/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240111.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, January 11, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 9
Headlines
3M COMPANY: AFFF & TOG Contain Toxic PFAS, Levy Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Correa Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Griffin Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Mangan Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Morgan Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Nicholson Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Owen Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Peterson Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Sarisky Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Schaffer Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Stezowski Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Torres Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Van Der Snick Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Walker Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Watson Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Yarber Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: Calvin Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Cook Sues Over Exposure to Aqueous Foams & Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Daniel Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Devin Sues Over Exposure to Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Ele Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
420 REAL ESTATE: Carter Sued Over Unfair Crowdsourcing Scheme
AGC CHEMICALS: Firefighting Foam Contains PFAS, Manchester Says
ASICS AMERICA: Faces Calcagno Suit Over False Price Discounts
AXOS BANK: Sutaniman Sues Over Savings Account Product's False Ads
BROOKFIELD WASHINGTON: Faces Chippari Tort Class Suit in E.D. Va.
CARESOURCE: Faces Stark Suit Over Unprotected Patients' Info
CARIB FOOD: Faces Alonso Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
DEREK SMITH: Faces Castillo RICO Class Suit in S.D. New York
EAST RIVER: Kuecher Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
FCA US: Biederman Sues Over Illegal Emissions' Control Devices
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Curry Alleges
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Grigg Alleges
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Tillis Sues Over Inadequate Data Security
FKA DISTRIBUTING: Doyle Balks at Mislabeled Blood Pressure Monitors
GOTTA GETTA BAGEL: Guillen Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
HALO INNOVATIONS: Marble Sues Over Defective Bedside Bassinets
HARRIS & HARRIS: Faces Fulford FCRA Class Action Suit in S.D. Ind.
L & M VELARDO: Miguel Seeks Construction Assistants' Unpaid Wages
LA CLINICA DE LA RAZA: Robertson Suit Removed to N.D. California
MASSACHUSETTS: Appeals Court Ruling in Cotto Civil Rights Suit
MR. COOPER: Lapertche Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Data
MUBI INC: Discloses Consumers' Info to 3rd Parties, Sarkar Says
NEWEGG INC: Coster Suit Transferred to C.D. California
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Levitt Sues Over Failure to Implement Security
NORTHWELL HEALTH: O'Rourke Sues Over Unsecured PHI and PII
PEACOCK TV: Amescua Suit Removed to C.D. California
PERIOD COMPANY: Brewer Sues Over False and Misleading Marketing
POSTMEDS INC: Morgan Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
RALPHS GROCERY: Chesnut Sues Over Unlawfully Charged Fees
REAL TIME STAFFING: Faces Taylor Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
SOLAWAVE INC: McGlynn Files Suit in E.D. New York
STOLI GROUP: Faces Sookul Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
TAURUS INTERNATIONAL: Jaramillo Files Suit in M.D. Georgia
TORY BURCH: Fails to Pay Manual Workers' Timely Wages, Walker Says
TOYOTA MOTOR: Hadi Files Suit in C.D. California
TRI COUNTIES: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Delgado Alleges
UTILIQUEST LLC: Perry Sues Over Utility Locators' Unpaid Wages
VAIL RESORTS: Quint Appeals Court Ruling in Labor Suit to 10th Cir.
VICTORVILLE TREASURE: Salter Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Wages
*********
3M COMPANY: AFFF & TOG Contain Toxic PFAS, Levy Class Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES LEVY v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06348-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 7, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF)
and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the
Plaintiff contends.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly
toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic
acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS
binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material
and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals, says the suit.
Mr. Levy is a resident and citizen of Florida. He regularly used,
and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and
to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or
civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed with bladder cancer as a
result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT
DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); ALLSTAR
FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY
SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN
MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Constantine Venizelos, Esq.
CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP
737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440
Cleveland, OH 44115
Telephone: (216) 815-9000
Facsimile: (216) 274-9365
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Correa Class Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO CORREA v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06342-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 7, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF)
and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the
Plaintiff contends.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly
toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic
acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS
binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material
and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals, says the suit.
Plaintiff Antonio Correa is a resident and citizen of Arizona.
Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF
and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Plaintiff
Antonio Correa was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of
exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT
DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); ALLSTAR
FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY
SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN
MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Constantine Venizelos, Esq.
CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP
737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440
Cleveland, OH 44115
Telephone: (216) 815-9000
Facsimile: (216) 274-9365
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Griffin Class Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY GRIFFIN v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06338-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 7, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF)
and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the
Plaintiff contends.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly
toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic
acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS
binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material
and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals, says the suit.
Mr. Griffin is a resident and citizen of Arizona. He regularly
used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training
and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military
and/or civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed with thyroid cancer
as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT
DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); ALLSTAR
FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY
SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN
MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Constantine Venizelos, Esq.
CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP
737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440
Cleveland, OH 44115
Telephone: (216) 815-9000
Facsimile: (216) 274-9365
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Mangan Class Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRADLEY C. MANGAN, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06299-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 6, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF)
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff
contends.
The Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS
are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins
in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and
persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical
structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed
individuals, says the suit.
Mr. Mangan is a resident and citizen of Ferndale, Missouri. He
regularly used and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training
and during the Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as
a civilian. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with hypothyroidism as a
result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Defendant includes AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.).
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[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
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Morgan Class Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAY O. MORGAN v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06300-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 6, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF)
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff
contends.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic
and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS
binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material
and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals, says the suit.
Mr. Jay O. Morgan is a resident and citizen of Louisville, KY. He
regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in
training and during his working career in the military and/or as a
civilian. He was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of
exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Defendant includes AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.).
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[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
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Nicholson Class Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND NICHOLSON v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06301-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 6, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF)
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff
contends.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic
and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS
binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material
and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals, says the suit.
Mr. Nicholson is a resident and citizen of Seymore, Tennessee. He
regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in
training and during his working career in the military and/or as a
civilian. He was diagnosed with hypothyroidism as a result of
exposure to the Defendants' AFFF product.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Defendant includes AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.).
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[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
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Owen Class Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARK OWEN v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06344-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 7, 2023)
is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting
from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter
turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the
Plaintiff contends.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly
toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic
acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS
binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material
and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals, says the suit.
Mr. Owen is a resident and citizen of Missouri. He regularly used,
and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and
to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or
civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a
result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT
DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); ALLSTAR
FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY
SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN
MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Constantine Venizelos, Esq.
CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP
737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440
Cleveland, OH 44115
Telephone: (216) 815-9000
Facsimile: (216) 274-9365
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Peterson Class Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH M. PETERSON v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06302-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 6, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF)
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff
contends.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic
and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS
binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material
and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals, says the suit.
Mr. Kenneth M. Peterson is a resident and citizen of Des Moines,
Iowa. He regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF
in training and during his working career in the military and/or as
a civilian. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of
exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Defendant includes AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.).
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[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
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Sarisky Class Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD SARISKY v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06303-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 6, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF)
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff
contends.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic
and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS
binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material
and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals, says the suit.
Mr. Sarisky is a resident and citizen of Indio, CA. He regularly
used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and
during the Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a
civilian. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with bladder cancer as a
result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Defendant includes AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.).
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[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
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Schaffer Class Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD DAVID SCHAFFER v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06304-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 6, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF)
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff
contends.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic
and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS
binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material
and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals, says the suit.
Mr. Richard David Schaffer is a resident and citizen of Charles
Town, West Virginia. He regularly used, and was thereby directly
exposed to AFFF in training and during his working career in the
military and/or as a civilian. He was diagnosed with thyroid cancer
as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Defendant includes AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.).
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[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
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Stezowski Class Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL T. STEZOWSKI v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06305-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 6, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF)
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff
contends.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic
and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS
binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material
and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals, says the suit.
Mr. Michael T. Stezowski is a resident and citizen of Pleasant
Lake, Indiana. He regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed
to AFFF in training and during his working career in the military
and/or as a civilian. He was diagnosed with liver cancer; and
hepatocellular carcinoma as a result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Defendant includes AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.).
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[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
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Torres Class Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE TORRES, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06329-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 7, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF)
and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the
Plaintiff contends.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly
toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic
acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS
binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material
and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals, says the suit.
Mr. Torres is a resident and citizen of New York. He regularly
used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training
and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military
and/or civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed with renal cancer and
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or
TOG products.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT
DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); ALLSTAR
FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY
SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN
MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Constantine Venizelos, Esq.
CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP
737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440
Cleveland, OH 44115
Telephone: (216) 815-9000
Facsimile: (216) 274-9365
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Van Der Snick Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY LEE VAN DER SNICK, SR. v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06306-RMG
(D.S.C., Dec. 6, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff
contends.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic
and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS
binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material
and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals, says the suit.
Mr. Larry Lee Van Der Snick, Sr. is a resident and citizen of
Martinsburg, West Virginia. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was
thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during the
Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian. He
was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Defendant includes AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.).
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[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
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Walker Class Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALANCE WALKER v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06340-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 7, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF)
and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the
Plaintiff contends.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly
toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic
acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS
binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material
and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals, says the suit.
