Her proposed class consisted of "all
consumers in Clifton Heights, PA (1) who received a [form]
Collection letter from the Defendant (2) containing a reference to
'Various Other Accounts[,'] (3) on an obligation owed or allegedly
owed to Crozer, (4) during the time period of April 4, 2018 to May
30, 2018." The District Court granted that motion, holding the
proposed class satisfied the numerosity, commonality, typicality,
and adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a), and the predominance and
superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3).
SAI, now facing class-wide liability, moved for reconsideration on
the ground that Huber and the unnamed members of her class had not
suffered a concrete injury for purposes of Article III standing.
The District Court disagreed. Correctly observing that this Court
had not yet issued a precedential opinion on injury-in-fact
stemming from the misleading communications of debt collectors, the
District Court thoughtfully sought to determine what constitutes
such an injury in the FDCPA context. It did so under the auspices
of the "informational injury doctrine."
Because the Court of Appeals had treated improper disclosures of
private information as concrete, if intangible, informational
injuries in prior FDCPA cases, the District Court inferred that the
dissemination of misleading information likewise should be viewed
as a species of informational harm--at least where that that
misleading information "influences a plaintiff's credit or
management of their debt." For this intangible harm to be concrete,
it recognized, "confusion itself is not enough," rather, the
Plaintiff must have engaged in consequential action or inaction
following receipt of the misleading or deceptive collection letter.
Such action could lead a plaintiff to pay extra money, affect a
plaintiff's credit, or otherwise alter a plaintiff's response to a
debt.
On that basis, the District Court concluded that Huber had standing
because she was not merely confused or anxious, but also suffered
two types of "financial consequences" as a result of her confusion:
(1) seeking assistance from a professional to figure out how to
interpret the letter and how to handle her debt; and (2) being
unable to pay down her debts or otherwise take appropriate action
(other than turning to a third party at her own additional cost)
because of the misinformation in SAI's letter.
As for the other class members, the District Court extrapolated
that they all had standing under "the same theory of harm" because
they received the same confusing letter from SAI, and being
provided with misleading or deceptive information about a debt
would "inevitably" prevent each member's appropriate action to
manage their debt. The District Court, therefore, denied SAI's
motion for reconsideration.
Ten days later, the parties stipulated to the statutory damages
Huber and the class would receive under the FDCPA if the District
Court's rulings were upheld on appeal. Huber would receive $1,000
in statutory damages; the unnamed class members would collectively
receive $5,000 in statutory damages to be "distributed on a pro
rata basis"; and Huber would also receive a $5,000 service award
for her work in representing the class over the past three years.
The District Court entered the stipulation as a final appealable
order, and SAI timely appealed.
While it agrees with the District Court's determination that Huber
herself has Article III standing, the Panel reached that conclusion
on different grounds, Judge Krause says.
Because Huber has not alleged that SAI omitted information to which
she was entitled, Judge Krause finds she did not suffer an
informational injury. The Court of Appeals agrees with the District
Court that confusion, without more, is not a concrete injury.
Instead, to analogize to the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation,
a Section 1692e claimant must suffer some cognizable harm that
flows from that confusion.
Judge Krause finds that Huber has established that detrimental
action for the reasons the District Court adeptly summarized. She
did not merely suffer from confusion, but from two resulting
"financial consequences": one in consulting with her financial
advisor, which the District Court found was "at her own additional
cost," and the other in her failure to "pay down her debts or
otherwise take appropriate action" beyond that consultation.
Those detrimental consequences are sufficiently similar to the kind
of harm protected by the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation to
establish Huber's standing, Judge Krause holds.
And here, tracking the common-law analogy to fraudulent
misrepresentation, Judge Krause finds that Huber has identified
both an allegedly deceptive communication and specific harmful
action and inaction she took as a result of that communication.
She, therefore, suffered a concrete injury for Article III
purposes, Judge Krause points out.
Whether the Panel examines the fourth collection letter from the
perspective of a purely objective least sophisticated debtor or a
least sophisticated debtor in Huber's position, Judge Krause finds
SAI's letter is "deceptive" for purposes of Section 1692e. The
Court of Appeals, therefore, affirms the District Court's grant of
summary judgment in Huber's favor on that claim.
Because Huber has Article III standing, Judge Krause finds her
proposed class action presents a justiciable case or controversy
even though some unnamed class members may lack standing. On the
other hand, the possibility that some unnamed class members lack
standing may prevent certification under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.
Like the Eleventh Circuit in Cordoba v. DIRECTV, LLC, 942 F.3d
1259, 1277 (11th Cir. 2019), the Court of Appeals concludes that
remand is necessary here owing to the lack of evidence in the
record indicating how many members of Huber's class are likely to
have standing and how burdensome that showing will be for both the
District Court and the parties.
Because the District Court decided that Huber and the unnamed
members of her class suffered informational injuries, the Court had
no occasion to consider how individualized evidence of unnamed
class members' standing would affect the balance of common versus
individual issues for purposes of predominance, or what proportion
of the class could be expected to establish standing. Thus, the
District Court must assess the implications of those individualized
showings for the predominance requirement of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3).
On remand, Judge Krause says Huber should submit evidence enabling
the District Court to estimate "how many class members (or what
proportion of them)" have standing. Additionally, the Court should
evaluate the feasibility of receiving individualized evidence on
class members' standing. If the Court surmises that few class
members will be able to show they undertook the kind of detrimental
action or inaction required for standing or that "it will be
extraordinarily difficult to identify those who did," then Huber's
proposed class is not "sufficiently cohesive to warrant
adjudication by representation."
By contrast, if many class members appear likely to satisfy
standing or if there is a plausible straightforward method to sort
them out at the back end of the case, then the class might
appropriately proceed as it is currently defined, Judge Krause
holds.
