/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240116.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, January 16, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 12

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Allison Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Armbrust Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Carlson Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Carroll Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Chown Class Suit Alleges

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Cohen Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Collins Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Craig Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Ehlers Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Fleming Class Suit Alleges

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Fortin Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Geissinger Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Gentry Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Griffin Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Hail Class Suit Alleges

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Harrison Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Herelle Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Hively Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Horton Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Houlehan Class Suit Alleges

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Jenewein Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Labarge Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Lowe Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Lynch Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, McQuerry Class Suit Alleges

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Moller Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Myers Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Myogeto Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Pendleton Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Piland Class Suit Alleges

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Reyes Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Scites Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: Gomes Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Lucksavage Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Mata Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams

3M COMPANY: McAuley Sues Over Exposure to Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Miller Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Moraniec Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Natella Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
AG MORGAN TAX: B & T Supplies Files Suit in S.D. New York

ALEXANDER COLEMAN: Taylor Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Shannon Class Cert Reply Sealed
ALTUGLAS LLC: McGraw Sues Over Damages From Chemical Spill
AMAZON WEB: Class Cert Bid Filing Stayed in Rivera Lawsuit
ANNETTE SMITH: Judge Recommends Dismissal of Dell Complaint

APEX SYSTEMS: Parties Seek Continuation of Deadlines
BAYSTATE HEALTH: $500K Deal in Chechile Suit Has Final Approval
BCG GLASS: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Jaramillo et al. Allege
BHP BILLITON: Court OK's Arkansas Bid to Intervene in Pennington
BLUE CROSS: Court Grants Class Declaratory Relief in C.P. Suit

BOTANIC TONICS: Court Denies 7-Eleven's Bid to Dismiss Torres Suit
BP PRODUCTS: Betzag Sues Over Misleading Gas Station Sign Boards
BRADLEY UNIVERSITY: Seeks Support Notice to Class Cert Opposition
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal
COMERICA BANK: Sparkman's 1st Amended Complaint Dismissed in Part

CORE SCAFFOLD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Angel Suit Claims
CW FORD RENTALS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Jaso Says
DERMOQ INC: Faces Bunting Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
DIAMOND SECURITY: Shariff Sues Over Nonpayment of OT Wages
DOUG SPECIALTIES: Alex Kontos Sues Over Unpaid Transaction

ERLANGER HEALTH: Doe Lawsuit Removed from State Ct. to E.D. Tenn.
FIG AND TOMATO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cordova Alleges
FIRST FINANCIAL: Delaney's Bid for Judgment on Pleadings Denied
FREE REIN: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Martinez Says
FUNCTIONAL FRAGRANCES: Slade Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website

GROUP HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Patient Privacy Suit Granted in Part
GROUP SOLAR: S.D. New York Narrows Claims in Lojewski Class Suit
GRUMA CORPORATION: Class Settlement Gets Final Nod
HEALTH CAREER: Roberson Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses
HUB GROUP TRUCKING: Matthews Alleges WARN Act Violations

INK 477: Petersen Sues Over Unlawful Pay Practices in Fla.
INNOVAGE HOLDING: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Granted in Part
INSIGHT GLOBAL: Has Until Jan. 30 to File Class Cert Reply
INSOMNIA COOKIES: Wins Bid for Arbitration; Forte FLSA Suit Stayed
INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL: Court Continues Class Cert Deadlines

IR LABS DE: Menaugh Sues Over WARN Act and FLSA Breaches
JGR SERVICES: Court Approves $55K Class Settlement in Farez Suit
LA-Z BOY: Sanford Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
LB RETAIL: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Martinez Says
LEXISNEXIS RISK: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to April 15

MAISON SOLUTIONS: Kim Sues Over Misleading IPO Documents
MANUELITO FURNITURE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Araujo Claims
MCLAREN HEALTH: Filings in Lewis Suit Banned Until Further Order
MCLAREN HEALTH: Filings in Turri Suit Banned Until Further Order
MICROSOFT CORP: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Saeedy Privacy Suit

NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS: Harvey & Deprospo Sue Over Private Data Breach
ODELE LLC: Faces Morgan Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
OUTLOOK THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Suit Over Drug Licensing
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Carrick Labor Suit Stayed in N.D. California
PENN FOSTER: E.D. California Directs Clerk to Close Nipper Suit

PHE INC: Faces Doe Class Suit Over Invasion of Privacy
PITCHBOOK DATA: Kuehn and Lee Seek to Recover Overtime Wages
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Class Communication Issue in Buffalo Suit Fixed
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Must Show Unredacted Spreadsheet in Buffalo Suit
RETINA GROUP: Dapaah-Siakwan Sues Over Alleged Data Breach

SCOR HOLDING: Court Allows Cy Pres Distribution in Securities Suit
SIMA COE: Case Management Order Entered in Guardian Life Class Suit
SPECTRUM BRANDS: Garza Sues Over Pet Food's False Labeling
TALLAHASSEE MEMORIAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Agha Alleges

UNITED STATES: Argueta Class Suit Dismissed
WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Fernandez Suit Moved from State Ct. to C.D. Cal.

                            *********

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Allison Class Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Benny Allison v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06481-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 13, 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 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 it where it
remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals.

Plaintiff Benny Allison is a resident and citizen of Quinton,
Alabama. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in
training and to extinguish fires during their working career as a
civilian/military firefighter. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with
Thyroid Disease as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
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 several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.


The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE &
SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN
AMERICA 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; FIRE SERVICE PLUS INC.; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY
AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., INC.; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.;
PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.;
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.); 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:

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
          Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 N. Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 29440
          Telephone: (843) 546-2408
          Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
          E-mail: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
                  rlee@belllegalgroup.com
                  gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com

                - and -

          John E. Lichtenstein, Esq.
          LICHTENSTEIN LAW GROUP PLC
          347 Highland Avenue,
          Roanoke, VA 24016
          Telephone: (540)343-9711
          E-mail: John.lichtenstein@lichtensteinlawgroup.com

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Armbrust Class Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Armbrust v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06516-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 13, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages stemming from
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 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 it where it
remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals, says the suit.

Plaintiff Armbrust is a resident and citizen of West Covina,
California. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in
training and to extinguish fires during their military/civilian
firefighting career. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with Prostate
Cancer as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' 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 several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.


The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE &
SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN
AMERICA 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; FIRE SERVICE PLUS INC.; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY
AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., INC.; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.;
PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.;
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.); 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:

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
          Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 N. Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 29440
          Telephone: (843) 546-2408
          Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
          E-mail: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
                  rlee@belllegalgroup.com
                  gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com

                - and -

          John E. Lichtenstein, Esq.
          LICHTENSTEIN LAW GROUP PLC
          347 Highland Avenue,
          Roanoke, VA 24016
          Telephone: (540)343-9711
          E-mail: John.lichtenstein@lichtensteinlawgroup.com

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Carlson Class Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arlen W. Carlson v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06478-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 13, 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 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 it where it
remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals.

Plaintiff Carlson is a resident and citizen of Trimble, Missouri.
The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and
to extinguish fires during their military and/or civilian
firefighting career. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with Prostate
Cancer as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' 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 several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.


The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE &
SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN
AMERICA 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; FIRE SERVICE PLUS INC.; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY
AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., INC.; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.;
PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.;
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.); 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:

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
          Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 N. Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 29440
          Telephone: (843) 546-2408
          Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
          E-mail: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
                  rlee@belllegalgroup.com
                  gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com

                - and -

          John E. Lichtenstein, Esq.
          LICHTENSTEIN LAW GROUP PLC
          347 Highland Avenue,
          Roanoke, VA 24016
          Telephone: (540)343-9711
          E-mail: John.lichtenstein@lichtensteinlawgroup.com

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Carroll Class Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Carroll v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06491-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 13, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages stemming from
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 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 it where it
remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals, says the suit.

Plaintiff David Carroll is a resident and citizen of Elsberry,
Missouri. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in
training and to extinguish fires during their military/civilian
firefighting career. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with Prostate
Cancer as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' 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 several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.


The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE &
SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN
AMERICA 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; FIRE SERVICE PLUS INC.; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY
AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., INC.; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.;
PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.;
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.); 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:

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
          Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 N. Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 29440
          Telephone: (843) 546-2408
          Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
          E-mail: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
                  rlee@belllegalgroup.com
                  gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com

                - and -

          John E. Lichtenstein, Esq.
          LICHTENSTEIN LAW GROUP PLC
          347 Highland Avenue,
          Roanoke, VA 24016
          Telephone: (540)343-9711
          E-mail: John.lichtenstein@lichtensteinlawgroup.com

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Chown Class Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Chown v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06510-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 13,
2023) is a class action seeking for damages stemming from 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 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 it where it
remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals, says the suit.