Plaintiff Alance Walker is a resident and citizen of New York. The
Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF
and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Plaintiff
Alance Walker was diagnosed with prostate cancer and cancer of the
thoracic and lumbar spine as a result of exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF or TOG products.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT
DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); ALLSTAR
FIRE EQUIPMENT; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY
SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC. PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN
MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Constantine Venizelos, Esq.
CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP
737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440
Cleveland, OH 44115
Telephone: (216) 815-9000
Facsimile: (216) 274-9365
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Watson Class Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM WATSON v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06307-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 6, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF)
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff
contends.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic
and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS
binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material
and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals, says the suit.
Mr. William Watson is a resident and citizen of Meridian,
Mississippi. He regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during his working career in the military
and/or as a civilian. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a
result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Defendant includes AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.).
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[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
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Yarber Class Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
GREG YARBER, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06308-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 6, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF)
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff
contends.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic
and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS
binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material
and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals, says the suit.
Mr. Yarber is a resident and citizen of Belleville, Illinois. The
Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF
in training and during his working career in the military and/or as
a civilian. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a
result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF product.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Defendant includes AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.).
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[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
3M COMPANY: Calvin Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kendall Calvin, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-05670-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 6, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with
hyperthyroidism as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Cook Sues Over Exposure to Aqueous Foams & Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Cook, Jr., and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-05672-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 6, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with prostate
cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Daniel Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ellis Daniel, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S.,
INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.;
MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC;
MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; RAYTHEON
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.;
THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P. as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); and W.L.GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No.
2:23-cv-05602-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 3, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
the Decedent in their intended manner, without significant change
in the products' condition. Decedent was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Decedent's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused
Decedent to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further
seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from
the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed
with Prostate Cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or
TOG products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq.
RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP
225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110
Atlanta, GA 30624
Phone: 404-381-2888
Email: buck@lawrsd.com
3M COMPANY: Devin Sues Over Exposure to Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------
Rene Devin, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-05673-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 6, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with
hyperthyroidism as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 202-1010
Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
baylstock@awkolaw.com
jwitkin@awkolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Ele Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel G. Ele, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S.,
INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.;
MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC;
MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; RAYTHEON
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.;
THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P. as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); and W.L.GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No.
2:23-cv-05604-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 3, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
the Decedent in their intended manner, without significant change
in the products' condition. Decedent was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the
products. Decedent's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF or TOG products caused
Decedent to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further
seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from
the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter who resided on or
near military bases that regularly used AFFF and was thereby
exposed to contaminated groundwater and drinking water and was
diagnosed with Thyroid Disease as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF or TOG products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq.
RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP
225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110
Atlanta, GA 30624
Phone: 404-381-2888
Email: buck@lawrsd.com
420 REAL ESTATE: Carter Sued Over Unfair Crowdsourcing Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
EFFREY CARTER; and DOES 1-20, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WILLARD L. JACKSON; NICOLE
T. BIRCH; 420 REAL ESTATE, LLC.; VICENT PETRESCU aka VINCENT
PETRESCU; TRUCROWD, INC. dba FUNDANNA; TRANSATLANTIC REAL ESTATE,
LLC; BANGI, INC.; and DOES 1-20 Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-01775-SAB (E.D. Cal., Sec. 27, 2023) alleges violation of
the Securities Act of 1933, and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
According to the complaint, the issuers of the securities that were
fraudulently sold to members of the public were the Defendant 420
Real Estate, LLC ("420 Real Estate") and a now defunct company
named Transatlantic Real Estate, LLC ("Transatlantic Real
Estate").
Transatlantic Real Estate and 420 Real Estate were raising funds
through offerings on a crowdfunding platform hosted by Defendant
TruCrowd, Inc. TruCrowd's CEO, Defendant Vicent Petrescu, aka
Vincent Petrescu, was responsible for selecting which issuers could
use TruCrowd's platform to conduct crowdfunding offerings. Under
the SEC's crowdfunding regulations, Petrescu and TruCrowd served as
gatekeepers and, as such, were responsible for taking measures to
reduce the risk of fraud.
According to the complaint, Shumake, Birch, and Jackson made
multiple false and misleading representations and omissions to
investors in connection with the crowdfunding offerings. Among
other things, they concealed Shumake's past criminal history and
his leading role in both offerings. And to make matters worse, they
diverted hundreds of thousands of dollars from the offering
proceeds for their personal benefit. None of the money raised in
either offering was used to acquire or improve cannabis real
estate. None of the investors in either crowdfunding offering has
received any return on their investment, and few investors have
recovered any of the funds they invested, says the suit.
420 REAL ESTATE, LLC estate company that specializes in the
acquisition and leasing of properties that support the hemp
industry. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anthony Bell, Esq.
SUPERHEROES AT LAW, P.C.
8383 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 935
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (855) 694-3762
Email: info@superheroesatlaw.com
AGC CHEMICALS: Firefighting Foam Contains PFAS, Manchester Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MANCHESTER TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS &
UTILITIES v. AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC., et al., Case No.
2:23-cv-06329-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 7, 2023) is a class action seeking
to address contamination of water system caused by fluorinated
Class B firefighting foam that is manufactured with the synthetic
per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
The Plaintiff seeks to recover the costs of remediating the
contamination, restoring its contaminated drinking water systems
that have been, and continue to be, contaminated by PFOS and PFOA
related to the manufacture and use of Aqueous Film-Forming Foam
(AFFF), and the costs of treating the water produced by the subject
wells to remove the Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the lawsuit
alleges.
Further, the Defendant designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting. PFOS and PFOA are soluble in water,
not easily biodegradable, and persistent in the environment. Both
are known to be harmful to human health. When AFFF containing PFOS
or PFOA is released into the environment; both compounds, their
precursors and degradation products, can migrate into soil and
groundwater. Because the Defendants knowingly placed defective and
dangerously toxic fluorinated AFFF foams into the stream of
commerce they are strictly liable to the Plaintiff for causing the
release of toxic PFAS compounds into the Plaintiff's drinking water
supply, says the suit.
The Defendants include AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.;
ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY;
CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.).
AGC is a manufacturer and supplier of fluorochemical
compounds.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
ASICS AMERICA: Faces Calcagno Suit Over False Price Discounts
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA CALCAGNO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ASICS America Corporation, a California Corporation,
and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 37-2023-00053041-CU-BT-CTL (Cal.
Super., Dec. 7, 2023) alleges that the Defendant has continually
engaged in a false reference pricing scheme injurious to consumers
by advertising apparel, accessories, and other items at discounted,
"sale" prices.
According to the complaint, the advertised discounts are nothing
more than phantom markdowns because the represented "original"
prices, i.e., the prices listed on the price tags for the
merchandise, are artificially inflated; the products are never
offered for sale at the full original price for any substantial
period of time, (if at all); and the original prices are never the
true market price for the products the Defendant sells, the
Plaintiff asserts.
This class action seeks monetary damages, restitution, and
declaratory and injunctive relief from the Defendant arising from
its deceptive business practice of advertising fictitious
"original" prices and corresponding phantom discounts on shoes,
apparel, accessories, and other items sold in its Asics outlet
Stores.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated consumers who have purchased one or more shoes,
apparel, accessories, or other items at the Defendant's Asics
outlet stores that were deceptively represented as discounted from
a false advertised reference price. Accordingly, the Defendant
violated and continues to violate the California's Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code sections 17200, et seq.
(the "UCL") and California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal.
Civ. Code sections 1750, et seq, as well as the Federal Trade
Commission ("FTC") Act ("FTCA").
The Plaintiff further seeks to halt the dissemination of this
false, misleading, and deceptive pricing scheme, to correct the
false and misleading perception it has created in the minds of
consumers, and to obtain redress for those who have overpaid for
merchandise tainted by this deceptive pricing scheme.
On January 18, 2022, the Plaintiff went shopping for some new
clothes at the Asics outlet store located at 4459 Camino de la
Plaza, San Ysidro, CA 92173. The "original" price of $21.98 and the
"sale" price of $10.99 were both inflated for the "DECOY SS" shirt
she purchased. The shirt was worth less than the amount the
Plaintiff paid for the item because were it not for the Defendant
employing the falsely advertised "original" price for the shirt
Plaintiff purchased, then that item would not have commanded such a
high, inflated price.
ASICS is a manufacturer and seller of sports apparel, shoes, and
equipment for men, women, and kids.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
Scott G. Braden, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1234 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (619) 762-1900
Facsimile: (724) 656-1556
E-mail: todd@lcllp.com
scott@lcllp.com
AXOS BANK: Sutaniman Sues Over Savings Account Product's False Ads
------------------------------------------------------------------
GIANNI SUTANIMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AXOS BANK, d/b/a/ UFB DIRECT,
Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-02266-RSH-SBC (S.D. Cal., Dec. 12,
2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, who have had savings
accounts with UFB since January 1, 2022 arising from the
Defendant's alleged unfair business practices in violation of
California's False Advertising Law and the California Unfair
Competition Law.
UFB's website features a dedicated tab heading entitled "High Yield
Savings." From at least January 1, 2022, to approximately November
16, 2022, any visitor to the site who clicked this tab would be
taken immediately to a "splash" page advertising what UFB referred
to as its "highest-yielding savings account," offering a variable
interest rate and corresponding annual percentage yield.