Judge Krause explains that the Judge on the District Court--given
her deep familiarity with this case and vast experience on the
bench--is well-equipped to make those determinations. The Court of
Appeals, therefore, vacates the class certification order and
remands for the District Court to decide whether Huber's proposed
class satisfies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)
notwithstanding the individualized evidence class members must
submit to demonstrate standing and recover damages.
In addition, because the District Court's damages award was
predicated on its class certification decision, the Court of
Appeals also vacates that order to enable the District Court to
reassess damages, if needed to avoid any anomalous windfall. The
District Court can then exercise its wide discretion, depending on
its determinations as to certification and the number of class
members expected to have standing and to recover damages, to ensure
appropriate amounts of both statutory damages and attorney's fees.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirms the District
Court's rulings that Huber has Article III standing and that SAI's
form collection letter violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e. However,
the Court of Appeals vacates the District Court's orders certifying
Huber's proposed class and awarding damages and remands for
proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
Circuit Judge Marjorie Rendell concurs in part and dissents in
part.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Oct. 12, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4k4ddjzd from PacerMonitor.com.
Yitzchak Zelman -- yzelman@marcuszelman.com -- Ari H. Marcus --
ari@marcuszelman.com -- Marcus & Zelman, 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite
300, in Asbury Park, New Jersey 07712, Counsel for the Appellee.
David B. Shaver -- dshaver@sdtlawyers.com -- Surdyk Dowd & Turner,
8163 Old Yankee Street, Suite C, in Dayton, Ohio 45458, Counsel for
the Appellant.
SLEEP LOFT: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Sleep Loft LLC.
The case is styled as Silvia Martinez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. The Sleep Loft LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-07844-TAM (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Sleep Loft Showroom is a mattress store in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
STURM RUGER & CO: Copeland Suit Consolidated with Existing Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, that in August 3, 2022, that the case
captioned "Copeland v. Sturm, Ruger & Company, et al." filed in the
U.S. District Court for New Jersey on October 27, 2022 was
dismissed and consolidated with an existing action in the U.S.
District Court for Connecticut.
Copeland also named Freestyle Solutions, Inc. as a defendant.
Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. is principally engaged in the design,
manufacture, and sale of firearms to domestic customers and
manufactures investment castings made from steel alloys and metal
injection molding parts for internal use in its firearms and for
sale to unaffiliated, third-party customers.
SUTTER HEALTH: Class Certification Opposition Due June 18, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sargony, et al. v. Sutter
Health, et al (Sutter Health ERISA Litigation), Case No.
1:20-cv-01007-JLT-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Barbara A.
McAuliffe entered an order modifying the scheduling order to extend
all deadlines by 60
days:
a. Phase 1 Discovery Cutoff: Jan. 16, 2024
b. Class Certification Motion Filing Feb. 20, 2024
Deadline:
c. Phase 2 Discovery Cutoff: May 21, 2024
d. Class Certification Opposition: June 18, 2024
e. Class Certification Reply: July 16, 2024
f. Class Certification Motion Hearing: Aug. 30, 2024
Sutter Health is a not-for-profit integrated health delivery
system.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FyyJz4 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alec Berin, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
1401 Dove St Suite 540
Newport Beach, CA 92660
The Defendants are represented by:
Donald Patrick Sullivan, Esq.
Howard Shapiro, Esq.
Stacey C.S. Cerrone, Esq.
Lindsey H. Chopin, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
50 California Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
Telephone: (415) 394-9400
Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
E-mail: Donald.Sullivan@jacksonlewis.com§
Howard.Shapiro@jacksonlewis.com
Stacey.Cerrone@jacksonlewis.com
Lindsey.Chopin@jacksonlewis.com
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Carlson Loses Bid to Move Suit to State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled DAVID CARLSON, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SWIFT
TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-05722-RJB (W.D. Wash.),
Judge Robert J. Bryan of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Tacoma, denies the Plaintiff's Motion for
Remand to State Court.
Originally filed in state court, in this putative class action, the
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, Swift Transportation Co. of
Arizona, LLC, failed to pay its Washington-resident employee truck
drivers for all overtime worked as required under Washington law,
RCW 49.46.130. The Plaintiff seeks damages, including exemplary
double damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs on behalf of
himself and others in Washington state, who are similarly
situated.
Swift removed the case. The Plaintiff now moves to remand the case
to Pierce County, Washington Superior Court asserting that Swift
has failed to carry its burden of showing that this case exceeds
the $5,000,000 jurisdictional minimum required under the Class
Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").
In its Notice of Removal, Swift alleges that the amount in
controversy is over $5,000,000. It states that it understands the
Plaintiff's definition of the putative class to include all drivers
employed by the Defendant, who are Washington residents at any time
since April 21, 2020. Without admitting liability or damages and
"based on its own business records," Swift alleges that the
putative class worked at least an aggregate 42,000 workweeks from
April 21, 2020, to April 21, 2023 and it paid them at least $20 an
hour on average. It also asserts that, given the nature of the
trucking business, it is reasonable to assume that the Plaintiff
alleges at least 6 hours of overtime per putative class member.
Swift contends that the Plaintiff's claims for unpaid overtime
wages, therefore, places at least $5,040,000 in controversy
($20/hr. x 0.5 OT premium rate x 42,000 weeks x 6 OT hours per week
x 2 for alleged liquidated damages under RWC Section 49.50.0501 =
$5,040,000). Swift asserts that if it takes a year to resolve this
case (the Notice of Removal was filed Aug. 10, 2023), an additional
10,000 workweeks will accrue, which places an additional $1,200,000
in controversy for a total of $6,240,000. Using a benchmark of 25%
of total recovery, Swift estimated the Plaintiff's claimed
attorneys' fees at $1,560,000 ($6,240,000 x 25%)
The Plaintiff now moves to remand this case, arguing that Swift has
not sufficiently shown that there is $5,000,000 in controversy
which is required for the Court to have CAFA jurisdiction. He
contends that removal was improper. Swift responded, opposed the
motion, and filed two declarations in support of its response. The
Plaintiff filed a reply.