Plaintiff James Chown is a resident and citizen of Crivitz,
Wisconsin. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in
training and to extinguish fires during their military/civilian
firefighting career. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with Prostate
Cancer as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' 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 several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.


The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE &
SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN
AMERICA 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; FIRE SERVICE PLUS INC.; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY
AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., INC.; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.;
PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.;
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.); 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:

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
          Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 N. Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 29440
          Telephone: (843) 546-2408
          Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
          E-mail: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
                  rlee@belllegalgroup.com
                  gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com

                - and -

          John E. Lichtenstein, Esq.
          LICHTENSTEIN LAW GROUP PLC
          347 Highland Avenue,
          Roanoke, VA 24016
          Telephone: (540)343-9711
          E-mail: John.lichtenstein@lichtensteinlawgroup.com

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Cohen Class Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Mark Cohen v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06492-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 13, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages stemming from
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 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 it where it
remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals, says the suit.

Plaintiff David Mark Cohen is a resident and citizen of Altamonte
Springs, Florida. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and
TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their
military/civilian firefighting career. The Plaintiff was diagnosed
with Prostate Cancer and Thyroid Cancer as a direct result of
exposure to the Defendants' 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 several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.


The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE &
SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN
AMERICA 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; FIRE SERVICE PLUS INC.; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY
AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., INC.; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.;
PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.;
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.); 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:

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
          Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 N. Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 29440
          Telephone: (843) 546-2408
          Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
          E-mail: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
                  rlee@belllegalgroup.com
                  gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com

                - and -

          John E. Lichtenstein, Esq.
          LICHTENSTEIN LAW GROUP PLC
          347 Highland Avenue,
          Roanoke, VA 24016
          Telephone: (540)343-9711
          E-mail: John.lichtenstein@lichtensteinlawgroup.com

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Collins Class Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS COLLINS v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06573-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 14, 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 PFASs, 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 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.

Plaintiff Thomas Collins is a resident and citizen of New Jersey.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF during his employment as a military and/or civilian
firefighter. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with Ulcerative Colitis 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 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;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; and 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:

          James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
          Keith Jackson, Esq.
          RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
          3530 Independence Dr.
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 879-5000
          Facsimile: (205) 879-5901

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Craig Class Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clark Craig v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06490-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 13,
2023) is a class action seeking for damages stemming from 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 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 it where it
remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals.

Plaintiff Clark Craig is a resident and citizen of Chappells, South
Carolina. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in
training and to extinguish fires during their military/civilian
firefighting career. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with Kidney Cancer
as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' 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 several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.


The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE &
SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN
AMERICA 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; FIRE SERVICE PLUS INC.; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY
AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., INC.; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.;
PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.;
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.); 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:

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
          Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 N. Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 29440
          Telephone: (843) 546-2408
          Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
          E-mail: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
                  rlee@belllegalgroup.com
                  gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com

                - and -

          John E. Lichtenstein, Esq.
          LICHTENSTEIN LAW GROUP PLC
          347 Highland Avenue,
          Roanoke, VA 24016
          Telephone: (540)343-9711
          E-mail: John.lichtenstein@lichtensteinlawgroup.com

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Ehlers Class Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles D. Ehlers v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06489-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 13, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages stemming from
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 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 it where it
remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals, says the suit.

Plaintiff Ehlers is a resident and citizen of Manning, Illinois.
The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and
to extinguish fires during their military/civilian firefighting
career. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with Bladder Cancer as a direct
result of exposure to the Defendants' 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 several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.


The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE &
SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN
AMERICA 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; FIRE SERVICE PLUS INC.; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY
AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., INC.; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.;
PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.;
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.); 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:

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
          Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 N. Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 29440
          Telephone: (843) 546-2408
          Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
          E-mail: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
                  rlee@belllegalgroup.com
                  gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com

                - and -

          John E. Lichtenstein, Esq.
          LICHTENSTEIN LAW GROUP PLC
          347 Highland Avenue,
          Roanoke, VA 24016
          Telephone: (540)343-9711
          E-mail: John.lichtenstein@lichtensteinlawgroup.com

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Fleming Class Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Fleming v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06493-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 13, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages stemming from
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 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 it where it
remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals, says the suit.

Plaintiff Fleming is a resident and citizen of Decatur, Illinois.
The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and
to extinguish fires during their military and/or civilian
firefighting career. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin's
Lymphoma as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
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 several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.


The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE &
SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN
AMERICA 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; FIRE SERVICE PLUS INC.; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY
AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., INC.; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.;
PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.;
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.); 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:

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
          Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 N. Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 29440
          Telephone: (843) 546-2408
          Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
          E-mail: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
                  rlee@belllegalgroup.com
                  gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com

                - and -

          John E. Lichtenstein, Esq.
          LICHTENSTEIN LAW GROUP PLC
          347 Highland Avenue,
          Roanoke, VA 24016
          Telephone: (540)343-9711
          E-mail: John.lichtenstein@lichtensteinlawgroup.com

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Fortin Class Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Armand L. Fortin v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06480-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 13, 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 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 it where it
remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals, says the suit.

Plaintiff Fortin is a resident and citizen of Lewison, Maine. The
Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to
extinguish fires during their working career as a civilian/military
firefighter. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with Prostate Cancer as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' 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 several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.


The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE &
SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN
AMERICA 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; FIRE SERVICE PLUS INC.; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY
AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., INC.; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.;
PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.;
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.); 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:

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
          Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 N. Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 29440
          Telephone: (843) 546-2408
          Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
          E-mail: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
                  rlee@belllegalgroup.com
                  gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com

                - and -

          John E. Lichtenstein, Esq.
          LICHTENSTEIN LAW GROUP PLC
          347 Highland Avenue,
          Roanoke, VA 24016
          Telephone: (540)343-9711
          E-mail: John.lichtenstein@lichtensteinlawgroup.com

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Geissinger Class Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eugene T. Geissinger v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06504-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 13, 2023) seeks for damages stemming from 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 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 it where it
remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals, says the suit.

Plaintiff Geissinger is a resident and citizen of Centerport, New
York. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in
training and to extinguish fires during their military/civilian
firefighting career. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with Prostate
Cancer as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' 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 several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.


The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE &
SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN
AMERICA 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; FIRE SERVICE PLUS INC.; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY
AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., INC.; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.;
PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.;
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.); 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:

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
          Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 N. Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 29440
          Telephone: (843) 546-2408
          Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
          E-mail: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
                  rlee@belllegalgroup.com
                  gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com

                - and -

          John E. Lichtenstein, Esq.
          LICHTENSTEIN LAW GROUP PLC
          347 Highland Avenue,
          Roanoke, VA 24016
          Telephone: (540)343-9711
          E-mail: John.lichtenstein@lichtensteinlawgroup.com

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Gentry Class Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
David M. Gentry v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06494-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 13, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages stemming from
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 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 it where it
remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals.

Plaintiff Gentry is a resident and citizen of Linwood, North
Carolina. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in
training and to extinguish fires during their military/civilian
firefighting career. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with Prostate
Cancer as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' 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 several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.


The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE &
SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN
AMERICA 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; FIRE SERVICE PLUS INC.; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY
AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., INC.; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.;
PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.;
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.); 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:

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
          Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 N. Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 29440
          Telephone: (843) 546-2408
          Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
          E-mail: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
                  rlee@belllegalgroup.com
                  gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com

                - and -

          John E. Lichtenstein, Esq.
          LICHTENSTEIN LAW GROUP PLC
          347 Highland Avenue,
          Roanoke, VA 24016
          Telephone: (540)343-9711
          E-mail: John.lichtenstein@lichtensteinlawgroup.com

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Griffin Class Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID GRIFFIN v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06574-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 14, 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 PFASs, 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 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.

Plaintiff David Griffin is a resident and citizen of Texas. The
Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF
during his employment as a military and/or civilian firefighter.
The Plaintiff 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 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;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; and 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:

          James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
          Keith Jackson, Esq.
          RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
          3530 Independence Dr.
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 879-5000
          Facsimile: (205) 879-5901

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Hail Class Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
DANNY HAIL and DEBBIE HAIL v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06464-RMG
(D.S.C., Dec. 12, 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 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.

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 Defendants include ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA US, INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS, INC., f/k/a DowDuPont, Inc.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; NATION FORD
CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC., a/k/a Chubb National Foam;
THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS, LP; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; and UTC FIRE &
SECURITIES AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC., f/n/a GE Interlogix, Inc.