Unbeknownst to the tens of thousands of consumers nationwide lured
into opening new accounts with UFB via the Bank's "increased
marketing efforts," they were -- or soon would become -- the
victims of a classic bait and switch, says the suit.
Specifically, beginning in early 2022, UFB began implementing a
scheme in which it would advertise a savings account product it
described as its "highest-yielding savings account" with a
"variable" interest rate. UFB would drive consumer interest and
demand to its offerings via, among other tools, targeted
advertising and features on popular internet sites such as "The
Motley Fool" (www.fool.com), "NerdWallet" (www.nerdwallet.com), and
"Forbes Advisor" (www.forbes.com/advisor/).
UFB was financially motivated to breach the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing and to make materially false and misleading
statements and/or omissions with respect to its high-yield savings
accounts. UFB accomplished this increase in profits in part by
exercising its discretion unfairly with respect to the interest
rate it paid to its high-yield savings account customers. The
Plaintiff brings this case to hold UFB to account to all eligible
Class members for its pernicious misconduct, says the suit.
UFB is a division of Axos Bank that offers online-only banking
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cory A. Baskin, Esq.
witkow | baskin
21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 700
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Telephone: (818) 296-9508
E-mail: cb@witkowlaw.com
- and -
Joshua L. Seifert, Esq.
JOSHUA L. SEIFERT PLLC
251 South Lake Ave Suite 800
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (646) 470-2746
E-mail: jseifert@seifertpllc.com
BROOKFIELD WASHINGTON: Faces Chippari Tort Class Suit in E.D. Va.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brookfield
Washington, LLC et al. The case is captioned as Chippari, et al. v.
Brookfield Washington, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01666-PTG-WEF
(E.D. Va., Dec. 6, 2023).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles.
The nature of suit states Torts to Land demanding $75K worth in
damages.
Brookfield develops and operates real estate investments.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph Michael Langone, Esq.
WISE LAW FIRM, PLC
10640 Page Ave, Suite 320
Fairfax, VA 22030
Telephone: (703) 934-6377
E-mail: jlangone@wiselaw.pro
CARESOURCE: Faces Stark Suit Over Unprotected Patients' Info
------------------------------------------------------------
PAMELA STARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CARESOURCE and PROGRESS SOFTWARE
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-13054-ADB (D. Mass., Dec.
12, 2023) is a class action arising from the targeted cyberattack
and data breach where unauthorized third-party criminals retrieved
and exfiltrated highly-sensitive consumer data belonging to
Plaintiff and nearly 3.2 million Class Members, via a security
vulnerability in PSC's software program, MOVEit, which is used by
CareSource to share data to manage patient benefits.
According to Defendant CareSource, the private information
compromised in the data breach included: patient names, addresses,
dates of birth, gender, Social Security numbers, medical ID
numbers, healthcare plan information, health conditions,
medications, allergies, and diagnoses.
The complaint alleges that Defendant CareSource failed to
adequately safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly
sensitive private information that it collected and maintained.
Specifically, Defendant CareSource used Defendant PSC's MOVEit
software to store and transfer the private information of Plaintiff
and Class Members, and this private information was compromised as
a result of a security vulnerability in the MOVEit software. The
Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was compromised
due to Defendants' negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and
Defendants' failure to reasonably and adequately protect
Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information, says the suit.
CareSource is a Medicaid and Medicare plan provider with a
principal place of business in Dayton, Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven B. Rotman, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
One Marina Park Drive, Suite 1410
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617) 207-0600
Facsimile: (617) 830-8312
E-mail: srotman@hausfeld.com
- and -
James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street, N.W., Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
- and -
Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street, Fourteenth Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 357-1100
Facsimile: (212) 202-4322
E-mail: snathan@hausfeld.com
CARIB FOOD: Faces Alonso Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE ROQUE ALONSO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARIB FOOD MARKET, INC. and HYUNG
MUN KIM and MIHWA KIM, as individuals, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-09108 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 12, 2023) seeks to recover damages
for Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law as well as damages to redress the
injuries Plaintiff has suffered as a result of being discriminated
against on the basis of his disability by Defendants under the New
York State Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation,
failure to provide a written wage notice and wage statements, and
engagement in retaliatory conduct.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants at CARIB FOOD MARKET,
INC., from January 2013 until April 2023. During Plaintiff's
employment by the Defendants, Plaintiff's primary duties were as a
truck unloader and warehouse organizer, while performing other
miscellaneous duties, from January 2013 until April 2023.
Carib Food Market, Inc. is a supermarket located at 1303 Fulton
Street, Brooklyn, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
DEREK SMITH: Faces Castillo RICO Class Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Derek Smith Law
Group, PLLC et al. The case is captioned as Castillo, et al. v.
Derek Smith Law Group, PLLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-10544-PKC
(S.D.N.Y., Dec 2, 2023).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge P. Kevin Castel.
The suit alleges violation of the Racketeer/Corrupt Organization
(RICO) Act.
Derek Smith is a full-service sexual harassment and employment
discrimination law firm.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Thomas D. Shanahan, Esq.
THOMAS D. SHANAHAN, P.C.
535 Fifth Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 867-1100
E-mail: tom@shanahanlaw.com
EAST RIVER: Kuecher Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
RACHAEL KUECHER, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EAST RIVER MEDICAL
IMAGING, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-03692 (S.D.N.Y., Dec.
12, 2023) arises from the recent cyberattack and data breach
resulting from East River's failure to implement reasonable and
industry standard data security practices.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint against Defendant for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard the sensitive information
that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business
practices, including, but not limited to names, contact
information, Social Security numbers ("personally identifying
information") and medical treatment information, which is protected
health information as defined by the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act of 1996. In breaching their duties to
properly safeguard patients' and employees' private information and
give patients and employees timely, adequate notice of the data
breach's occurrence, Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence
and/or recklessness and violates federal and state statutes, says
the Plaintiff.
East River Medical Imaging, P.C. provides diagnostic imaging
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
E-mail: vmaniatis@milberg.com
- and -
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20015-2052
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Facsimile: (202) 686-2877
E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com
FCA US: Biederman Sues Over Illegal Emissions' Control Devices
--------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK BIEDERMAN; CARL ANDERS TROEDSSON; and JAMES FARINET,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. FCA US LLC; and CUMMINS INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-06640-RMI (N.D. Cal., Dec. 27, 2023) alleges that the
Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold 2013-2023 Ram
2500 and 3500 diesel trucks with undisclosed and unauthorized
emission control devices that illegally bypass, render inoperative,
or otherwise reduce the effectiveness of the Class Trucks' emission
control system (the "Emissions Control Devices").
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Emissions Control
Devices allow the Class Trucks to "pass" emissions inspections
while emitting illegally high levels of pollutants during
real-world driving, unbeknownst to the Class Trucks' owners and
lessees. Neither Defendants, nor any of their agents, dealers, or
other representatives, informed Plaintiffs, or Class Members of the
existence of Emissions Control Devices that would illegally impede
the function of the emission system in the Class Trucks and result
in illegally high pollution, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs and the Class would not have purchased their Class
Trucks if the Defendants truthfully disclosed the vehicles were
unlawfully on the road and did not deliver improved emissions and
fuel performance over gasoline-powered vehicles. Plaintiffs and
Class Members have suffered injury in fact, including lost money or
property, as a result of the Defendants' omissions, the suit
asserts.
FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.
The Company offers passenger cars, utility vehicles, mini-vans,
trucks and commercial vans, as well as distributes automotive
service parts and accessories. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roland Tellis, Esq.
BARON & BUDD P.C.
15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 839-2333
Email: rtellis@baronbudd.com
- and -
David S. Stellings, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
Email: dstellings@lchb.com
- and -
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL
SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
- and -
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY &
AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
- and -
Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
77 Water Street
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 584-0700
Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Curry Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE CURRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, INC.; and
LOANCARE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01508-MMH-MCR (M.D.
Fla., Dec. 27, 2023) is an action against the Defendants for their
failure to adequately secure and safeguard confidential and
sensitive information held throughout the typical course of
business of the Plaintiff and the Class.
According to the complaint, on November 19, 2023, an unauthorized
actor gained access to the Defendants' network and computer systems
and obtained unauthorized access to Defendants' files (the "Data
Breach"). Defendants breached their numerous duties and obligations
by failing to implement and maintain reasonable safeguards; failing
to comply with industry-standard data security practices and
federal and state laws and regulations governing data security;
failing to properly train its employees on data security measures
and protocols; failing to timely recognize and detect unauthorized
third parties accessing its system and that substantial amounts of
data had been compromised; and failing to timely notify the
impacted Class.
As a direct cause of Defendants' Data Breach, Plaintiff's and Class
Members' PII is in the hands of cyber-criminals and may be
available for sale on the dark web for other criminals to access
and abuse at the expense of Plaintiff and Class Members. Plaintiff
and Class Members face a current and lifetime risk of identity
theft or fraud as a direct result of the Data Breach, says the
suit.
FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, INC. provides title insurance,
technology, and transaction services to the real estate and
mortgage industries. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
3833 Central Ave.
St. Petersburg, FL 33713
Telephone: (813) 699-4056
Email: jcohen@milberg.com
- and -
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-7300
Facsimile: (612)-336-2940
Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com
- and -
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
Kevin M. Cox, Esq.