Judge Bryan holds that the Plaintiff's motion to remand should be
denied. Judge Bryan opines that Swift has pointed to sufficient
evidence to support its assertion that the amount in controversy is
over $5,000,000 and so this Court has CAFA jurisdiction.
The Plaintiff maintains that Swift improperly removed this case
because it did not provide evidence that supported its factual
allegations with its Notice of Removal. Judge Bryan notes that
Swift had no such obligation in its Notice of Removal filing.
In response to the Plaintiff's challenge, Swift now offers
testimony from its Vice President of Payroll Administration, Robin
Rohwer, which sufficiently showed, for purposes of this motion,
that Washington-resident drivers worked for approximately 42,000
aggregate weeks for the three years before the case was filed,
worked at least 46 hours a week, and earned at least $20 per hour.
Under Washington law, overtime is compensated at one and one-half
times the regular rate.
Judge Bryan finds that the amount in controversy is at least
$5,040,000 + $1,260,000 = $6,300,000. Judge Bryan holds that Swift
has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the
jurisdictional minimum requirement is met.
"Where a removing defendant has shown potential recovery could
exceed $5 million and the plaintiff has neither acknowledged nor
sought to establish that the class recovery is potentially any
less, the defendant has borne its burden to show the amount in
controversy exceeds $5 million," Judge Bryan says, citing Arias v.
Residence Inn by Marriott, 936 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 2019).
Such is the case here, Judge Bryan holds. Hence, the Plaintiff's
motion to remand should be denied.
The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to
all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said
party's last known address.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 12, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/24dvuvh5 from PacerMonitor.com.
TABACALERA USA: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tabacalera USA, Inc.
The case is styled as Hakan Durantas, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Tabacalera USA, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-07818 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 19, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Tabacalera -- https://www.tabacalerausa.com/ --is the first and
oldest cigar factory in Asia, and is among the oldest cigar
companies in the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
TATA MOTORS: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Oct. 4, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WARREN SHELOR, v. TATA
MOTORS GROUP, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00908-MMH-PDB (M.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Marcia Morales Howard entered a case management and
scheduling order as follows:
Deadline for providing mandatory initial Dec. 15, 2023
Disclosures:
Deadline for moving to join a party or Dec. 15, 2023
amend the pleadings:
Deadline for completing fact discovery and Sept. 6, 2024
filing any motion to compel discovery:
Deadline for moving for class certification Oct. 4, 2024
under Rule 23(c) and for serving expert
disclosures under Rule 26(a)(2) in support
of class certification, including any report
required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B):
Deadline for dispositive motions on any Oct. 4, 2024
named Plaintiffs' individual claims:
Deadline for completion of depositions of Oct. 25, 2024
experts in support of class certification:
Deadline for oppositions to motion for Nov. 15, 2024
class certification, and for serving expert
disclosures under Rule 26(a)(2) in opposition
to class certification, including any report
required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B), and for opposing
any dispositive motion:
Hearing on Motion for Class Certification Jan. 13, 2025
and related Rule 702 Motions:
Date and time of the final pretrial Oct. 20, 2025
Conference:
Trial Term Begins: Nov. 3, 2025
Tata Motors is a global automobile manufacturer offering a wide
range of commercial, passenger, and EVs.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QvcMXX at no extra charge.[CC]
TAX SERVICES: Committee Seeks Leave to Appear as Amicus Curiae
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA ROBINSON, STACEY
JENNINGS, and PRISCILLA MCGOWAN, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, v. JACKSON HEWITT, INC. and TAX SERVICES
OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-09066-MEF-ESK (D.N.J.), the
Committee to Support The Antitrust Laws requests the United States
District Court, District of New Jersey, issue an order granting
them leave to appear as Amicus Curiae and to file the amicus curiae
brief that accompanies the motion.
A copy of the motion dated Oct. 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Mf4mkV at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys For Amicus Curiae The Committee To Support The
Antitrust Laws, are:
Kellie Lerner, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
1325 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2601
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 980-7400
Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
E-mail: klerner@robinskaplan.com
- and -
Kristen G. Marttila, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: kgmarttila@locklaw.com
TESLA INC: Court Grants Bid to Compel Arbitration in Yeh Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California grants the Defendant's
motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit styled HENRY YEH, et
al., Plaintiffs v. TESLA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-01704-JCS (N.D. Cal.).
Plaintiff Henry Yeh and his one-year-old son, G.Y., bring this
putative class action against Tesla, Inc., asserting common law and
statutory claims related to Tesla's alleged failure to protect
their privacy in connection with video footage captured by cameras
in their Tesla vehicle. Presently before the Court is Tesla's
Motion to Compel Arbitration of Plaintiffs' Claims on an Individual
Basis and to Dismiss the Action. The Court finds the Motion
suitable for determination without oral argument and, therefore,
vacates the hearing set for Oct. 20, 2023, pursuant to Civ. L.R.
7-1(b).
The case was initially brought by Henry Yeh, as sole Plaintiff. In
the original complaint, Yeh alleged that cameras in Tesla vehicles
-- including his Tesla Model Y -- captured highly-invasive videos
and images of the cars' owners, which Tesla employees were able to
access. He further alleged that despite Tesla's assurances that it
takes privacy seriously and only uses video footage for proper
purposes, between 2019 and 2022, video footage from Tesla vehicles
was shared improperly by Tesla employees, who circulated them "for
their own personal reasons."
The Plaintiff asserted the following claims on behalf of himself
and a putative class of individuals, who owned or leased a Tesla
vehicle at any time from four years preceding the date of the
filing of the Complaint: 1) Intrusion Upon Seclusion; 2) Violation
of California's Constitutional Right to Privacy, Cal. Const. Art.
1, Section 1; 3) Violation of the California Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq.; 4)
Violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ.