3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles R. Houssiere, III, Esq.
          HOUSSIERE, DURANT & HOUSSIERE, LLP
          1990 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 800
          Houston, TX 77056-3812
          Telephone: (713) 626-3700
          Facsimile: (713) 626-3709
          E-mail: choussiere@hdhtex.com

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Harrison Class Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Willie F. Harrison v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06569-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 14, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages stemming from
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 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 it where it
remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals, says the suit.

Plaintiff Harrison is a resident and citizen of Grady, Alabama. The
Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to
extinguish fires during their military/civilian firefighting
career. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with Prostate Cancer and
Thyroid Disease as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
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 several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.


The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE &
SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN
AMERICA 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; FIRE SERVICE PLUS INC.; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY
AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., INC.; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.;
PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.;
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.); 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:

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
          Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 N. Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 29440
          Telephone: (843) 546-2408
          Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
          E-mail: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
                  rlee@belllegalgroup.com
                  gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com

                - and -

          John E. Lichtenstein, Esq.
          LICHTENSTEIN LAW GROUP PLC
          347 Highland Avenue,
          Roanoke, VA 24016
          Telephone: (540)343-9711
          E-mail: John.lichtenstein@lichtensteinlawgroup.com

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Herelle Class Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Collin Herelle v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06473-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 12, 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 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.

Plaintiff Collin Herelle is a resident and citizen of Boston,
Massachusetts. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby
directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires
during his working career as a military and/or civilian
firefighter. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with lymphoma 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 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;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.).

3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
          Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
          GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C
          270 West Main Street
          Sayville, NY 11782
          Telephone: (631) 600-0000
          Facsimile: (631) 543-5450

                - and -

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 328-9200
          Facsimile: (205) 328-9456

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Hively Class Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
WESLEY HIVELY v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06454-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 12, 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 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.

Plaintiff Wesley Hively is a resident and citizen of Azle, Tarrant
County, Texas. 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. The Plaintiff
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 Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. KIDDE PLC, INC.; NATION FORD
CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; 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.);
and WILLFIRE HC LLC, d/b/a WILLLIAMS FIRE & HAZARD CONTROL.

3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott M. Hendler, Esq.
          HENDLER FLORES LAW, PLLC
          901 S. MoPac Expressway, Bldg. 1, STE 300
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 439-3202
          Facsimile: (512) 439-3201
          E-mail: shendler@hendlerlaw.com

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Horton Class Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Horton v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06502-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 13, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages stemming from
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 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 it where it
remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals.

Plaintiff Horton is a resident and citizen of Clearwater, Florida.
The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and
to extinguish fires during their military/civilian firefighting
career. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with Prostate Cancer as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' 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 several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.


The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE &
SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN
AMERICA 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; FIRE SERVICE PLUS INC.; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY
AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., INC.; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.;
PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.;
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.); 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:

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
          Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 N. Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 29440
          Telephone: (843) 546-2408
          Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
          E-mail: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
                  rlee@belllegalgroup.com
                  gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com

                - and -

          John E. Lichtenstein, Esq.
          LICHTENSTEIN LAW GROUP PLC
          347 Highland Avenue,
          Roanoke, VA 24016
          Telephone: (540)343-9711
          E-mail: John.lichtenstein@lichtensteinlawgroup.com

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Houlehan Class Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James S. Houlehan v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06512-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 13, 2023) seeks for damages stemming from 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 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 it where it
remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals, says the suit.

Plaintiff Houlehan is a resident and citizen of Norwood Young
America, Minnesota. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and
TOG in training and to extinguish fires during their
military/civilian firefighting career. The Plaintiff was diagnosed
with Bladder Cancer as a direct result of exposure to the
Defendants' 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 several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.


The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE &
SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN
AMERICA 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; FIRE SERVICE PLUS INC.; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY
AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., INC.; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.;
PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.;
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.); 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:

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
          Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 N. Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 29440
          Telephone: (843) 546-2408
          Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
          E-mail: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
                  rlee@belllegalgroup.com
                  gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com

                - and -

          John E. Lichtenstein, Esq.
          LICHTENSTEIN LAW GROUP PLC
          347 Highland Avenue,
          Roanoke, VA 24016
          Telephone: (540)343-9711
          E-mail: John.lichtenstein@lichtensteinlawgroup.com

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Jenewein Class Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GARY JENEWEIN v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06456-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 12, 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 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.

Plaintiff Gary Jenewein is a resident and citizen of Kenosha,
Kenosha County, Wisconsin. 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.
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 the Defendants'
AFFF 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.; BASF CORPORATION;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. KIDDE PLC, INC.; NATION FORD
CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; 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.);
and WILLFIRE HC LLC, d/b/a WILLLIAMS FIRE & HAZARD CONTROL.

3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott M. Hendler, Esq.
          HENDLER FLORES LAW, PLLC
          901 S. MoPac Expressway, Bldg. 1, STE 300
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 439-3202
          Facsimile: (512) 439-3201
          E-mail: shendler@hendlerlaw.com

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Labarge Class Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
PHILIP LABARGE v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06455-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 12, 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 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.

Plaintiff Philip Labarge is a resident and citizen of Punta Gorda,
Charlotte County, Florida. 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.
The Plaintiff 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 Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. KIDDE PLC, INC.; NATION FORD
CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; 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.);
and WILLFIRE HC LLC, d/b/a WILLLIAMS FIRE & HAZARD CONTROL.

3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott M. Hendler, Esq.
          HENDLER FLORES LAW, PLLC
          901 S. MoPac Expressway, Bldg. 1, STE 300
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 439-3202
          Facsimile: (512) 439-3201
          E-mail: shendler@hendlerlaw.com

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Lowe Class Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jay R. Lowe v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06513-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 13,
2023) is a class action seeking for damages stemming from 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 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 it where it
remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals, says the suit.

Plaintiff Jay Lowe is a resident and citizen of Willowbrook,
Illinois. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in
training and to extinguish fires during their military/civilian
firefighting career. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with Bladder
Cancer as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' 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 several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.


The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE &
SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN
AMERICA 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; FIRE SERVICE PLUS INC.; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY
AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., INC.; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.;
PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.;
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.); 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:

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
          Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 N. Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 29440
          Telephone: (843) 546-2408
          Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
          E-mail: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
                  rlee@belllegalgroup.com
                  gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com

                - and -

          John E. Lichtenstein, Esq.
          LICHTENSTEIN LAW GROUP PLC
          347 Highland Avenue,
          Roanoke, VA 24016
          Telephone: (540)343-9711
          E-mail: John.lichtenstein@lichtensteinlawgroup.com

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Lynch Class Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cardwell Lynch v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06487-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 13, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages stemming from
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 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 it where it
remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals, says the suit.

Plaintiff Cardwell Lynch is a resident and citizen of Delhi,
Louisiana. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in
training and to extinguish fires during their military/civilian
firefighting career. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with Prostate
Cancer as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' 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 several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.


The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE &
SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN
AMERICA 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; FIRE SERVICE PLUS INC.; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY
AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., INC.; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.;
PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.;
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.); 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:

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
          Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 N. Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 29440
          Telephone: (843) 546-2408
          Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
          E-mail: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
                  rlee@belllegalgroup.com
                  gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com

                - and -

          John E. Lichtenstein, Esq.
          LICHTENSTEIN LAW GROUP PLC
          347 Highland Avenue,
          Roanoke, VA 24016
          Telephone: (540)343-9711
          E-mail: John.lichtenstein@lichtensteinlawgroup.com

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, McQuerry Class Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES MCQUERRY v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06453-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 12, 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 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.

Plaintiff Charles McQuerry is a resident and citizen of Ashford,
Houston County, Alabama. 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.
The Plaintiff was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma 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 Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. KIDDE PLC, INC.; NATION FORD
CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; 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.);
and WILLFIRE HC LLC, d/b/a WILLLIAMS FIRE & HAZARD CONTROL.

3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott M. Hendler, Esq.
          HENDLER FLORES LAW, PLLC
          901 S. MoPac Expressway, Bldg. 1, STE 300
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 439-3202
          Facsimile: (512) 439-3201
          E-mail: shendler@hendlerlaw.com


3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Moller Class Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Moller v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06503-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 13,
2023) is a class action seeking for damages stemming from 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 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 it where it
remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals, says the suit.

Plaintiff Erik Moller is a resident and citizen of Cape Coral,
Florida. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in
training and to extinguish fires during their military/civilian
firefighting career. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with Ulcerative
Colitis as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
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 several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.