THE LYON LAW FIRM
2754 Erie Ave.
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Telephone: (513) 381-2333
Facsimile: (513) 766-9011
Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
kcox@thelyonfirm.com
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Grigg Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANNY GRIGG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, INC.; and
LOANCARE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01509 (M.D. Fla., Dec.
27, 2023) is an action against the Defendants for their failure to
adequately secure and safeguard confidential and sensitive
information held throughout the typical course of business of the
Plaintiff and the Class.
According to the complaint, on November 19, 2023, an unauthorized
actor gained access to the Defendants' network and computer systems
and obtained unauthorized access to Defendants' files (the "Data
Breach"). Defendants breached their numerous duties and obligations
by failing to implement and maintain reasonable safeguards; failing
to comply with industry-standard data security practices and
federal and state laws and regulations governing data security;
failing to properly train its employees on data security measures
and protocols; failing to timely recognize and detect unauthorized
third parties accessing its system and that substantial amounts of
data had been compromised; and failing to timely notify the
impacted Class.
As a direct cause of Defendants' Data Breach, Plaintiff's and Class
Members' PII is in the hands of cyber-criminals and may be
available for sale on the dark web for other criminals to access
and abuse at the expense of Plaintiff and Class Members. Plaintiff
and Class Members face a current and lifetime risk of identity
theft or fraud as a direct result of the Data Breach, says the
suit.
FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, INC. provides title insurance,
technology, and transaction services to the real estate and
mortgage industries. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
3833 Central Ave.
St. Petersburg, FL 33713
Telephone: (813) 699-4056
Email: jcohen@milberg.com
- and -
Spencer D. Campbell, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 East Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
Email: scampbell@msdlegal.com
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Tillis Sues Over Inadequate Data Security
------------------------------------------------------------
TENEIKA TILLIS, individually an on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, INC.; AND
LOANCARE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-02537 (C.D. Cal., Dec.
12, 2023) seeks relief and damages against Defendants for Plaintiff
and all other persons who were similarly impacted by data breach
and Defendants' inadequate data security procedures and practices.
On November 21, 2023, FNF disclosed it had been the victim of a
"cybersecurity incident." This virtually froze all the company's
and its subsidiaries' activities, leaving people buying and selling
homes, or paying mortgages, confused and uncertain of what was
going to happen to their properties and money. Upon information and
belief, Plaintiff's and the Class members' unencrypted personal
identifiable information, or PII, which was collected, maintained,
and stored by Defendants was acquired, or reasonably believed to
have been acquired, by an unauthorized person in the "cybersecurity
incident" disclosed by Defendants, says the suit.
As a result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff and the Class have
and will be required to continue to undertake time-consuming and
often costly efforts to mitigate the actual and potential harm
caused by the data breach. This includes efforts to mitigate the
breach's exposure of their PII, including by, among other things,
placing freezes and setting alerts with credit reporting agencies,
contacting financial institutions, closing, or modifying financial
accounts, reviewing, and monitoring credit reports and accounts for
unauthorized activity, changing passwords on potentially impacted
websites and applications, and requesting and maintaining accurate
records, the suit asserts.
Fidelity National Financial, Inc., a Fortune 500 company, is an
American provider of title insurance and settlement services to the
real estate and mortgage industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
David J. McGlothlin, Esq.
Mona Amini, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
david@kazlg.com
mona@kazlg.com
- and -
Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
Jennifer L. MacPherson, Esq.
BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 338-1100
Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
jmacpherson@bholaw.com
FKA DISTRIBUTING: Doyle Balks at Mislabeled Blood Pressure Monitors
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC DOYLE; and GABRIEL CONTRERAS, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. FKA DISTRIBUTING CO.,
LLC d/b/a HOMEDICS LLC; and WALMART INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-10807 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 27, 2023) is a class action lawsuit
concerning a fraud perpetrated by the Defendants to thousands of
purchasers of Equate Upper Arm Blood Pressure Monitors (the
"Product" or "Products") for personal use and not for resale.
According to the complaint, the Products are incapable of providing
accurate and reliable measurements, which is not conspicuously
disclosed at the point of sale. The Defendants' misleading
representations and omissions about the Products concern their
central functionality, as the Products are effectively rendered
useless and unreliable. Defendants' misleading representations and
omissions also pose an unreasonable safety hazard as users may
incorrectly believe their blood pressure is far higher or lower
than it actually is, and rely on these readings in making future
decisions about their healthcare and treatment, says the suit,
As a result of the Defendants' alleged misrepresentations and
omissions, and the defective nature of the Products, Plaintiffs and
putative Class members have suffered injury in fact.
FKA DISTRIBUTING CO., doing business as HoMedics, Inc, provides
home improvement products. The Company offers air cleaners,
filters, fountains, and other related products. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alexander E. Wolf, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, PLLC
280 South Beverly Drive, Penthouse
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (872) 365-7060
Email: awolf@milberg.com
GOTTA GETTA BAGEL: Guillen Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
SAYDA JULISSA ARITA GUILLEN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOTTA GETTA BAGEL OF
WOODMERE INC. and JOEL BARUCH and CHERYL BARUCH, as individuals,
Defendants, Case No. 620134/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., Dec. 12,
2023) seeks to recover money damages as a result of Defendants'
egregious violations of the New York Labor Law and related state
regulations and the New York State Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants willfully violated her rights
by failing to pay her an additional hour of pay at minimum wage for
each day worked more than 10 hours and wilfully violated the wage
statement and notice and recordkeeping requirements of the NYLL.
She further asserts that Defendants engaged in an unlawful
discriminatory practice by retaliating, and otherwise
discriminating against her because of opposition to her employer's
unlawful employment practices.
The Plaintiff was employed by Gotta Getta Bagel from April 2023
until August 2023 as a cook and food preparer while performing
related miscellaneous duties.
Gotta Getta Bagel of Woodmere Inc. is a New York-based
restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
HALO INNOVATIONS: Marble Sues Over Defective Bedside Bassinets
--------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA MARBLE and KELSEY REIMER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HALO INNOVATIONS, INC.
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-11048 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendant for breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranties, breach of contract, negligence,
unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of
New York's General Business Law and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act arising from the false
advertisements of its BassiNest Flex bedside bassinets that were
sold for use as an infant sleeper.
According to the complaint, HALO, the self-proclaimed "Safe Sleep
Expert," designs, manufactures, distributes, and sells the
BassiNest Flex, a dangerously defective bedside bassinet sold for
use as an infant sleeper. The BassiNest Flex is falsely advertised
as a "flexible safe sleep solution" and "safe sleep space" for the
youngest babies up to 5 months old or 20 pounds. HALO's
multi-channel brand marketing campaign, which includes its
trademarked slogans, "The Safer Way To Sleep" and "Back is Best,"
emphasizes its purported commitment to safe infant sleep and
reinforces these safety representations.
However, in reality, the Sleeping Surface of the BassiNest Flex is
noticeably tilted when in use, alleges the complaint. Over 100
consumers have reported the tilt, either directly to HALO or to its
retailers. Many purchasers have also complained of instances where
their infants rolled from their backs to their sides and/or
stomachs before developmentally appropriate. The Plaintiffs'
consulting expert's testing and investigation has shown that the
BassiNest Flex's cantilever support structure is unable to maintain
an appropriately level or flat Sleeping Surface. Thus, the Product
fails to effectively and safely support an infant laying inside,
says the suit.
Plaintiff Marble purchased the BassiNest Flex on or around December
13, 2022, from Walmart located in Victor, New York for
approximately $104.
Plaintiff Reimer purchased the BassiNest Flex on or around January
5, 2022, from buybuyBABY.com for approximately $84.99.
Halo Innovations, Inc. develops sleeping products. The Company
manufactures sleeping blankets, swaddles, night knits, changing pad
covers, crib sets, and diaper covers. Halo Innovations operates in
the State of Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mitchell Breit, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
405 East 50th Street
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (347) 668-8445
E-mail: mbreit@milberg.com
- and -
Rachel Soffin, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
3833 Central Avenue
St. Petersburg, FL 33713
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
E-mail: rsoffin@milberg.com
- and -
Harper T. Segui, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
825 Lowcountry Blvd., Suite 101
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
E-mail: hsegui@milberg.com
- and -
Erin Ruben, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
E-mail: eruben@milberg.com
- and -
Kelsey Gatlin Davies, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
E-mail: kdavies@milberg.com
HARRIS & HARRIS: Faces Fulford FCRA Class Action Suit in S.D. Ind.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HARRIS & HARRIS, LTD.
The case is captioned as FULFORD v. HARRIS & HARRIS, LTD. Case No.
1:23-cv-02190-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind., Dec. 6, 2023).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Harris & Harris provides accounts receivable management
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Marco, Esq.
Larry Paul Smith, Esq.
SMITHMARCO, P.C.
5250 Old Orchard Rd., Suite 300
Skokie, IL 60077
Telephone: (312) 546-6539
Facsimile: (312) 602-3911
E-mail: dmarco@smithmarco.com
lsmith@smithmarco.com
L & M VELARDO: Miguel Seeks Construction Assistants' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDY MIGUEL, Plaintiff v. L & M VELARDO CONTRACTING CORP (DBA
VELARDO CONTRACTING INC) and LUIGI VELARDO, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-11016 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2023) arises
from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, as
recently amended by the Wage Theft Prevention Act, and related
provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules and Regulations.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately
April 2005 until November 15, 2023, where he was primarily employed
as a construction assistant. He alleges the Defendants' failure to
pay minimum and overtime wages and failure to provide accurate wage
statements.