Code Sections 1750, et seq.; 5) Negligence; 6) Breach of Contract;
7) Negligent Misrepresentation; 8) Intentional Misrepresentation;
and 9) Unjust Enrichment.
In response to the Complaint, Tesla brought a motion to compel
arbitration and a motion to dismiss. In the former, Tesla asserted
that Yeh was bound by the arbitration provisions to which he agreed
when he ordered his Tesla vehicle online and subsequently when he
signed the retail installment sale contract. According to Tesla,
these provisions required that all of Yeh's claims be arbitrated on
an individual basis.
In the motion to dismiss, Tesla argued that Yeh's claims failed
under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for
lack of Article III standing because Yeh failed to allege that any
video footage from his Tesla was improperly accessed or shared or
that he suffered any cognizable injury. Tesla further asserted that
Yeh's claims failed under Rule 12(b)(6) because he did not allege
any viable claim and that as to the claims that sounded in fraud,
he did not meet the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b).
Instead of opposing the motion to dismiss, Yeh filed an amended
complaint (First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). The Court found that
the FAC rendered moot both the motion to dismiss and the motion to
compel arbitration. In the FAC, which is the operative complaint,
Yeh's infant son, G.Y., was added as a plaintiff. G.Y. was born
after Yeh took delivery of his Tesla vehicle in February 2022. The
FAC expands upon the factual allegations in the original complaint.
Among other things, it includes specific allegations related to the
"substantial risk" that Yeh and G.Y. were recorded when Yeh's
vehicle was in "Sentry" mode and that Tesla employees had access to
those recordings for improper purposes.
The FAC includes all of the claims that were asserted in the
original complaint; in addition, the FAC includes a claim for
Violation of the Right to Publicity. The claims for Breach of
Contract and Negligent and Intentional Misrepresentation are
asserted only by Yeh. The remaining claims are asserted by both Yeh
and G.Y.
On July 31, 2023, Tesla renewed its motion to compel and its motion
to dismiss. Those motions are presently pending before the Court.
In the Motion to Compel, Tesla contends Yeh entered into two
arbitration agreements in connection with the purchase of his
vehicle and that both require that his claims be submitted to
arbitration on an individual basis. First, when Yeh order his Model
Y online, on Nov. 6, 2021, he agreed to Tesla's Motor Vehicle Order
Agreement ("Order Agreement"). Second, on Feb. 26, 2022, Yeh, his
co-buyer, and Tesla entered into a Retail Installment Sale Contract
("Sale Agreement") for the financing and purchase of a 2021 Tesla
Model Y vehicle. Both the Order Agreement and the Sale Agreement
contain arbitration provisions with class waivers.
Tesla contends the arbitration agreements signed by Yeh are also
binding on G.Y. because of the special relationship between Yeh and
G.Y. According to Tesla, equitable estoppel prohibits Yeh from
avoiding the arbitration provisions to which he agreed by pursuing
his claims as his son's guardian ad litem.
In their Opposition, the Plaintiffs concede that Yeh agreed to the
arbitration provision in the Order Agreement and did not opt out of
that provision. They assert, however, that the arbitration
provision in the Sale Agreement has no effect because of language
in the Order Agreement arbitration provision stating: "If you do
not opt out, this agreement overrides any different arbitration
agreement between us, including any arbitration agreement in a
lease or finance contract." The Plaintiffs further contend that the
arbitration provision in the Order Agreement should not be enforced
because it is unconscionable, both procedurally and substantively.
The Plaintiffs argue that the arbitration provision in the Order
Agreement is procedurally unconscionable because it was offered on
a take-it-or-leave-it basis, that is, that it is a contract of
adhesion. They further assert that its procedural unconscionability
is not diminished by the fact that it permits buyers to opt out
because even if Yeh had opted out, he would have been bound to
arbitrate his dispute under the Sale Agreement, which does not
contain an opt-out provision.
Finally, the Plaintiffs contend G.Y. cannot be contractually bound
to arbitrate his claims against Tesla because minors can disaffirm
contracts signed for them by parents and G.Y. disaffirmed any
agreements with Tesla by filing this lawsuit instead of demanding
arbitration.
The Court finds that Yeh's unconscionability defense must be
decided by the arbitrator and not the Court and that all of his
claims are subject to arbitration. The Court concludes that it
would be inequitable to permit G.Y. to litigate claims that are so
closely intertwined with the claims his father agreed to arbitrate
and, therefore, that G.Y. is bound by the arbitration provision in
the Order Agreement.
The Court rejects the Plaintiffs' assertions that the doctrine of
equitable estoppel does not apply because the protection of Yeh's
child was not the sole reason he purchased the vehicle. The only
case cited in support of this argument, A.D. v. Credit One Bank,
N.A., 885 F.3d 1054 (7th Cir. 2018), is distinguishable, Judge
Spero holds.
Nor does the Court find persuasive the Plaintiffs' argument that
the doctrine of equitable estoppel is inapplicable because a court
could find that Tesla invaded G.Y.'s privacy but not his father's.
Judge Spero points out that the Plaintiffs have pointed to no
authority that suggests that the claims of the non-signatory must
be identical to those of the signatory or entirely derivative of
the signatory's claims to justify binding the non-signatory to the
arbitration agreement as a matter of equity.
Finally, the Court rejects the Plaintiffs' reliance on the fact
that G.Y., as a minor, is incapable of entering into a contract and
can, as a matter of statute, disaffirm a contract. Under California
law, Judge Spero opines, the infancy defense may not be used
inequitably to retain the benefits of a contract while reneging on
the obligations attached to that benefit.
For these reasons, the Court finds that under the principles of
equitable estoppel, G.Y. must arbitrate his claims pursuant to the
arbitration provision in the Order Agreement to which his father
agreed.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Motion to Compel as to the claims
of both Yeh and G.Y., which must be arbitrated. This action is
stayed pending arbitration of the Plaintiffs' claims.