The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE &
SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN
AMERICA 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; FIRE SERVICE PLUS INC.; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY
AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., INC.; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.;
PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.;
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.); 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:

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
          Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 N. Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 29440
          Telephone: (843) 546-2408
          Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
          E-mail: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
                  rlee@belllegalgroup.com
                  gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com

                - and -

          John E. Lichtenstein, Esq.
          LICHTENSTEIN LAW GROUP PLC
          347 Highland Avenue,
          Roanoke, VA 24016
          Telephone: (540)343-9711
          E-mail: John.lichtenstein@lichtensteinlawgroup.com

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Myers Class Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Isaac Myers v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06474-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 12,
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 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.

Plaintiff Isaac Myers is a resident and citizen of Enid, Oklahoma.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Plaintiff was
diagnosed with laryngeal 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 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;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.).

3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
          Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
          GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C
          270 West Main Street
          Sayville, NY 11782
          Telephone: (631) 600-0000
          Facsimile: (631) 543-5450

                - and -

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 328-9200
          Facsimile: (205) 328-9456

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Myogeto Class Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Myogeto v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06514-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 13, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages stemming from
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 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 it where it
remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals, says the suit.

Plaintiff Jeffrey Myogeto is a resident and citizen of Emily,
Minnesota. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in
training and to extinguish fires during their military/civilian
firefighting career. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with Prostate
Cancer as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' 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 several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.


The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE &
SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN
AMERICA 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; FIRE SERVICE PLUS INC.; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY
AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., INC.; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.;
PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.;
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.); 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:

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
          Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 N. Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 29440
          Telephone: (843) 546-2408
          Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
          E-mail: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
                  rlee@belllegalgroup.com
                  gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com

                - and -

          John E. Lichtenstein, Esq.
          LICHTENSTEIN LAW GROUP PLC
          347 Highland Avenue,
          Roanoke, VA 24016
          Telephone: (540)343-9711
          E-mail: John.lichtenstein@lichtensteinlawgroup.com

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Pendleton Class Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND S. PENDLETON v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06452-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 12, 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 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.

Plaintiff Raymond S. Pendleton is a resident and citizen of
Breckenridge, Stephens County, Texas. 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. The Plaintiff 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 Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. KIDDE PLC, INC.; NATION FORD
CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; 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.);
and WILLFIRE HC LLC, d/b/a WILLLIAMS FIRE & HAZARD CONTROL.

3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott M. Hendler, Esq.
          HENDLER FLORES LAW, PLLC
          901 S. MoPac Expressway, Bldg. 1, STE 300
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 439-3202
          Facsimile: (512) 439-3201
          E-mail: shendler@hendlerlaw.com

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Piland Class Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Donald M. Piland v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06495-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 13, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages stemming from
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 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 it where it
remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals, says the suit.

Plaintiff Piland is a resident and citizen of Topeka, Kansas. The
Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and to
extinguish fires during their military/civilian firefighting
career. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with Kidney Cancer as a direct
result of exposure to the Defendants' 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 several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.


The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE &
SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN
AMERICA 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; FIRE SERVICE PLUS INC.; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY
AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., INC.; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.;
PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.;
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.); 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:

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
          Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 N. Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 29440
          Telephone: (843) 546-2408
          Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
          E-mail: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
                  rlee@belllegalgroup.com
                  gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com

                - and -

          John E. Lichtenstein, Esq.
          LICHTENSTEIN LAW GROUP PLC
          347 Highland Avenue,
          Roanoke, VA 24016
          Telephone: (540)343-9711
          E-mail: John.lichtenstein@lichtensteinlawgroup.com

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Reyes Class Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
WILFREDO REYES v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06575-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 14, 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 PFASs, 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 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.

Plaintiff Wilfredo Reyes is a resident and citizen of Maryland. The
Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF
during his employment as a military and/or civilian firefighter.
The Plaintiff was diagnosed with Ulcerative Colitis 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 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;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; and 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:

          James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
          Keith Jackson, Esq.
          RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
          3530 Independence Dr.
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 879-5000
          Facsimile: (205) 879-5901

3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Scites Class Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Scites v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06515-RMG (D.S.C.,
Dec. 13, 2023) is a class action seeking for damages stemming from
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 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 it where it
remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals.

Plaintiff Joseph Scites is a resident and citizen of Greenfield,
Wisconsin. The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in
training and to extinguish fires during their military/civilian
firefighting career. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with Prostate
Cancer as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' 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 several Fire Departments and or Military
bases during the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.


The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE &
SECURITY CORPORATION; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN
AMERICA 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; FIRE SERVICE PLUS INC.; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA,
INC.;KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE P.L.C.; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY
SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., INC.; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.;
PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.;
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.); 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:

          J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
          Randolph L. Lee, Esq.
          Gabrielle A. Sulpizio, Esq.
          BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
          219 N. Ridge Street
          Georgetown, SC 29440
          Telephone: (843) 546-2408
          Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
          E-mail: jeb@belllegalgroup.com
                  rlee@belllegalgroup.com
                  gsulpizio@belllegalgroup.com

                - and -

          John E. Lichtenstein, Esq.
          LICHTENSTEIN LAW GROUP PLC
          347 Highland Avenue,
          Roanoke, VA 24016
          Telephone: (540)343-9711
          E-mail: John.lichtenstein@lichtensteinlawgroup.com

3M COMPANY: Gomes Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------------
Esther Lynn Gomes, Cameron Gomes, & Carson Gomes, as Surviving
Family and Heirs to the Estate of Scott Gomes, deceased, and other
similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB
FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, 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; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY
LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON
CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.;
MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MILIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY
APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE
PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING
CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN
MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE &
ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, Case No.
2:23-cv-05850-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 15, 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 Esther Lynn Gomes are (Surviving Spouse), Cameron
Gomes, Carson Gomes (Surviving Children) of, and Heirs to the
Estate of, Scott Gomes, who regularly used, and was thereby
directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires
during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter
and was diagnosed with liver cancer and stomach cancer as a result
of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Phone: 205-328-9200
          Facsimile: 205-328-9456


3M COMPANY: Lucksavage Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Lucksavage, 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-05678-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 kidney cancer
as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
          Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
          Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
          AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
          17 East Main Street, Suite 200
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Phone: (850) 202-1010
          Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
                 baylstock@awkolaw.com
                 jwitkin@awkolaw.com


3M COMPANY: Mata Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Mata, 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-05679-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 thyroid 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: McAuley Sues Over Exposure to Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
William R. McAuley, 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-05681-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: Miller Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Thomas Miller, 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-05660-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. 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 Leukemia 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: Moraniec Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chester J. Moraniec, 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-05682-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 pancreatic
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: Natella Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin A. Natella, 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-05684-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 thyroid 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


AG MORGAN TAX: B & T Supplies Files Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AG Morgan Tax &
Accounting, LLC, et al. The case is styled as B & T Supplies, Inc.
doing business as: B and T Supply doing business as: Biggest
Book.com, Tzvi Odzer, Ruben Azrak, RKDK, Inc., Gelato on Hudson,
LLC doing business as: Haagen Dazs, Asia Star Broadcasting, Inc.,
Daniel Shah, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated
v. AG Morgan Tax & Accounting, LLC, Case No. 7:23-cv-11241-PMH
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization for
Racketeering (RICO) Act.

AG Morgan Tax & Accounting LLC (“Tax & Accounting”) is a New
York limited liability company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David S. Almeida, Esq.
          ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
          849 W. Webster Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60614
          Phone: (312) 576-3024
          Email: david@almeidalawgroup.com


ALEXANDER COLEMAN: Taylor Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alexander Coleman, et
al. The case is styled as Earnest Taylor, and others similarly
situated v. Alexander Coleman, Abel Avellan, AST SpaceMobile, Inc.,
Daniel Ginsberg, Gary Smith, New Providence Management LLC, Rick
Mazer, Timothy Gannon, Case No. 2023-1292-SG (Del. Chancery Ct.,
Dec. 27, 2023).

The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties."

AST SpaceMobile -- http://ast-science.com/-- is a publicly traded
satellite designer and manufacturer based in Midland, Texas, United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen E Jenkins, Esq.
          Phone: (302) 654-1888
          Fax: (302) 654-2067

               - and -

          Richard D. Heins, Esq.
          Phone: (302) 654-1888
          Fax: (302) 654-2067

               - and -

          Tiffany Geyer Lydon, Esq.
          ASHBY & GEDDES
          PO Box 1150
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Phone: (302) 654-1888
          Email: tlydon@ashbygeddes.com


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Shannon Class Cert Reply Sealed
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANNON, et al., v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00448-ADA-ML (W.D.
Tex.), the Hon. Judge Mark Lane entered an order sealing the
Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification.