L & M Velardo Contracting Corp. is engaged in the single-family
housing construction business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL P.C.
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
LA CLINICA DE LA RAZA: Robertson Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michelle Robertson, as parent for minor child
S.R., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. La Clinica De La Raza, Inc., Case No. 23CV044258 was removed
from the Superior Court of California Alameda County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on Nov. 10,
2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:23-cv-05817-HSG to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
La Clinica -- https://laclinica.org/ -- is a premier community
health center, rooted in the concepts of wellness, prevention and
patient-centered care.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laura Grace Van Note, Esq.
Colin Furlow, Esq.
Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th Street, Suite 1725, Suite 1725
Oakland, CA 94607
Phone: (510) 891-9800
Email: lvn@colevannote.com
cgf@colevannote.com
sec@colevannote.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Tish Richelle L. Pickett, Esq.
POLSINELLI LLP
2049 Century Park East, Suite 2900
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 556-1801
Email: tpickett@polsinelli.com
- and -
Mark Alan Olthoff, Esq.
POLSINELLI PC
900 W 48th Place, Suite 900
Kansas City, MO 64112-1895
Phone: (816) 753-1000
Fax: (816) 753-1536
Email: molthoff@polsinelli.com
- and -
Shundra Crumpton Manning, Esq.
POLSINELLI PC
501 Commerce Street, Suite 1300
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 259-1535
Email: scmanning@polsinelli.com
MASSACHUSETTS: Appeals Court Ruling in Cotto Civil Rights Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants ANDREA J. CAMPBELL, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated November 13,
2023, entered in the lawsuit styled Jennifer COTTO, David CUMMINGS,
Jamie KIMBALL, Todd MOTON, and Travis MORAN on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Andrea Joy
CAMPBELL, Massachusetts Attorney General; Timothy SHUGRUE,
Berkshire County District Attorney; Thomas M. QUINN, III, Bristol
County District Attorney; Robert GALIBOS, Cape and Islands District
Attorney; Jonathan BLODGETT, Essex County District Attorney;
Anthony GULLUNI, Hampden County District Attorney; Marian RYAN,
Middlesex County District Attorney; Michael W. MORRISSEY, Norfolk
County District Attorney; David E. SULLIVAN, Northwestern District
Attorney; Timothy J. CRUZ, Plymouth County District Attorney; Kevin
R. HAYDEN, Suffolk County District Attorney; Joseph D. EARLY, JR.,
Worcester County District Attorney; John A. BELLO, Administrator of
the Trial Court; Christopher MASON, Massachusetts State Police
Superintendent; SPRINGFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT; BOSTON POLICE
DEPARTMENT; BROCKTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; and FALL RIVER POLICE
DEPARTMENT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10354-IT, in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The Plaintiffs are five individuals whose Massachusetts drug
convictions have been vacated and dismissed but whose forfeited
property has not been returned to them. They bring this putative
class action on their own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated against various Massachusetts state officials
and municipal police departments. Invoking the Fourteenth and
Eighth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and state statutory and
common law, Plaintiffs seek the restoration of the forfeited
property.
The Defendants filed motions to dismiss the case on April 14, 2023,
May 26, 2023, and May 30, 2023, asserting, inter alia, that
Plaintiffs' claims are barred by sovereign immunity, various
abstention doctrines, and the statute of limitations.
On November 13, 2023, Judge Indira Talwani entered a Memorandum and
Order holding that Defendants' April 14, 2023 motion to dismiss is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and the remaining Defendants'
motions to dismiss are GRANTED.
The appellate case is captioned as Cotto, et al. v. Campbell, et
al., Case No. 23-2069, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit, filed on December 20, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate case states that Fee,
Transcript Report/Order form, Appearance form, and Docketing
Statement were due January 3, 2024.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants ANDREA J. CAMPBELL, Attorney General, et al.,
are represented by:
Katherine B. Dirks, Esq.
Anne L. Sterman, Esq.
MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
1 Ashburton Pl., 18th Fl
Boston, MA 02108-0000
Telephone: (617) 963-2277
Plaintiffs-Appellees JAMIE KIMBALL, et al., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
William W. Fick, Esq.
Daniel N. Marx, Esq.
FICK & MARX LLP
24 Federal St., 4th Flr
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (857) 321-8360
- and -
Luke S. Ryan, Esq.
SASSON TURNBULL RYAN & HOOSE
100 Main St., 3rd Fl.
Northampton, MA 01060
Telephone: (413) 586-4800
MR. COOPER: Lapertche Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cody Lapertche, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MR. COOPER GROUP, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-02528-E (N.D.
Tex., Nov. 14, 2023), is brought against Defendant for its failure
to exercise reasonable care in securing and safeguarding
individuals’ sensitive personal data (collectively known as
“Private Information”).
On October 31, 2023, third-party cyber criminals gained
unauthorized access to Plaintiff’s and Class members’ Private
Information (the “Data Breach”). The total number of
individuals who have had their data exposed due to Defendant’s
failure to implement appropriate security safeguards is unknown at
this time but up to 4,000,000 individuals can be considered at
risk.
The Defendant’s security failures enabled the hackers to steal
the Private Information of Plaintiff and members of the Class.
These failures put Plaintiff’s and Class members’ Private
Information and interests at serious, immediate, and ongoing risk
and, additionally, caused costs and expenses to Plaintiff and Class
members associated with time spent and the loss of productivity
from taking time to address and attempt to ameliorate, mitigate and
deal with the actual and future consequences of the Data Breach,
including, as appropriate, reviewing records for fraudulent
charges, cancelling and reissuing payment cards, purchasing credit
monitoring and identity theft protection services, imposition of
withdrawal and purchase limits on compromised accounts, initiating
and monitoring credit freezes, and the stress, nuisance and
annoyance of dealing with all issues resulting from the Data
Breach.
The Data Breach was caused and enabled by Defendant’s violation
of its obligations to abide by best practices, industry standards,
and federal and state laws concerning the security of
individuals’ Private Information. Defendant knew or should have
known that its failure to take reasonable security measures--which
could have prevented or mitigated the Data Breach that
occurred--left its customers’ Private Information vulnerable to
identity theft, financial loss, and other associated harms.
Accordingly, Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence, breach of
implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, unjust enrichment/quasi-contract, and breach of
confidence, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff received a notice, dated November 2, 2023, from
Defendant via electronic mail notifying him of the Data Breach.
The Defendant is one of the nation’s largest non-bank mortgage
servicers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD, LLP
412 H Street NE, no. 302,
Washington, DC, 20002
Phone: 202-470-3520
Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
jrathod@classlawdc.com
MUBI INC: Discloses Consumers' Info to 3rd Parties, Sarkar Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
DEBJANI SARKAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MUBI, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-10797 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 12, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the federal Video Privacy
Protection Act by disclosing consumers' personally identifiable
information and viewed video media to unauthorized third parties,
including Meta Platforms, Inc.
This is a consumer digital privacy class action complaint brought
on behalf of all persons who subscribed to Mubi's streaming service
and watched videos on mubi.com and/or corresponding app, both of
which are owned and controlled by Mubi. The Plaintiff brings this
action in response to Defendant's practice of knowingly disclosing
its subscribers' personally identifiable information to
unauthorized third parties without first complying with the VPPA's
statutory requirements.
The Plaintiff and consumers were harmed by Mubi's unlawful conduct,
which deprives them of their right to privacy in their own homes,
and the disclosures at issue reveal highly personal details
regarding their unique video requests and viewing habits, the suit
says.
Mubi, Inc. is a global streaming service, production company, and
film distributer that owns and operates mubi.com and its
corresponding app in throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randi Kassan, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 741-5600
Facsimile: (516) 741-0128
NEWEGG INC: Coster Suit Transferred to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Elizabeth De Coster, Maya Gold, Megan Smith,
Robert Taylor, Kenneth David West, Emma Zaballos, Deborah
Frame-Wilson, Christian Sabol, Samanthia Russell, Arthur Scharein,
Lionel Keros, Nathan Chaney, Chris Gulley, Sheryl Holly-Taylor,
Anthony Courtne, Dave Westrope, Stacy Dutill, Sarah Arrington, Mary
Elliot, Heather Geesey, Steve Mortillaro, Chaunda Lewis, Adrian
Hennen, Glenda R. Hill, Gail Murphy, Phyllis Huster, Gerry
Kochendorfer, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Newegg, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-00693-JHC was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on Nov. 17, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-mc-00166-SB-AS to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.
Newegg Commerce, Inc., is an American online retailer of items
including computer hardware and consumer electronic.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abigail D. Pershing, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
301 North Lake Avenue Suite 920
Pasadena, CA 91101
Phone: (213) 330-7150
Email: abigailp@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Anne F. Johnson, Esq.
HAGEN BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
68 3rd Street Suite 249
Brooklyn, NY 11231
Phone: (718) 916-3520
Email: annej@hbsslaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Hannah Lynn Cannom, Esq.