The parties are ordered to file a joint statement regarding the
status of the Plaintiffs' claims within seven (7) days of the
conclusion of the arbitration proceedings. The Clerk is directed to
administratively close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 12, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2z2nf654 from PacerMonitor.com.
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Class Cert Reply Due Nov 3 in Wollam Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CYNTHIA WOLLAM, v.
TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:21-cv-09134-JST
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order denying
the Defendant's motion to shorten time and setting hearing dates:
-- The Defendant Transamerica's motion to shorten time is denied.
-- The Plaintiff Cynthia Wollam shall file an opposition or
statement of non-opposition to Transamerica's motion to stay,
by
October 27, 2023.
-- Transamerica's reply shall be filed by November 3, 2023.
-- Unless otherwise ordered, Transamerica’s motion to stay will
be
heard on November 16, 2023.
-- The hearing on Wollam's motion for class certification is
continued to January 4, 2024.
Transamerica primarily offers insurance and financial services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MAkyxp at no extra charge.[CC]
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Class Cert Discovery Extended to March 1, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOMMY BROWN, v. TRANSWORLD
SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00680-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge David G. Estudillo entered an order regarding case
deadlines to accommodate the remaining discovery as follows:
Event Scheduled Rescheduled
Date Date
Defendants' disclosure of experts Oct. 30, 2023 Jan. 30,
2024
relating to class certification
and disclosure of available
deposition dates
Hearing Date for Defendant Nov. 10, 2023 Feb. 12,
2024
Patenaude & Felix, APC's Motion
to Deny Class Allegations
(ECF No. 144); (ECF No. 148)
Discovery deadline for class Nov. 29, 2023 Mar. 1, 2024
certification fact issues
Plaintiff's disclosure of Nov. 29, 2023 Mar. 1, 2024
rebuttal experts re: class
certification and disclosure of
available deposition dates for
rebuttal expert
Deadline to complete expert Jan. 28, 2024 Apr. 29,
2024
depositions
Plaintiff’s motion for class Feb. 27, 2024 May 28,
2024
certification due
Transworld provides receivables collection and management
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Fx1k7L at no extra charge.[CC]
TRIIBE INC: Zelvin Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Triibe, Inc. The case
is styled as Lynn Zelvin, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Triibe, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-09253-JPC
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
TRiiBE -- https://thetriibe.com/ -- is a digital media platform
that is reshaping the narrative of Black Chicago and giving
ownership back to the people.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
TRUSTCO BANK: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Feb. 16, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Livingston v. Trustco
Bank, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01030 (N.D.N.Y., Filed Sept. 2,
2020), the Hon. Judge Glenn T. Suddaby entered an order granting
the requests in Status Report insofar as and to the extent that:
(1) The parties shall file next detailed Dec. 4, 2023
status reports by:
(2) The deadlines and schedules are extended,
in that,
(a) Mandatory Mediation shall be completed Dec. 1, 2023
By:
(b) All Discovery (including merits, class, Jan. 19, 2024
documentary, and all depositions) shall
be completed by:
(c) Any class certification motion shall Feb. 16, 2024
be filed by:
(d) Dispositive motions shall be filed by: March 1, 2024
The suit alleges violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.
Trustco offers mortgage, home equity line, retirement plans,
checking accounts, and more.[CC]
TURQUOISE HILL: Class Oral Argument Rescheduled to Feb. 22, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:20-cv-08585 (S.D.N.Y., Filed Oct.
14, 2020), the Hon. Judge Lewis J Liman entered an order granting
letter motion to adjourn conference.
-- The Oral Argument on the motion for class certification
previously
set for November 17, 2023 is rescheduled to Feb. 22, 2024 at
2:00PM in Courtroom 15C at the 500 Pearl Street Courthouse.
The nature of suit states Other Statutes --
Securities/Commodities/Exchange.[CC]
TURQUOISE HILL: Lead Plaintiff Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:20-cv-08585-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the
Lead Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
-- Certifying a class of investors defined as:
"All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Turquoise Hill securities between July 17, 2018 and July 31,
2019,
inclusive, in domestic transactions or on U.S. exchanges, and
were
damaged thereby;"
-- Appointing Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative; and
-- Approving Lead Plaintiff's selection of Bernstein Litowitz
Berger
& Grossmann LLP as Class Counsel.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 19, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/404l2RL at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq.
James A. Harrod, Esq.
Michael D. Blatchley, Esq.
Jai K. Chandrasekhar, Esq.
Nicole S. Santoro, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
E-mail: salvatore@blbglaw.com
jim.harrod@blbglaw.com
michaelb@blbglaw.com
jai@blbglaw.com
nicole.santoro@blbglaw.com
UNION BANK AND TRUST: Scott Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jeffrey Scott, Bonnie Scott, Paul F. Bender,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Union Bank and Trust Company, Case No. 4:23-cv-03126 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on Oct. 19, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-12436-ADB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
Union Bank & Trust Company -- http://www.ubt.com/-- is a privately
owned, state chartered commercial bank headquartered in Lincoln,
Nebraska.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Almeida, Esq.
Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP
333 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 1900
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 212-4954
Email: dalmeida@beneschlaw.com
- and -
Elena A. Belov, Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW FIRM
849 W. Webster Avenue
Chicago, IL 60614
Phone: (917) 716-7132
Email: elena@almeidalawgroup.com
- and -
Eric D. Barton, Esq.
Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Phone: (816) 701-1100
Email: ebarton@wcllp.com
thudson@wcllp.com
- and -
Mason A. Barney, Esq.
Tyler Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD, LLP (NA)
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Phone: (212) 532-1091
Fax: (646) 417-5967
Email: tbean@sirillp.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Charles F. Kaplan, Esq.
Robby J. Shortridge, Esq.
PERRY, GUTHERY LAW FIRM
233 South 13th Street, Suite 1400
Lincoln, NE 68508
Phone: (402) 476-9200
Fax: (402) 476-0094
Email: ckaplan@perrylawfirm.com
rshortridge@perrylawfirm.com
- and -
James Monagle, Esq.