Allstate offers auto, home life insurances policies.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48C04Ne at no extra charge.[CC]



ALTUGLAS LLC: McGraw Sues Over Damages From Chemical Spill
----------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY MCGRAW, EMILY COHEN, DANIELLE BYRD, GREENHILL SUPPLY LLC,
Plaintiffs v. ALTUGLAS LLC and TRINSEO LLC, Defendants, Case No.
240100060 (Ct. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., January 2, 2024) is a
class action asserting claims against the Defendants for
negligence, private nuisance, and for public nuisance in connection
with the massive chemical spill that occurred approximately eight
miles upstream from the Baxter Water Treatment Plant, which
supplies drinking water to residents of the City of Philadelphia
from the Delaware River.

According to the complaint, Philadelphia residents and businesses
incurred additional economic damages besides the cost of bottled
water as a result of Defendants' chemical spill, including, for
example, the cost of gas for their vehicles to travel to stores to
purchase bottled water, as well as the value of their time spent
doing so. Accordingly, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, seek all available relief for the
Defendants' involvement in abnormally dangerous activity, wanton
disregard for environmental and human safety, and gross
negligence.

Headquartered in Bristol, PA, Altuglas LLC is a Delaware limited
liability corporation that operates an acrylic resins manufacturing
plant. The firm is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Trinseo LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Y. Michael Twersky, Esq.
          Dena Young, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 831-4701
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  mitwersky@bm.net
                  dyoung@bm.net

                  - and -

          Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Elia, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com
                  cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
                  nelia@lfsblaw.com

                  - and -

           Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
           William E. Hoese, Esq.
           Zahra R. Dean, Esq.
           Elias A. Kohn, Esq.
           KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
           1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
           Philadelphia, PA 19103
           Telephone: (215) 238-1700
           E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com
                   whoese@kohnswift.com
                   zdean@kohnswift.com
                   ekohn@kohnswift.com

AMAZON WEB: Class Cert Bid Filing Stayed in Rivera Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AVELARDO RIVERA and
YASMINE ROMERO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 2:22-cv-00269-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John H.
Chun entered an order granting a short extensions of the following
discovery-related deadlines and for a stay of class certification
and related expert discovery deadlines:

             Item              Current               Amended
                               Deadline              Deadline

  Plaintiffs' Motion       AWS's response       AWS does not oppose

  to Set Additional        deadline:            Plaintiffs' Motion
to
  Discovery Deadlines      Dec. 26, 2023        Set Additional
  (Dkt. 129)               Plaintiffs' reply    Discovery-Related
                           deadline:            Deadlines (Dkt.
129).
                            Dec. 29, 2023       However, AWS does
not
                                                waive the argument

                                                that this Motion
was
                                                filed untimely on
                                                Dec. 11, 2023.

  Plaintiffs' Motion       AWS's response       AWS's response
  to Seal relating to      deadline:            deadline:
  Motions for Extensions   Dec. 26, 2023        Jan. 9, 2024

                           Plaintiffs' reply    Plaintiffs' reply
                           deadline:            deadline:     
                           Dec. 29, 2023        Jan. 26, 2024

  Deadline to file         May 1, 2024          Stayed and to be
  for class                                     revisited after
the
  certification                                 Court's order on
AWS's
                                                Motion for
                                                Clarification

Amazon Web is a subsidiary of Amazon that provides on-demand cloud
computing platforms and APIs to individuals, companies, and
governments, on a metered, pay-as-you-go basis.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tD5RDf at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Eli Wade-Scott, Esq.
          Schuyler Ufkes, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: ewadescott@edelson.com
                  sufkes@edelson.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ryan Spear, Esq.
          Nicola Menaldo, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
          Seattle, WA 98101-3099
          Telephone: (206) 359-8000
          Facsimile: (206) 359-9000
          E-mail: RSpear@perkinscoie.com
                  NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com

ANNETTE SMITH: Judge Recommends Dismissal of Dell Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID DELL, v. ANNETTE
CHAMBERS SMITH, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03167-JLG-KLL (S.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Judge Karen L. Litkovitz recommended that:

   1. The complaint be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28
U.S.C.
      sections 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1).

   2. The Plaintiff's pending motion for class certification and
the
      appointment of counsel be denied.

   3. The Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction be
denied.

   4. The Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(a)(3)
that
      for the foregoing reasons an appeal of any Order adopting
this
      Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith
and
      therefore deny plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

A copy of the Court's report and recommendation dated Dec. 19, 2023
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41Gj0rH at no
extra charge.[CC]



APEX SYSTEMS: Parties Seek Continuation of Deadlines
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IVEY MCDANIEL and JAY
PERRY, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general
public similarly situated; v. APEX SYSTEMS, LLC, a Virginia limited
liability company; Case No. 4:20-cv-06073-JST (N.D. Cal.), the
Parties stipulate and agree that, subject to Court approval:

   1. The December 22, 2023, February 2, 2024, and March 1, 2024
      deadlines set for the April 25, 2023 Scheduling Order be
      vacated;

   2. The Court set a status conference for January 19, 2024
regarding
      status of settlement or staying this case pending approval in

      Orange County Superior Court;

   3. Alternatively, the Court continue the deadlines as follows:

                  Event                               Deadline

  Class certification motion and                   Feb. 2, 2024
  Plaintiffs' class certification expert
  disclosures due

  Class certification opposition and               Mar. 15, 2024
  Defendants' class certification expert
  disclosures due

  Class certification expert discovery cut-off     Apr. 12, 2024

Class certification reply due                    Apr. 12, 2024

Apex Systems provides recruiting services. The Company offers
professionals for contract, contract-to-hire, and direct
placements.

A copy of the Court's order the Parties' motion dated Dec. 19, 2023
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H0NL11 at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
          Areen Babajanian, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (818) 230-7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230-7502
          E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
                  statavos@justicelawcorp.com
                  ababajanian@justicelawcorp.com

                - and -

          Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq.
          Stephanie E. Yasuda, Esq.
          YOON LAW, APC
          751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Ste. 102
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (213) 612-0988
          Facsimile: (213) 947-1211
          E-mail: kyoon@yoonlaw.com
        syasuda@yoonlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Wendy Sugg, Esq.
          SUGG LAW GROUP
          384 Forest Ave., Suite 15
          Laguna Beach, CA 92651
          Telephone: (949) 260-9548
          E-mail: wendy@sugglaw.com

BAYSTATE HEALTH: $500K Deal in Chechile Suit Has Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MICHAEL CHECHILE and SONIA LOPEZ,
individually, and as Representatives of a Class of Participants and
Beneficiaries of Baystate Health, Inc. Retirement Plan, Plaintiffs
v. BAYSTATE HEALTH, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-30155-KAR (D. Mass.), Magistrate Judge Katherine A.
Robertson of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts issued a Memorandum & Order granting the Plaintiffs'
motion for final approval of class action settlement.

On Nov. 14, 2023, the matter came before the Court for a
duly-noticed hearing (the "Fairness Hearing") on a motion by the
Plaintiffs Michael Chechile and Sonia Lopez for final approval of a
class action settlement, which was unopposed by Defendants Baystate
Health, Inc., and the Board of Directors of Baystate Health, Inc.,
as well as an assented-to motion by the Plaintiffs for attorneys'
fees, administrative expenses, and case contribution awards.

Judge Robertson notes that the Complaint improperly names the Board
of Directors of Baystate Health, Inc. as a Defendant, but Baystate
does not have a Board of Directors--it has a Board of Trustees.

The Court certifies this Settlement Class under Rule 23(b)(1) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for purposes of the Settlement
only:

     All Participants and beneficiaries in the Baystate Health,
     Inc. Retirement Plan during the Class Period. Excluded from
     the Settlement Class are participants who joined the Plan
     for the first time on or after May 27, 2022.

The Court finds that this Settlement Class meets all the
requirements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(1).

Pursuant to Rules 23(e)(2), the Court finds that the Settlement is,
in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court approves
the Settlement and orders that the Settling Parties take all
necessary steps to effectuate the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.

In accordance with the orders of the Court, and as reflected in the
information from the Settlement Administrator, Analytics, the
Settlement Notices were timely distributed by electronic mail to
all Class Members, who could be identified with reasonable effort.
In addition, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"),
notice was provided to the Attorneys General for each of the states
in which a Class Member resides and the Attorney General of the
United States.

The Court finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable and
adequate. The amount of the Settlement ($500,000) is fair,
reasonable, and adequate.