Walker Stevens Cannom LLP
500 Molino Street Suite 118
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Phone: (213) 337-9972
Fax: (213) 403-4906
Email: hcannom@wscllp.com
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Levitt Sues Over Failure to Implement Security
----------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Levitt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NORTHWELL HEALTH, INC. and PERRY JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES,
INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-01892-ART-NJK (D. Nev., Nov. 16, 2023), is
brought arising out of the cyberattack and data breach that
occurred between around March 27, 2023 and May 2, 2023 ("Data
Breach") resulting from Defendants' failure to implement reasonable
and industry standard data security practices.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal
information--which they entrusted to Defendants on the mutual
understanding that Defendants would protect it against
disclosure--was compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data
Breach.
The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included
Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, Social Security numbers,
dates of birth, addresses, medical record numbers, and hospital
account numbers ("personally identifiable information" or "PII"),
and clinical information including the name of the treatment
facility, name of healthcare provider, admission diagnosis, date(s)
and time(s) of service, and files containing transcripts of
operative reports, consult reports, history and physical exams, and
discharge summaries or progress results (which may include
diagnoses, testing results, medical history, family medical
history, surgical history, social history, medications, allergies
and other observational information), which is all protected health
information as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") ("PHI," and collectively with
PII, "Private Information"). The Private Information compromised in
the Data Breach was exfiltrated by cyber criminals and remains in
the hands of those cyber-criminals who targeted Private Information
for its value to identity thieves.
The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendants' failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and
protocols necessary to protect its clients' patients' Private
Information from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The
Defendants maintained the Private Information in a reckless manner.
In particular, the Private Information was maintained on
Defendants' computer network in a condition vulnerable to
cyberattacks. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the
cyberattack and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's
and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to
Defendants, and thus, Defendants were on notice that failing to
take steps necessary to secure the Private Information from those
risks left that property in a dangerous condition.
The Defendants disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class
Members by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or
negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized
intrusions; failing to disclose that they did not have adequately
robust computer systems and security practices to safeguard Class
Members' Private Information; failing to take standard and
reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach; and failing
to provide Plaintiff and Class Members prompt and accurate notice
of the Data Breach.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk
because of Defendants' negligent conduct because the Private
Information that Defendants collected and maintained is now in the
hands of data thieves, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff received a notice letter from Defendants dated
November 3, 2023.
Northwell is New York State's largest healthcare provider, with
hospitals in New York City, Long Island, and Westchester, including
North Shore University Hospital and Long Island Jewish Medical
Center.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathan R. Ring, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
3100 W. Charleston Boulevard, Suite 208
Las Vegas, NV 89102
Phone: (725) 235-9750
Email: lasvegas@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Ken Grunfeld, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954-525-4100
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
grunfeld@kolawyers.com
NORTHWELL HEALTH: O'Rourke Sues Over Unsecured PHI and PII
----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin O'Rourke, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NORTHWELL HEALTH, INC. and PERRY JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES,
INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-01880-RFB-DJA (D. Nev., Nov. 14, 2023), is
brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard The Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ protected health
information and personally identifiable information stored within
Defendant’s information network, including without limitation,
names, dates of birth, addresses, medical record numbers, hospital
account numbers and clinical information such as the name of
patients’ treatment facility, the name of patients’ healthcare
provider, admission diagnoses and times of service (these types of
information, inter alia, being thereafter referred to,
collectively, as “protected health information” or “PHI and
“personally identifiable information” or “PII”).
The Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it
caused and will continue to cause The Plaintiff and, at least, 1.2
million other similarly situated persons in the massive and
preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendant on May
2, 2023, by which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant’s
inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly
sensitive PHI/PII which was being kept unprotected (the “Data
Breach”).
While Defendant claims to have discovered the breach as early as
May 2, 2023, Defendant did not begin informing victims of the Data
Breach until November 3, 2023. Indeed, The Plaintiff and Class
Members were wholly unaware of the Data Breach until they received
letters from Defendant informing them of it. The Notice received by
The Plaintiff was dated November 3, 2023. The Defendant acquired,
collected and stored The Plaintiff’s and Class Members’
PHI/PII. Therefore, at all relevant times, Defendant knew or should
have known that The Plaintiff and Class Members would use
Defendant’s services to store and/or share sensitive data,
including highly confidential PHI/PII.
By obtaining, collecting, using and deriving a benefit from The
Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ PHI/PII, Defendant assumed legal
and equitable duties to those individuals. These duties arise from
HIPAA and other state and federal statutes and regulations as well
as common law principles. The Plaintiff does not bring claims in
this action for direct violations of HIPAA, but charges Defendant
with various legal violations merely predicated upon the duties set
forth in HIPAA.
The Defendant disregarded the rights of The Plaintiff and Class
Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly and/or negligently
failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure that The Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ PHI/PII was
safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an
unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable,
required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures
regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use.
As a result, The Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ PHI/PII was
compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third
party—an undoubtedly nefarious third party seeking to profit off
this disclosure by defrauding The Plaintiff and Class Members in
the future. The Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing
interest in ensuring their information is and remains safe and are
entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a victim of the Data Breach.
The Defendant is “the largest health system in New York.”[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laura Van Note, Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th Street, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Phone: (510) 891-9800
Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
Email: lvn@colevannote.com
Web: www.colevannote.com
- and -
David Hilton Wise, Esq.
WISE LAW FIRM, PLC
421 Court Street
Reno, NV, 89501
Phone: (775) 329-1766
Facsimile: (703) 934-6377
Email: dwise@wiselaw.pr
PEACOCK TV: Amescua Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Joseph Amescua, Jenna Harbin, Christopher
Barulich, Micheliah Island, Tyler Mcdaniel, AND 25,369 OTHER
CALIFORNIA INDIVIDUALS, Petitioners v. PEACOCK TV LLC, Respondent,
Case No. 23STCP03733 was removed from Los Angeles County Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on Nov. 13, 2023, and assigned Case No.
2:23-cv-09573-MCS-AGR.
This matter was filed on behalf of Petitioners Amescua, Harbin,
Barulich, Island, McDaniel, and 25,369 other individuals
(“Petitioners”) who take issue with the practices of Respondent
Peacock, a digital video streaming service. Specifically,
Petitioners plead that Peacock violated a federal statute, the
Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”); the California Invasion
of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), Cal. Penal Code; and California Civil
Code by allegedly disclosing Petitioners’ personally identifiable
information (“PII”) to a third party without their consent
(“Claims”).[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Sheri Pan, Esq.
ZWILLGEN LAW LLP
369 Pine Street, Suite 506
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 590-2341
Facsimile: (415) 636-5965
Email: sheri@zwillgen.com
PERIOD COMPANY: Brewer Sues Over False and Misleading Marketing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sheila Brewer, Alexis Campbell, Catherine Donahue, and Emily
Kohring, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE PERIOD COMPANY, Case No. 2:23-cv-09526-RGK-PD (C.D.
Cal., Nov. 10, 2023), is brought on behalf of all consumers who
purchased TPC period underwear ("Period Underwear" or "Products"),
which are used for personal hygiene purposes to collect and/or
absorb menstrual fluid as a result of the Defendant's false,
deceptive, and misleading marketing materials.
TPC differentiates itself in the highly competitive menstrual
product market by uniformly advertising its Products as
"waste-free," "non toxic," "sustainable," and "kind to the user and
to the Planet." Through its uniform, widespread, nationwide
advertising campaign, TPC has led consumers to believe that its
Period Underwear is a safe, healthy, and sustainable choice for
women and the environment, and that it is free of harmful toxins.
One area of particular concern to consumers of period underwear is
the presence or absence of harmful chemicals, including per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS chemicals are not environmentally sustainable. PFAS chemicals
are toxic to humans. TPC tells consumers that: "PFAS toxins have
been linked to cancer, reproductive and immune system harm and
other diseases." TPC tells consumers that "We don't know how much
PFAS the body absorbs from underwear, but a recent study showed
that the absorption of PFAS through the skin is as harmful as when
PFAS are ingested orally.
In light of the growing consumer concern surrounding PFAS, a key
part of TPC's marketing is that its Products are free of any PFAS.
TPC states on its website that its Period Underwear is tested and
found to be PFAS-free. TPC states on its Amazon store that its
Period Underwear is tested and found to be PFAS-free and
toxin-free. TPC states in its social media advertising that its
Period Underwear is PFAS-free. Reasonable consumers, therefore,
fairly and reasonably understand that TPC Products are a safe,
healthy, and sustainable choice for women and the environment, and
that TPC's Period Underwear is PFAS-free.
TPC's marketing materials are false, deceptive, and misleading. In
reality, independent testing has confirmed the existence of
multiple PFAS chemicals in TPC Period Underwear using industry
standard testing. The presence of PFAS chemicals contradicts TPC's
pervasive and unvarying representations that its Products are
environmentally sustainable, non-toxic, and PFAS free.
TPC's misrepresentations were, at best, entirely careless. Upon
information and belief: (a) TPC only tests its Period Underwear for
less than 1% of the PFAS chemicals known to exist, but nevertheless
tells consumers, without qualification, that its Period Underwear
is PFAS-free; and (b) TPC does not do adequate testing for the
presence of PFAS in its Period Underwear because an industry
standard test would demonstrate detectable levels of PFAS in TPC's
Products. Consumers pay a premium for TPC Period Underwear because
of TPC's representations that its products are environmentally
sustainable, non-toxic, and PFAS free.