MULLEN, COUGHLIN LAW FIRM LLC
426 West Lancaster Avenue, Suite 200
Devon, PA 19087
Phone: (267) 930-4770
Fax: (267) 930-4771
Email: jmonagle@mullen.law
UNITED PARCEL: Todd Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Joshua Todd, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., an Ohio
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2023-9034 was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Joaquin to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of California on
Oct. 20, 2023, and assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-02398-AC.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges five purported causes of action
for: failure to pay overtime wages under the California Labor Code;
failure to pay minimum wages under the California Labor Code
(erroneously titled as duplicate cause of action to third cause of
action for "failure to pay all wages upon termination"); failure to
pay all wages upon termination under the California Labor Code;
failure to provide accurate wage statements under the California
Labor Code; and unfair competition under the Business & Professions
Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Elizabeth A. Brown, Esq.
Rachel E. Davey, Esq.)
GBG LLP
601 Montgomery Street, Suite 840
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 603-5000
Facsimile: (415) 840-7210
Email: lisabrown@gbgllp.com
racheldavey@gbgllp.com
US NURSING CORPORATION: Rubel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against U.S. Nursing
Corporation. The case is styled as Heidi Rubel, Olga Malysheva, on
behalf of others similarly situated v. U.S. Nursing Corporation,
Case No. BCV-23-103524 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Oct. 20,
2023).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited
Parties and Attorneys."
U.S. Nursing -- https://www.usnursing.com/ -- is the premier strike
nurse agency provider of job action services in the US.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ashkan Y. Shakouri, Esq.
SHAKOURI LAW FIRM
11601 Wilshire Blvd., Fl. 5
Los Angeles, CA 90025-1995
Phone: 310-575-1827
Fax: 310-575-1890
Email: ash@shakourilawfirm.com
USA TODAY: Stevens Seek Conditional Certification of Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW STEVENS,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v.
USA TODAY SPORTS MEDIA GROUP, LLC and GANNETT CO., INC., Case No.
1:23-cv-01367-CCC (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order:
1. Conditionally certifying a class of:
"All persons who are working or have performed work for USA
Today in the United States as a Site Editor at any time since
October 20, 2020 (collectively "Site Editors" or the "FLSA
Class");
2. Directing the Defendant to produce to Plaintiff's counsel the
names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, and email
addresses of all potential members of the FLSA Class within
10
days of the date of Order;
3. Permitting the Plaintiff to issue notice to all potential
members of the FLSA Class by first-class mail and email,
informing them of their right to opt in to this case;
4. Setting an opt-in period of 90 days, beginning from the date
of
Plaintiff's first issuance of notice;
5. Allowing the Plaintiff to send reminder notices by
first-class
mail and email to all potential members of the FLSA Class who
have not yet responded to notice within 45 days of the first
issuance of notice; and
6. Approving the Plaintiff's proposed form of notice, and
Plaintiff's proposed Opt-In Consent Form, attached hereto as
Exhibit E, to be included in the issuance of notice pursuant
to
paragraphs 3-5;
On October 5, 2023, the Plaintiff's counsel asked Defendant's
counsel whether Defendant would stipulate to the relief sought in
this Motion. On October 6, 2023, Defendant, through counsel,
declined to stipulate to the relief sought in this Motion.
USA Today provides the latest sports news, scores, schedules,
stats, odds and more.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 20, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Shni6t at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Goodley, Esq.
Ryan McCarthy, Esq.
GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC
1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 394-0541
E-mail: james@gmlaborlaw.com
ryan@gmlaborlaw.com
VILLAGE FAMILY: Aprahamian Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
---------------------------------------------------------
Christian Aprahamian, and other similarly situated v. THE VILLAGE
FAMILY SERVICES, INC.; HUGO CESAR VILLA; and DOES 1 to 25,
inclusive, Case No. 23STCV25555 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
Oct. 19, 2023), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
compensate for all hours worked; failure to pay minimum wages;
failure to pay overtime; failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements; failure to pay wages owed every pay period; failure to
pay wages when employment ends; failure to provide rest breaks;
failure to provide meal breaks; failure to reimburse business
expenses; in violation of the California Labor Code and The Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").
The Defendant violated Labor Code because it failed to pay
Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees for all
hours worked, including the statutory minimum wage for all hours
worked and for "off the clock" work. This is so because The
Defendant had a company policy wherein they would
disproportionately round down the number of hours worked, resulting
in "time shaving" and further resulting in aggrieved employees not
being paid for all hours worked.
The Defendant also violated Labor Code because it failed to pay
Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees overtime compensation, even
though they worked more than 8 hours per day, 12 hours per day,
and/or 40 hours per week throughout their employment. Plaintiff's
and other aggrieved employees' actual work hours entitled them to
overtime compensation, however, The Defendant did not compensate
its hourly, non-exempt employees with overtime or the correct
amount of overtime due to the "off the clock" work and time
shaving, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff started working for The Defendant 2021 as a YHDP
Resource Coordinator.
VILLAGE FAMILY SERVICES, INC. is a California corporation, doing
business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
WAWA INC: $28.5MM Settlement in Data Security Suit Has Prelim. OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gene E.K. Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania grants preliminary approval to the $28.5
million settlement agreement in the lawsuit entitled IN RE WAWA,
INC. DATA SECURITY LITIGATION, Case No. 2:19-cv-06019-GEKP) (E.D.
Pa.).
In March 2019, hackers gained access to Wawa's point-of sale
("POS") systems and installed malware allowing them to steal
payment card data for nine months. The financial data, which
included credit and debit card numbers, card expiration dates, and
cardholder names, was posted on the "dark web."
First Choice Federal Credit Union filed the first financial
institution class action in January 2020, which was consolidated
into one action on three tracks: financial institutions, employees
and consumers.