Class Members had the opportunity to be heard on all issues
regarding the Settlement and release of claims by submitting
objections to the Settlement Agreement to the Court. There were no
objections to the settlement. The Settlement was reviewed by an
independent fiduciary, Newport Trust Company, who has approved the
Settlement.

Judge Robertson rules that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement is granted, and the Settlement
of the Class Action is approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate
to the Plans and the Settlement Class. Additionally, the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Administrative Expenses,
and Case Contribution Award is granted.

This Action and all Released Claims asserted therein, whether
asserted by the Class Representatives on their own behalf or on
behalf of the Class Members, or derivatively to secure relief for
the Plan, are dismissed with prejudice, without costs to any of the
Settling Parties other than as provided for in the Settlement
Agreement.

The Settlement Administrator will have final authority to determine
the share of the Net Settlement Amount to be allocated to each
eligible Current Participant and Former Participant pursuant to the
Plan of Allocation approved by the Court. With respect to payments
or distributions to Former Participants, all questions not resolved
by the Settlement Agreement will be resolved by the Settlement
Administrator in its sole and exclusive discretion.

Within twenty-eight (28) calendar days following the issuance of
all Settlement payments to Class Members as provided by the Plan of
Allocation approved by the Court, Judge Robertson says the
Settlement Administrator will prepare and provide to Class Counsel
and the Defendants' Counsel a list of each person, who received a
Settlement payment or contribution from the Settlement Fund and the
amount of such payment or contribution.

Upon the Effective Date of this Order under the Settlement
Agreement, all Settling Parties, the Settlement Class, and the
Plans will be bound by the Settlement Agreement and by this Final
Approval Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum & Order dated Dec. 21,
2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/bd9vyv3dfrom
PacerMonitor.com.


BCG GLASS: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Jaramillo et al. Allege
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ruben Jaramillo, Edgar Raul Zambrano, and Juan Perez on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
BCG Glass Industry Inc. d/b/a BCG Windows, Shijin Wei and Richard
Ally, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00005 (E.D.N.Y., January 2,
2024), alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

One of the Plaintiffs, Ruben Jaramillo, was employed at BCG Glass
Industry Inc. d/b/a BCG Windows from approximately October 2022,
until March 15, 2023. He was typically working approximately 60
hours per week during his employment by the Defendants, except that
he worked only 51 hours per week during the weeks in which he only
worked five days. However, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs
any overtime "bonus" for hours worked beyond 40 hours in a
workweek, in violation of the FLSA, the NYLL, and the supporting
New York State Department of Labor regulations, says the suit.

Based in Flushing, NY, BCG Glass Industry Inc. owns and operates a
construction sub-contracting service. [BN]
  
The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Samuel, Esq.
          THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
          1441 Broadway Suite 6085
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone:(212) 563-9884
          E-mail: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com

BHP BILLITON: Court OK's Arkansas Bid to Intervene in Pennington
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pennington, et al., v. BHP
Billiton Petroleum (Fayetteville) LLC, et al., Case No.
4:20-cv-00178 (E.D. Ark., Filed Feb. 21, 2020), the Hon. Judge Lee
P. Rudofsky entered an order granting State of Arkansas's motion to
intervene.

The Court said, "Within 45 days from the date of the Order, the
State may provide a brief setting out and explaining its position
on summary judgment and class certification (Of course, if the
State has no position on a particular motion, it may say that as
well.)"

The parties may file respective responses to the State's brief 21
days after the brief is filed, the Court added.

The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract.[CC]

BLUE CROSS: Court Grants Class Declaratory Relief in C.P. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as C. P., by and through his
parents, Patricia Pritchard and Nolle Pritchard, S.L., by and
through her parents, S.R. and R.L.; EMMETT JONES, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated; and PATRICIA PRITCHARD,
individually, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF ILLINOIS, Case No.
3:20-cv-06145-RJB (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Bryan
entered an order on the Plaintiffs' motion for class wide relief
and for nominal damages.

  -- The class is entitled to declaratory relief as follows:

     Blue Cross, its agents, employees, and successors, including
     Health Care Service Corporation violated Section 1557 of the
     Affordable Care Act and discriminated on the basis of sex
against
     Plaintiffs C.P., S.L., and Jones, and the Plaintiff Class when
it
     administered and enforced categorical exclusions of some or
all
     gender-affirming health care services as they are defined in
the
     class definitions.

  -- The retrospective class is entitled to an injunction setting
     forth equitable tolling of the time limits to make claims or
file
     appeals set out in their plans and for reprocessing. Those
     injunctions are as follows:

     Blue Cross is enjoined from applying the original time limits
in
     Class members' health plans for submitting claims or appealing

     adverse benefit determinations, but only as to claims for
gender-
     affirming health care that were denied based solely on the
     exclusions of gender-affirming health care services during the

     Class period.

     Class members will have 90 days from the date the Class notice
is
     submitted to class members, to submit claims for
gender-affirming
     care that were denied for pre-authorization and/or
post-service
     based solely upon the exclusions for gender-affirming care.

The facts and procedural history are in the December 21, 2022 Order
on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment and are adopted here. The
Court refined the class definition on December 4, 2023.

Blue Cross is a health insurer in Illinois, offering group and
individual health insurance coverage, and managed care products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ttonOz at no extra charge.[CC]

BOTANIC TONICS: Court Denies 7-Eleven's Bid to Dismiss Torres Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denies 7-Eleven's motion to dismiss in the
lawsuit styled ROMULO TORRES, et al., Plaintiffs v. BOTANIC TONICS,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01460-VC (N.D. Cal.).

The matter is a case about a drink called Feel Free, which
allegedly contains large amounts of a dangerous, addictive
ingredient called kratom. The Plaintiffs have sued the drink's
manufacturer, along with two retailers, who sold Feel Free to them.
One of the retailers is 7-Eleven, whose stores sold the drink to
Plaintiff Romulo Torres. Although the other Defendants have filed
answers to the complaint, 7-Eleven has filed a motion to dismiss
the claim brought by Torres.

Mr. Torres brings his claim under the "unfair practices" prong of
California's Unfair Competition Law. He asserts that 7-Eleven
controlled decisions about which products could be sold in its
stores and knew full well that Feel Free was dangerous and
addictive. Torres contends that 7-Eleven's decision to allow this
product to be sold in its stores, at least without disclosing to
customers how harmful it could be, constitutes an unfair business
practice within the meaning of the statute.

7-Eleven makes one argument in support of dismissal: that there can
be liability under the unfair-practices prong based on a failure to
disclose information only if the Defendant had a preexisting duty
to disclose that information from some other source of law.
7-Eleven focuses on the California common law test for fraud claims
based on omissions, and it argues that since Torres cannot allege
fraud under that common law test, by definition, he cannot state an
unfair-practices claim under the Unfair Competition Law.

Judge Chhabria notes that a couple of cases contain language that,
when taken out of context, might appear to support 7-Eleven's
argument. But the argument is wrong. Liability for a failure to
disclose under the unfair-practices prong must be determined by
applying the tests established by California courts for whether a
practice violates that provision of the unfair competition law,
Judge Chhabria opines.

Those tests do not simply incorporate duties found in other sources
of law, Judge Chhabria explains. Rather, they demand a
fact-specific inquiry into the practice in question, and that
fact-specific inquiry governs even when the practice in question is
an alleged failure to disclose.

Judge Chhabria says it is unclear whether the allegations in the
complaint state a claim for violation of the unfair-practices
prong. In particular, the allegations that 7-Eleven knew of all the
dangers described in the complaint at the time Torres bought the
product seem rather sparse. But because 7-Eleven's only argument is
a categorical one--that there can never be liability under the
unfairness prong unless some other source of law imposes a duty to
disclose--the motion to dismiss must be denied, Judge Chhabria
points out.

Feel Free was marketed by its manufacturer, Botanic Tonics, as a
"feel good wellness tonic" that people can drink when they "want to
feel more social, need a clean boost of energy, or need to lock in
and focus." Botanic Tonics allegedly described Feel Free as a "kava
drink" and frequently touted the safety of that ingredient. Botanic
Tonics also allegedly emphasized that Feel Free was no more
addictive than sugar or caffeine.

The complaint asserts that Botanic Tonics "posted over a thousand
advertisements on Instagram, repeatedly using the hashtag
#alcoholalternative." And the company allegedly marketed
extensively to college students, including by using on-campus
ambassadors and offering free samples.