TPC's misrepresentations render TPC Period Underwear worthless or,
at a minimum, less valuable. If TPC had disclosed to Plaintiffs and
Class Members that TPC Period Underwear in fact contained
PFAS—and was not environmentally sustainable, non-toxic, and
PFAS-free—Plaintiffs and Class Members would not have purchased
TPC Period Underwear, or they would have paid less for TPC Period
Underwear. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and Class Members did not
receive the benefit of their bargain and overpaid for TPC Period
Underwear, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were exposed to and relied upon TPC's marketing
message that TPC Products were environmentally sustainable,
non-toxic, and PFAS free, and purchased TPC Period Underwear.
TPC designs, formulates, manufactures, markets, advertises,
distributes, and sells Period Underwear to consumers throughout the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eric S. Dwoskin, Esq.
DWOSKIN WASDIN LLP
433 Plaza Real, Suite 275
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Phone: 561-849-8060
Email: edwoskin@dwowas.com
- and -
Robert G. Loewy, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT G. LOEWY, P.C
20 Enterprise, Suite 310
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Phone: 949-468-7150
Email: rloewy@rloewy.com
POSTMEDS INC: Morgan Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
-------------------------------------------------------
Angela Morgan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. POSTMEDS, INC. d/b/a TRUEPILL, Case No.
3:23-cv-05862-AGT (N.D. Cal., Nov. 14, 2023), is brought against
Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
Plaintiff’s and other similarly situated customers’ sensitive
information, including Class Members’ full names, demographic
information (“personally identifiable information” or
“PII”) and medical and health insurance information, which is
protected health information (“PHI”, and collectively with PII,
“Private Information”) as defined by the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”).
Former and current Defendant customers are required to entrust
Defendant with Private Information without which Defendant could
not perform its regular business activities, in order to obtain
services from Defendant. Defendant retains this information for at
least many years and even after the consumer relationship has
ended.
By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the
Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant
assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect
and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and
intrusion. The Defendant has taken no steps to inform Plaintiff and
Class Members that their Private Information had been compromised
even though Defendant knew or should have known and that they were,
and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and
various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. The
risk will remain for their respective lifetimes.
The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class
Members’ Private Information. This Private Information was
compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and
omissions and their utter failure to protect customers’ sensitive
data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff’s and Class
Members’ Private Information because of its value in making
fraudulent purchases and exploiting or stealing the identities of
Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to
victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective
lifetimes.
The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members
by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to
implement and maintain adequate and reasonable measures and ensure
those measures were followed by its IT vendors to ensure that the
Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members was safeguarded,
failing to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized
disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required, and
appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the
encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, the Private
Information of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through
disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff received a Notice of Data Breach letter.
The Defendant is a digital pharmacy that “operates a nationwide
network of URAC-accredited mail order and specialty
pharmacies.”[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954-525-4100
Email: cardoso@kolawyers.com
RALPHS GROCERY: Chesnut Sues Over Unlawfully Charged Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert Chesnut, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, Case No.
30-2023-0136179:3-CU-BT-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., Nov. 16,
2023), is brought seeking to stop these deceptive, unlawful
practices of the Defendants by unlawfully charging fees.
Under the California passed the Beverage Container Recycling and
Litter Reduction Act (hereinafter the "Act"), California consumers
pay a cash fee known as a California Redemption Value ("CRV") for
each qualifying beverage container made from Aluminum, Plastic, or
Glass. For these qualifying beverages, consumers pay 5 cents for
containers less than 24 ounces and 10 Cents for containers over 24
ounces to certain qualifying "dealers."
Due to the sharp increase in food prices and these shrinkflation
tactics, grocery shoppers and consumers are examining their
receipts closer than ever before. One such examination led
Plaintiff to discover that Ralphs Grocery stores, one of
California's largest supermarket chains, has been unlawfully
charging California Redemption Value ("CRV") for certain exempted
products.
When shopping for beverages, Plaintiff typically purchases
different flavors of Ocean Spray, 100% fruit juice in 64 fluid
ounce containers (the "Juice"). Because these 100 percent fruit
juices are purchased in containers that are 46 ounces or greater,
CRV should not be charged on the Joice under the Act. During
several visits to Ralphs in September 2023, Plaintiff discovered
that he was indeed being charged 10 cent CRV ("Unlawful CRV") on
the Juice.
The Plaintiff learned that several Ralphs Stores were unlawfully
charging this fee whereas its biggest competitor, Stater Market
Bros., was not. Ralphs has unlawfully charged thousands and
thousands of California residents with a CRV on these exempted
products for years. The Plaintiff seeks to stop these deceptive,
unlawful practices, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly shops for food and beverages at Ralphs.
Ralphs operates over 400 supermarket stores throughout California,
offering tens of thousands of products to its customers, with many
of those products presented under Ralphs private label.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Pamela E. Prescott, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Suite Dl
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (800)400-6808
Facsimile:(800)520-5523
Email: ak@kazlg.com
pamela@kazlg.com
REAL TIME STAFFING: Faces Taylor Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
JASON TAYLOR, on behalf of himself and current and former aggrieved
employees, Plaintiff v. REAL TIME STAFFING SERVICES, LLC, a
California corporation; JOHN PAUL MITCHELL SYSTEMS, a California
corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
23STCV30297 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 12, 2023) is a
representative action brought by the Plaintiff pursuant to the
California Labor Code arising from the Defendants' alleged unlawful
labor policies and practices.
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime, failure to pay overtime at proper rate,
failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods,
failure to timely pay wages upon termination, failure to timely pay
wages during employment, failure to provide complete and accurate
wage statements, failure to keep complete and accurate payroll
records, and failure to properly pay sick pay.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a nonexempt
employee from September 10, 2021 to June 7, 2023.
Real Time Staffing Services, LLC is authorized to do business
within the State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Lavi, Esq.
Arie Ebrahimian, Esq.
E&L, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Blvd., 2nd Floor
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (213) 213-0000
Facsimile: (213) 213-0025
E-mail: dlavi@ebralavi.com
arie@ebralavi.com
SOLAWAVE INC: McGlynn Files Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Solawave Inc. The
case is styled as Kelly McGlynn, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Solawave Inc., Case No.
2:23-cv-08375-GRB-SIL (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 10, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending.
SolaWave -- https://www.solawave.co/ -- specializes in the
development of skincare tools and topicals for all genders, and
skin tones.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip M. Smith, Esq.
KRAVIT SMITH LLP
75 South Broadway, Suite 400
White Plains, NY 10601
Phone: (646) 493-8004
Fax: (917) 858-7101
Email: psmith@kravitsmithllp.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kevin James Minnick, Esq.
SPERTUS, LANDES & JOSEPHS, LLP
617 W. 7th St., Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 205-6520
Fax: (213) 205-6521
Email: kminnick@spertuslaw.com
STOLI GROUP: Faces Sookul Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
SANJAY SOOKUL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Stoli Group (USA), LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-10810 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 12, 2023) is a civil rights action
against Stoli for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website, https://shop.villaonetequila.com/, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff is interested in gifting his cousin a bottle of
tequila and was recommended Villaonetequila.com by a friend who was
enamored with the unique flavors of their tequila. After browsing
and reviewing the company's products, Plaintiff intended to make an
online purchase of a bottle of tequila on Villaonetequila.com.
However, he encountered difficulties navigating the Defendant's
website because of accessibility issues. By failing to make the
website accessible to blind persons, Defendant is violating basic
equal access requirements under both state and federal law, says
the Plaintiff.
Stoli Group (USA), LLC is a food and beverage manufacturing
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF MARS KHAIMOV
100 Duffy Avenue, Suite 510
Hicksville, NY 11801
Telephone: (929) 324-0717
Facsimile: (929) 333-7774
E-mail: mars@khaimovlaw.com
TAURUS INTERNATIONAL: Jaramillo Files Suit in M.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Taurus International
Manufacturing, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Libardo
Jaramillo, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. Taurus International Manufacturing, Inc., Taurus Holdings, Inc.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-00196-LAG (M.D. Ga., Nov. 10, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Taurus International Manufacturing -- https://www.taurususa.com/ --
makes and sells revolvers, pistols, rifles, and ammunition.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Todd Wheeles, Esq.
3000 Riverchase Galleria, Ste. 905
Birmingham, AL 35244
Phone: (205) 623-8241
Email: todd@wheelesgarmonattorneys.com
- and -
Christina D. Crow, Esq.
P.O Box 350
Union Springs, AL 36089
Phone: (334) 738-4225
Email: christy.crow@jinkscrow.com
TORY BURCH: Fails to Pay Manual Workers' Timely Wages, Walker Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
LAMAR WALKER, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. TORY BURCH, LLC, Case No. 619465/2023 (N.Y. Sup., Nov.
30, 2023) seeks to recover damages for delinquent wage payments
made to workers who qualify as manual workers as defined by New
York Labor Law Section 190(4).