Spanning more than a year, Wawa and the Financial Institutions
engaged in settlement negotiations overseen by Judge Diane Welsh.
The parties reached an agreement with an ultimate settlement that
is fair, reasonable, and adequate that should effectively
distribute compensation to the class members.
The Proposed Settlement Class, estimated to include some 5,000
financial institutions, includes all financial institutions in the
United States (including its Territories and the District of
Columbia) that issued payment cards (other than American Express)
that either: (a) were Alerted on Payment Cards; or (b) were used at
Wawa during the period of the incident March 4, 2019 - Dec. 12,
2019.
The proposed settlement agreement provides for three tiers for the
class members:
-- Tier 1 -- $5.00 per replaced payment card. The class member
must attest, under penalty of perjury, to having cancelled
and replaced impacted cards in response to the data breach,
if replaced between Dec. 12, 2019, and May 1, 2020. Wawa
has committed a minimum of $3 million and maximum of
$18.5 million for Tier 1, and the Settlement Administrator
will make pro rata adjustments to the per-card compensation
rate, upward or downward, if the total value of approved
claims is below or above the minimum and maximum,
respectively;
-- Tier 2 -- Fraudulent charges up to $4,000 per financial
institution. The class member must provide a statement
reflecting unreimbursed out-of-pocket absorption or
reimbursement to a cardholder of fraudulent charges on
impacted cards if the charges occurred between Dec. 12,
2019, and May 1, 2020. Tier 2 payments have a cap of $8
million, with a downward pro rata adjustment to meet the
cap if necessary; and
-- Tier 3 -- Claim without documentation. The class member can
submit a claim that it incurred some cost in the data
breach's aftermath. The value will be a fixed amount for
all claiming class members, calculated by dividing
$2 million by the final number of members confirmed during
the notice period.
For those financial institutions, who do not exclude themselves
from the settlement agreement or take one of these tiered payments,
they release their breach-related claims against Wawa. A financial
institution must exclude itself if it wants to pursue its own
litigation against Wawa over the data breach.
Wawa has also agreed to pay a lump sum of up to $9 million for
attorneys' fees and expenses. Counsel for the Financial
Institutions ("FI Counsel") will also be applying for services
awards for $10,000 for each of the three class representatives. As
of Dec. 31, 2022, FI Counsel states they have incurred $79,877.24
in expenses. They expect that the total compensation will be $8.8
million in attorneys' fees by the end of the settlement process.
The Court finds that the requirements under both Rule 23(a) and
Rule 23(b)(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are
satisfied. The Court is also satisfied that notice is adequate
under Rule 23. The Court is also satisfied, at this point, with the
manner in which the parties negotiated the attorneys' fees.
Judge Pratter notes that by applying the percentage-of-recovery
method, if Wawa pays out the full settlement amount, this yields
31.5% in attorneys' fees and expenses as compared to the sum going
to the class. Similar ratios have been approved in the past, and
the Court does not see immediate concern with approving that amount
at this time. Should Wawa pay out significantly less than $28.5
million, however, the Court will reevaluate the $9 million in
attorneys' fees when determining final settlement approval.
For these reasons, the Court grants the motion to approve the
preliminary settlement and authorize notice of the proposed class
action settlement.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Oct. 12, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5jp7etwh from PacerMonitor.com.
WAWA INC: Settlement Claims in Data Security Suit Due Feb. 6, 2024
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gene E.K. Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania grants preliminary approval to the
parties' settlement agreement and sets a schedule for future events
in the lawsuit entitled IN RE WAWA, INC. DATA SECURITY LITIGATION,
Case No. 2:19-cv-06019-GEKP) (E.D. Pa.).
Among other things, the schedule sets the deadline for filing
claims for Feb. 6, 2024.
Plaintiffs Inspire Federal Credit Union, Greater Cincinnati Credit
Union and Insight Credit Union (together, "Financial Institutions"
or "Plaintiffs") brought claims on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, and have entered into a Settlement
Agreement with Defendant Wawa, Inc., dated March 3, 2023.
The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement, and
appoints Analytics Consulting, LLC, to serve as Settlement
Administrator. Wawa agreed to pay for all settlement administration
costs, attorneys' fees and expenses and service awards.
The Court also preliminarily approves the establishment of the
Escrow Accounts defined in the Settlement Agreement as a qualified
settlement fund pursuant to Section 468B of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended and the Treasury Regulations.
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge
Pratter provisionally certifies, for settlement purposes only, the
following Settlement Class:
All financial institutions in the United States (including
its Territories and the District of Columbia) that issued
payment cards (other than American Express) that either:
(a) were Alerted on Payment Cards; or (b) were used at Wawa
during the period of the incident March 4, 2019 - Dec. 12,
2019.
For settlement purposes only, the Court appoints Inspire Federal
Credit Union, Insight Credit Union, and Greater Cincinnati Credit
Union as Settlement Class Representatives.
The Court also approves, among other things, notice and opt-out
procedures.
Judge Pratter sets the following schedule:
-- Creation of Settlement Website -- Nov. 13, 2023;
-- Notice Issuance Date -- Nov. 13, 2023;
-- Deadline for Class Counsel's Application for Attorneys'
Fees, Expenses, and Service Awards for Settlement Class
Representatives -- Jan. 10, 2024;
-- Claims Deadline -- Feb. 9, 2024;
-- Deadline for Motion in Support of Final Approval of
Settlement -- March 11, 2024; and
-- Final Approval Hearing -- To Be Determined.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 12, 2023, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ccnh3wan from PacerMonitor.com.
WELLPATH LLC: Faling-Davis Must File Class Cert by April 30, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATTY FALING-DAVIS,
individually and for others similarly situated, v. WELLPATH LLC,
Case No. 1:23-cv-03017-SAB (E.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Stanley A.