But, according to the complaint, Feel Free's primary ingredient was
not kava, but kratom--a fact that was disclosed neither on the
label nor in the company's marketing. Per the complaint's excerpts
of an FDA report, "kratom affects the same opioid receptors as
morphine," and it "has similar effects to narcotics like opioids,
and carries similar risks of abuse, addiction, and in some cases,
death." Kratom can allegedly cause both mild side effects (like
nausea and sweating) and severe ones (like respiratory depression,
seizure, hallucinations, and psychosis).

According to the complaint, Plaintiff Romulo Torres had struggled
with alcoholism for years, including a hospitalization in 2011 and
a stay at a rehabilitation facility in 2014. He was later able to
attain "lasting sobriety." But after seeing a "targeted
advertisement" for Feel Free on social media, he went to a 7-Eleven
store to purchase the product.

Allegedly, the product was displayed prominently in the store with
the same misleading representations that Torres had seen on social
media and without any disclosures about kratom or possible side
effects. Not long after, he was spending $3,000 per month on Feel
Free, drinking ten per day, unable to "sleep or function" without
the product, and suffering strong withdrawal symptoms, including
shakes and delirium.

The complaint describes repeated attempts to quit Feel Free. It
also describes how Torres "turned to alcohol to manage his
withdrawals." Torres was allegedly admitted to the hospital twice
due to severe symptoms from Feel Free: At his first hospital visit,
he was admitted with symptoms of alcohol poisoning--but there was
no alcohol in his system, only Feel Free. At his second visit, he
presented with delirium and psychosis. Ultimately, he "entered a
medical detox facility," and then rehabilitation.

According to the complaint, Torres's experience was not unique. Sam
Rosenfield, the other Plaintiff, purchased Feel Free through a
different retailer, Erewhon, but tells a similar story. And the
complaint provides social media testimonials of Feel Free consumers
also experiencing serious side effects and addiction.

The lawsuit is a proposed class action. It names Botanic Tonics as
a defendant, along with the two retailers--7-Eleven and
Erewhon--involved in selling the product to the named Plaintiffs.
Torres seeks to represent a class of people who bought Feel Free
from 7-Eleven stores, and Rosenfield seeks to represent a class of
people who bought the product from Erewhon stores. Botanic Tonics
and Erewhon have filed answers to the complaint; 7-Eleven has moved
to dismiss the claims brought by Torres.

Mr. Torres asserts two causes of action against 7-Eleven: for a
violation under the unfair-practices prong of California's Unfair
Competition Law, and for unjust enrichment. Notably, Torres does
not assert claims under the other two prongs of the UCL--the
"fraudulent" prong or the "unlawful" prong. Under the
unfair-practices prong, Torres argues that 7-Eleven is liable for
permitting the product to be sold in stores, or at least for not
disclosing the product's dangers to customers. The parties agree
that the unjust enrichment claim rises and falls with the UCL
claim.

7-Eleven advances a single argument in its motion to dismiss: that
even if the company knew of all the dangers described in the
preceding section, there is no liability for a failure to disclose
under the unfair-practices prong of the UCL because no other source
of California law creates a duty to disclose. 7-Eleven focuses on
California common law in particular, citing LiMandri v. Judkins, 52
Cal. App. 4th 326 (1997). 7-Eleven argues that because the
complaint does not satisfy the LiMandri test, and because no other
independent source of law imposes a duty to disclose the harmful
effects of Feel Free, there can be no liability under the UCL's
unfair-practices prong.

But there is no reason to think that liability under the UCL in
this context is restricted by preexisting law, Judge Chhabria
opines. To the contrary, California courts have made clear that the
California Legislature intended the unfair-practices prong of the
UCL to reach beyond existing law.

Moreover, Judge Chhabria says, it is worth recalling that there are
three ways to violate the UCL: fraudulent practices, unlawful
practices, and unfair practices. If Torres were asserting a claim
under the fraudulent-practices prong, it would make sense to
require him to satisfy the legal standards for pleading a
fraudulent omission claim. But there is no reason to think that the
only way a defendant can incur liability under the UCL for the
failure to disclose information is through the fraudulent-practices
prong.

If the withholding of information is part of an unfair business
practice that falls short of outright fraud, it could still give
rise to liability (assuming the tests developed for establishing
liability under the unfair-practices prong are met), Judge Chhabria
opines.

Finally, 7-Eleven relies on Hodsdon v. Mars, Inc., 891 F.3d 857
(9th Cir. 2018), interpreting that case as expressly requiring that
courts treat a common law duty to disclose as a prerequisite to a
UCL claim for unfair practices, arguing that, even if state law is
unclear, the question of how to interpret it has been settled for
federal courts. The argument is based on one line: "Mars' failure
to disclose information it had no duty to disclose in the first
place is not substantially injurious, immoral, or unethical."

That line, read in isolation, is question-begging, and it might
cause one to speculate that perhaps the court meant that a
preexisting duty to disclose must exist, Judge Chhabria notes. But,
read in context, the line does not support 7-Eleven's argument,
Judge Chhabria holds. So, Hodsdon should not be understood as
saying that a duty to disclose under LiMandri or some other source
of law must be established for a failure to disclose to be the
basis of liability under the unfair-practices prong of the UCL.

Rather, Judge Chhabria opines, Hodsdon's analysis under the
unfair-practices prong is best understood as a fact-specific
consideration of whether the conduct in question--the
nondisclosure--was sufficiently harmful or unethical to support a
UCL claim.

To the extent district court rulings were intended to adopt
7-Eleven's interpretation of Hodsdon, the Court disagrees with
them.

Judge Chhabria concludes that other questions remain about the
viability of the claims against 7-Eleven. For example, as already
noted, it's not clear that the complaint has adequately alleged
that 7-Eleven knew about the dangers. But 7-Eleven's only argument
in its motion to dismiss is that it could never be liable for
unfair business practices, even if all the other allegations in the
complaint are true, because of the absence of an independent legal
duty to disclose.

Because that argument is wrong, Judge Chhabria holds that the
motion to dismiss must be denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 21, 2023, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y4errteyfrom PacerMonitor.com.


BP PRODUCTS: Betzag Sues Over Misleading Gas Station Sign Boards
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL BETZAG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:23-cv-09602 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 29, 2024) alleges that the
Defendant is engaged in improper advertising scheme in violation of
the General Business Law.

According to the complaint, to attract price-conscious motorists,
Amoco stations prominently display the price of gas from pylons and
price boards in red LED numbers from pylons and sign boards
containing or connected to its company logos, brand name and color
scheme, to motorists in need of a fill up.

Consumers were lured in by the lower price but when they went to
fill up their tanks, they were hit with a higher price if they
didn't pay with cash." Though the roadside signs contain the word
"Cash," this is in significantly smaller letters than the
illuminated red neon price. Moreover, the roadside signs do not
disclose this lower price is available only to those who use a
particular payment method, says the suit.

BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC. explores, develops, refines, and
markets oil and natural gas. The Company produces gasoline,
kerosene, distillate fuel oils, residual fuel oils, and lubricants.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 268-7080
          Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com

               - and -

          James Chung, Esq.
          JAMES CHUNGCHUNG LAW P.C.
          43-22 216th St
          Bayside NY 11361
          Telephone: (718) 461-8808
          Email: jchung_77@msn.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 W 93rd St Fl 16
          New York NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Email: mreese@reesellp.com

BRADLEY UNIVERSITY: Seeks Support Notice to Class Cert Opposition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ORION EDDLEMON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BRADLEY UNIVERSITY, an Illinois not-for-profit corporation, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01264-CRL-JEH (C.D. Ill.), Bradley University requests
that the Court take notice of supplemental authority in support of
the University's Opposition to Plaintiff's Second Motion for Class
Certification.

Since the Court heard oral argument on Plaintiff Orion Eddlemon's
Second Motion for Class Certification on September 27, 2023,
additional authority relevant to this Court's analysis has issued,
Student A v. Liberty University, Case No. 6:20-cv-00023, 2023 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 182018 (W.D. Va. Oct. 10, 2023), a copy of which
accompanies this notice as Ex. A.

The University submits this notice to advise the Court of this new,
relevant authority. The Student A ruling denying class
certification applies directly to Plaintiff’s pending motion.
Among other things, it
demonstrates the importance of different student experiences (both
academically and financially) with respect to the class
certification requirements of commonality, typicality,
predominance, and superiority; the necessity of evaluating
plaintiff’s theory of the case as part of the class certification
determination; and the unsuitability of a simple damages model that
fails to account for the factual variations of the case between
different class members. The University requests that this Court
take notice of this case to aid its rigorous analysis of class
certification here.
Bradley University is a private university in Peoria, Illinois.