The Plaintiff has initiated this action seeking for himself, and on
behalf of all similarly situated employees employed by the
Defendant in New York at any point between January 1, 2017, and
December 31, 2022, compensation owed -- plus interest, attorneys'
fees, and costs -- owing to Defendant's illegal pay practices. The
Defendant allegedly has compensated all its employees on a
bi-weekly (every other week) basis, regardless of whether said
employees qualified as manual workers under the NYLL, says the
Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff is an individual who currently resides in the State
of New York. He worked in an hourly, non-exempt position, where he
would typically perform physical tasks for more than of 25% of his
workday.
Tory Burch is an American mid-luxury women's fashion label based in
Manhattan, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
TOYOTA MOTOR: Hadi Files Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Toyota Motor
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Sara Hadi, Jun Imaizumi,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Toyota
Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-09613-DSF-SSC (C.D.
Cal., Nov. 13, 2022).
The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Product Liability.
Toyota Motor Corporation -- http://global.toyota/en-- is a
Japanese multinational automotive manufacturer headquartered in
Toyota City, Aichi, Japan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel C. Edelman, Esq.
Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
KANTROWITZ GODHAMER AND GRAFMAN PC
135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
Montvale, NJ 07645
Phone: (201) 391-7000
Fax: (201) 307-1086
Email: dedelman@kgglaw.com
ggraifman@kgglaw.com
- and -
S. Martin Keleti, Esq.
KELETI LAW
9903 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 751
Beverly Hills, CA 90212-1671
Phone: (323) 308-8489
Email: s.martin.keleti@gmail.com
The Defendant is represented by:
David L. Schrader, Esq.
Lisa R. Weddle, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue 22nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
Phone: (213) 612-2500
Fax: (213) 612-2501
Email: david.schrader@morganlewis.com
lisa.weddle@morganlewis.com
- and -
Mark W. Allen, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
Spear Tower
One Market
San Francisco, CA 94105-1126
Phone: (415) 442-1000
Fax: (415) 442-1001
Email: mark.allen@morganlewis.com
TRI COUNTIES: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Delgado Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
RITA DELGADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TRI COUNTIES BANK, Case No. 23CV03381 (Cal. Super.,
Dec. 6, 2023) alleges that the Plaintiff's and Class Members'
sensitive personal information was compromised and unlawfully
accessed due to the recent cyberattack and data breach.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant disregarded the rights of
the Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully,
recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable
measures to ensure its data systems were protected against
unauthorized intrusions; failing to take standard and reasonably
available steps to prevent the Data Breach; and failing to provide
the Plaintiff and Class Members prompt and accurate notice of the
Data Breach.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk
because of the Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that
the Defendant collected and maintained is now in the hands of data
thieves, the suit says.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and approximately
74,000 Class Members, have been exposed to a heightened and
imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class
Members may also incur out of pocket costs, e.g., for purchasing
credit monitoring services, credit freezes, credit reports, or
other protective measures to deter and detect identity theft, the
suit adds.
The Plaintiff and the Class Members are former and current
customers, customer applicants, and/or employees of the Defendant.
The Defendant is a California-based bank, "with assets of nearly
$10 billion," that offers financial products and services to its
customers "throughout California."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (858) 209-6941
E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com
UTILIQUEST LLC: Perry Sues Over Utility Locators' Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
TAVAUGHN PERRY, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. UTILIQUEST, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-03369-GLR
(D. Md., Dec. 12, 2023) arises from the Defendant's alleged
violations of the Maryland Wage and Hour Law and the Maryland Wage
Payment and Collective Law.
The Plaintiff asserts the engagement of the Defendant's uniform
"ticket to ticket" policy by depriving him and the other hourly
utility locators of overtime wages for all overtime hours worked
and by withholding earned wages from him and the other hourly
utility locators for all hours worked. Instead, UtiliQuest requires
him and the other hourly utility locators to perform significant
compensable work "off the clock" without pay, says the Plaintiff.
Plaintiff Perry worked for UtiliQuest as a utility locator in and
around Baltimore, Maryland from approximately August 2021 until
August 2022.
UtiliQuest, LLC provides facility location and infrastructure
protection services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: tjones@mybackwages.com
mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
VAIL RESORTS: Quint Appeals Court Ruling in Labor Suit to 10th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RANDY DEAN QUINT, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in
the lawsuit entitled Randy Dean Quint, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Vail
Resorts, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-CV-03569-DDD-NRN, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
filed a complaint against the Defendant for violations of the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), the laws of the
States of Colorado, California, Utah, Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Washington, New York, Vermont and Michigan, and common law.
The Plaintiffs seek recompense for unpaid wages, overtime and other
benefits wrongly withheld from them and all other similarly
situated current and former Vail Resort employees.
On November 21, 2022, (then-Magistrate, now-District) Judge Gordon
P. Gallagher issued a Recommendation on a Motion to Certify Class
and Order on Motions to Compel and to Strike, in which he, among
other things, recommended that the Plaintiffs' state law claims be
bifurcated from the FLSA claims and stayed pending a resolution of
the FLSA claims, and that a Hoffmann-LaRoche notice be sent only to
Instructor employees.
The Plaintiffs objected to Judge Gallagher's recommendation to
limit conditional certification to snow sports instructors. They
point to an affidavit by an employee who works as a lift operator,
lift ticket scanner, and summer activities guide stating similar
allegations regarding compensation for travel time, donning and
doffing, and work expenses.
On Nov. 22, 2023, the Court overruled the Plaintiffs' objection to
the court's order granting a stay and all proceedings remain
stayed. The Plaintiffs' objections to then Magistrate Judge Gordon
P. Gallagher's order denying the motion to compel discovery are
overruled as moot through an order entered by Judge Daniel D.
Domenico.
The appellate case is captioned Quint, et al. v. Vail Resorts, Case
No. 23-1404, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit, filed on December 22, 2023.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants Docketing statement, transcript order form and
notice of appearance were due January 5, 2024; and
-- Appellee Notice of appearance and disclosure statement were
due January 5, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants RANDY DEAN QUINT, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Edward Philip Dietrich, Esq.
9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 300-8450
- and -
Benjamin Galdston, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92130
Defendant-Appellee VAIL RESORTS, INC. is represented by:
Michael H. Bell, Esq.
Marielle Alecia Moore, Esq.
OGLETREE DEAKINS
2000 South Colorado Boulevard
Tower 3, Suite 900
Denver, CO 80222
Telephone: (303) 764-6800
VICTORVILLE TREASURE: Salter Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Katie Salter, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. VICTORVILLE TREASURE HOLDINGS LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive,
Case No. CIVSB2329543 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Bernardino Cty., Nov.
11, 2023), is brought against the Defendants for recovery of unpaid
minimum wages and liquidated damages, recovery of unpaid overtime
wages, failure to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu
thereof, failure to provide rest periods or compensation in lieu
thereof, violations of labor code, failure to timely pay all wages
due, upon separation of employment, failure to reimburse business
expenses and unfair competition.
The Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiff and Class Members
for all hours worked, resulting in the underpayment of minimum and
overtime wages. The Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiff
and Class Members for all hours worked by virtue of, the
Defendants' automatic deduction and time rounding policies, and
failure to relieve employees of all duties/employer control during
unpaid meal periods or otherwise unlawful practices for missed or
improper meal periods, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in the state of
California.
The Defendants own, operate, manage and/or staff its employees to
work at the hotels, restaurants, and/or facilities and/or other
location(s) in California, including but not limited to the hotels,
restaurants, and/or facilities in Victorville California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jamie K. Serb, Esq.
Brandon Brouilleite, Esq.
Zachary Crosner, Esq.
Michael R. Crosner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL PC
9440 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Phone: (310) 496-5818
Fax: (818) 700-9973
Email: jamie@crosnerlegal.com
zach@crosnerlegal.com
bbrouillette@crosnerlegal.com
WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING: Martinez Sues Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ELIAS MARTINEZ, EFRAIN HERNANDEZ BARTOLO, ISAIAS HERNANDEZ
BARTOLO, and GENARO VILLEDA MALDONADO, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. THE WHITING-TURNER
CONTRACTING COMPANY, CENTERLINE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, and
CONGRATULATIONS CONSTRUCTION INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-03441-ABA (D.
Md., Dec. 20, 2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs
against the Defendants to recover unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Maryland Workplace Fraud Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law,
the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, and the Maryland
Prevailing Wage Statute.
The Plaintiffs are construction workers who are building a
long-awaited Regional Cancer Center at the University of Maryland
Capital Region Medical Center in Prince George's County, Maryland.
They assert that Defendants intentionally flouted wage and hour
laws, seeking to maximize profits by failing to pay them the
prevailing and overtime wages they were legally entitled to
receive. The Defendants also treated them and other
similarly-situated employees as independent contractors, despite
the fact that Defendants controlled all aspects of their work,
including setting their schedules, assigning their tasks, hiring
and firing them, and requiring them to follow policies established
by Defendants, say the Plaintiffs.
Whiting-Turner Contracting Company provides construction
management, general contracting, design-build and project delivery
services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark Hanna, Esq.
MURPHY ANDERSON PLLC
1401 K Street NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 223-2620
E-mail: mhanna@murphypllc.com
- and -
Joanna K. Wasik, Esq.
WASHINGTON LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL
RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS
700 14th St NW Suite 400
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 319-100
E-mail: Joanna_Wasik@washlaw.org
*********
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 2024. 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 ***