Bastian entered an order setting class certification deadline:
1. The Plaintiff shall file a Motion for April 30, 2024
Class Certification by:
2. The Defendant shall file their May 28, 2024
Response by:
3 The Plaintiff shall file a Reply by: June 4, 2024
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tLa5bR at no extra charge.[CC]
WYNN RESORTS: Court OK's Class Certification in Ferris Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN V. FERRIS and JOANN
M. FERRIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. WYNN RESORTS LIMITED, STEPHEN A. WYNN, CRAIG SCOTT
BILLINGS, STEPHEN COOTEY, MATTHEW O. MADDOX, JOHN J. HAGENBUCH,
ROBERT J. MILLER, PATRICIA MULROY, CLARK T. RANDT JR., ALVIN V.
SHOEMAKER, KIMMARIE SINATRA, DANIEL B. WAYSON, JAY L. JOHNSON, RAY
R. IRANI, and J. EDWARD VIRTUE, Case No. 2:18-cv-00479-APG-BNW (D.
Nev.), the Hon. Judge Brenda N. Weksler entered an order
establishing program and schedule for class notice:
The Court certified the following Class:
"All individuals and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired
Wynn Resorts securities between March 28, 2016, and February 12,
2018, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby. Excluded from the
Class are Defendants, the officers and directors of the Company
at
all relevant times, members of their immediate families and
their
legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any
entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest."
Wynn Resorts is a developer and operator of high-end hotels and
casinos.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46KtKY2 at no extra charge.[CC]
WYNN RESORTS: Plaintiffs Must Submit Program & Schedule for Notice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN V. FERRIS, JOANN M.
FERRIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. WYNN RESORTS LIMITED, STEPHEN A. WYNN, CRAIG SCOTT
BILLINGS, STEPHEN COOTEY, and MATTHEW O. MADDOX, Case No.
2:18-cv-00479-APG-BNW (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Brenda N. Weksler
entered an order granting joint stipulation and order re
plaintiffs' motion for an order establishing a Program and schedule
for Notice to the class of pending Class action.
Wynn Resorts is a developer and operator of high-end hotels and
casinos.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QtEKmM at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Colby Williams, Esq.
CAMPBELL & WILLIAMS
700 South Seventh Street
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Telephone: (702) 382-5222
Facsimile: (702) 382-0540
E-mail: jcw@cwlawlv.com
- and -
Gary S. Lincenberg, Esq.
Jumin Lee, Esq.
Oliver Rocos, Esq.
BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT,
NESSIM, DROOKS, ET AL., P.C.
1875 Century Park East, 23rd Fl.
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-2100
E-mail: glincenberg@birdmarella.com
orocos@birdmarella.com
clee@birdmarella
- and -
Andrew R. Muehlbauer, Esq.
MUEHLBAUER LAW OFFICE, LTD.
7915 West Sahara Avenue, Suite 104
Las Vegas, NV 89117
Telephone: (702) 330-4505
Facsimile: (702) 825-0141
E-mail: andrew@mlolegal.com
- and -
Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
Murielle J. Steven Walsh, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
mjsteven@pomlaw.com
erakhlin@pomlaw.com
- and -
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Daniel Tyre-Karp, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
dtyrekarp@rosenlegal.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Patrick G. Byrne, Esq.
Bradley T. Austin, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Telephone: (702) 784-5200
Facsimile: (702) 784-5252
E-mail: pbyrne@swlaw.com
baustin@swlaw.com
- and -
Mark Holscher, Esq.
Michael J. Shipley, Esq.
Matthew Solum, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
333 South Hope Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 680-8190
Facsimile: (213) 808-8097
E-mail: mark.holscher@kirkland.com
michael.shipley@kirkland.com
matthew.solum@kirkland.com
- and -
Erika Pike Turner, Esq.
Dylan T. Ciciliano, Esq.
GARMAN TURNER GORDON
7251 Amigo Street, Ste. 210
Las Vegas, NV 89119
Telephone: (725) 777-3000
Facsimile: (725) 777-3112
E-mail: eturner@gtg.legal
dciciliano@gtg.legal
- and -
James Neil Kramer, Esq.
M. Todd Scott, Esq.
ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
405 Howard St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
E-mail: jkramer@orrick.com
tscott@orrick.com
- and -
Daniel R. McNutt, Esq.
Matthew C. Wolf, Esq.
MCNUTT LAW FIRM, P.C.
11441 Allerton Park Dr. #100
Las Vegas, NV 89135
Telephone: (702) 384-1170
Facsimile: (702) 384-5529
E-mail: drm@mcnuttlawfirm.com
mcw@mcnuttlawfirm.com
YOUNG LIVING: Court OK's O'Shaughnessy Bid to Seal Exhibits
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIE O'SHAUGHNESSY,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
YOUNG LIVING ESSENTIAL OILS, LC D/B/A YOUNG LIVING ESSENTIAL OILS,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00470-HCN-CMR (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Cecilia M.
Romero entered an order granting plaintiff's motion to seal.
The Motion being narrowly tailored to protect only the specific
information deserving of protection, pursuant to DUCivR5-3 and for
good cause appearing, the court grants the motion and orders that
the designated portions of the Motion for Class Certification and
Exhibits 1-3, 5, 8-10, 13 and 18 thereto shall remain under seal.
Young Living is a multi-level marketing company based in Lehi,
Utah.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MfLEtg at no extra charge.[CC]
ZAGE GROUP: Court OK's Plaintiff's Bid to Compel Responses
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL ANTHONY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ZAGE GROUP, LLC; DOUGLAS R. GOODMAN; and DORIS GOODMAN, Case No.
8:23-cv-00788-WFJ-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Sean P. Flynn
entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to compel
responses to the Plaintiff's class certification and damages
discovery.
The Defendants shall serve Plaintiff with the requested discovery
responses within 14 days of the date of this Order.
Zage provides complete turnkey services from initial development
all the way through each implementation step.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/408UYF3 at no extra charge.[CC]
*********
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 ***