A copy of the the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 27, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SfOYIa at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gregory E. Ostfeld, Esq.
          Tiffany S. Fordyce, Esq.
          Kara E. Angeletti, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 456-8400
          E-mail: ostfeldg@gtlaw.com
                  fordycet@gtlaw.com
                  angelettik@gtlaw.com

CAL-MAINE FOODS: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended December 2, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on January 3, 2024, that on February 8, 2023,
the plaintiffs appealed the judgement of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Case No. 23-50112.
The parties filed their respective appellate briefs, but the court
has not ruled on these submissions.

In April 30, 2020, the company was named as one of several
defendants in said case. The defendants include numerous grocery
stores, retailers, producers, and farms. Plaintiffs assert that the
defendants violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices—Consumer
Protection Act by allegedly demanding exorbitant or excessive
prices for eggs during the COVID-19 state of emergency. The
plaintiffs request certification of a class of all consumers who
purchased eggs in Texas sold, distributed, produced, or handled by
any of the defendants during the COVID-19 state of emergency.

Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the company and other defendants from
selling eggs at a price more than 10% greater than the price of
eggs prior to the declaration of the state of emergency and damages
in the amount of $10,000 per violation, or $250,000 for each
violation impacting anyone over 65 years old. On December 1, 2020,
the company and certain other defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the plaintiffs' amended class action complaint.

The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to strike, and the
motion to dismiss and related proceedings were referred to a United
States magistrate judge. On July 14, 2021, the magistrate judge
issued a report and recommendation to the court that the
defendants' motion to dismiss be granted and the case be dismissed
without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

In September 20, 2021, the court dismissed "Bell et al. v.
Cal-Maine Foods et al.," Case No. 1:20-cv-461, filed in the Western
District of Texas, Austin Division without prejudice. On July 13,
2022, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to set aside or amend
the judgment to amend their complaint.

Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. is primarily engaged in producing, grading,
packaging, marketing, and distributing fresh shell eggs based in
Mississippi.


COMERICA BANK: Sparkman's 1st Amended Complaint Dismissed in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California grants in part and denies in
part the Defendants' motion to dismiss first amended class action
complaint filed in the lawsuit captioned PAULA SPARKMAN, Plaintiff
v. COMERICA BANK, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-02028-DMR
(N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Paula Sparkman filed this putative class action against
Defendants Comerica Bank and Conduent Business Services, LLC
alleging claims under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act ("EFTA"),
15 U.S.C. Section 1693, and California law related to the
Defendants' operation of prepaid debit cards through which a state
agency disburses child support payments. The Defendants now move
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)
to dismiss and/or strike portions of the First Amended Class Action
Complaint ("FAC").

Ms. Sparkman makes the following allegations in the FAC, all of
which are taken as true for purposes of the motion to dismiss. She
is a single mother, who lives with her daughter in California. She
receives court-ordered child support from her daughter's father. In
California, child support payments are made through California
Child Support Services.

Since 2020, that agency has contracted with the Defendants to
disburse child support payments to recipients through prepaid debit
cards known as "Way2Go Card Prepaid Mastercard." Sparkman has used
a prepaid debit card to access child support funds since 2015.

The Defendants' Way2Go card informational sheet promises that
"Mastercard's Zero Liability Protection assures you do not lose any
funds if your Card is lost or stolen." The Defendants' Terms of Use
for the Way2Go card contain several relevant provisions in the
event a card is lost or stolen. The complaint quotes portions of
Section 10 of the Terms of Use, entitled "Your Liability."

Ms. Sparkman's Way2Go card was stolen out of her car on Nov. 29 or
30, 2022. She called the Way2Go card program on Dec. 1, 2022, and
reported the card stolen. The Defendants' agent told her that the
Defendants could not stop the unauthorized charges from going
through and that she could not dispute the fraudulent charges until
they went through. The Defendants issued a replacement Way2Go card
within 5-7 days after she reported her card stolen and told her
that she would receive paperwork to dispute the unauthorized
transactions within 10 days. She never received that paperwork.

Ms. Sparkman followed up with the Defendants by phone many times.
On Dec. 13, 2022, she emailed to the Defendants a handwritten list
of 21 disputed charges on her card totaling more than $1,000 made
between Nov. 30 and Dec. 1, 2022. The unauthorized charges on her
Way2Go card were processed as credit transactions with a signature,
without entry of a PIN. She filed a police report reporting the
stolen card and fraudulent charges.

Ms. Sparkman says she did not receive "paperwork" from the
Defendants until after she made repeated phone calls and was
eventually told that they had already denied her claim for
reimbursement of the disputed charges. She further alleges that on
June 26, 2023, she discovered a hold on the funds on her Way2Go
card account related to a cancelled charge at a gas station. She
made multiple charged calls to the Defendants to resolve the
issue.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent two classes and two subclasses of
allegedly similarly situated persons, defined as:

   -- Class: All persons issued a California Way2Go Card(R)
      Prepaid Mastercard(R) who (1) notified Defendants that one
      or more charges on their account were unauthorized or
      disputed; and (2) were denied reimbursement on the grounds
      that Defendants (i) could not confirm fraud occurred; or
      (ii) found a conflict in information provided during an
      investigation, through the date of any class certification
      order in this action;

   -- EFTA Sub-Class: All persons in the Class who (1) were
      denied on or after April 27, 2022 through the date of any
      class certification order in this action and (2) whose
      denial was with regard to a disputed charge (or charges)
      totaling more than $50;

   -- IVR Surcharge Class: All persons issued a California Way2Go
      Card(R) Prepaid Mastercard(R) whose accounts Defendants
      charged at least one $0.50 fee for calling Defendants' IVR
      telephone system; and

   -- IVR Surcharge Sub-Class: All members of the IVR Surcharge
      Class whose accounts Defendants charged at least one $0.50
      fee for calling Defendants' IVR telephone system without
      allowing the consumer at least three free calls in a month
      before imposing the charge.

Ms. Sparkman filed the complaint in April 2023. The Defendants
moved to dismiss the complaint and to strike her demand for a jury
trial. The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to
dismiss. Specifically, the Court dismissed Sparkman's breach of
contract claims based on the Terms of Use and claim for restitution
with leave to amend (Sparkman v. Comerica Bank, No.
23-CV-02028-DMR, 2023 WL 5020269, at *8, 12 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4,
2023)).

The Court also denied the motion to strike Sparkman's jury demand.
She timely filed the FAC, alleging the following claims for relief:
1) violation of the EFTA, 15 U.S.C. SectionSection 1693g(a),
1693g(b), and 1693f, on behalf of the EFTA subclass; 2) violation
of the EFTA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1693l, on behalf of the EFTA
subclass; 3) breach of contract on behalf of the class; 4) breach
of contract on behalf of the IVR surcharge subclass; 5) breach of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing on behalf of
the class; 6) unlawful business practices in violation of the
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), California Business & Professions
Code section 17200 et seq., on behalf of the class; 7) unfair
business practices in violation of the UCL on behalf of the class;
and 8) unfair business practices in violation of the UCL on behalf
of the IVR surcharge class and subclass.

The Defendants now move to dismiss and/or strike claims 2-5 and
claim 8 and portions of claims 6 and 7.

The Defendants argue that the Court should dismiss or strike new
allegations and claims in the FAC that are not related to
Sparkman's allegations that the Defendants improperly denied her
request for reimbursement for over $1,000 in unauthorized
transactions. The Defendants seek dismissal of claims 4 and 8 and
the allegations supporting those claims.

The motion to dismiss on this ground is denied, Judge Ryu holds.
The Court granted Sparkman leave to amend specific claims but did
not preclude her from adding new or additional claims or theories
of liability. Moreover, the Defendants do not explain how the
addition of the new claims prejudices them. The case is in its
early stages, with trial set to begin in March 2025.

Accordingly, the Court denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
new claims and supporting allegations on the ground that they
exceed the scope of the Court's Order granting Sparkman leave to
amend.

The Defendants also argue that the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over Sparkman's state law claims based on charges for
calls to the IVR line, claims 4 and 8 (the "IVR claims"). Claim 4
is for breach of contract on behalf of the IVR surcharge subclass
and claim 8 is for unfair business practices in violation of the
UCL on behalf of the IVR surcharge class and subclass.

The Court holds that it has federal question jurisdiction over
Sparkman's EFTA claims under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331.

The sole case Sparkman cites in support of the Court exercising
supplemental jurisdiction over the IVR claims is Coleman v. Dish
Network LLC, No. LA CV17-02460 JAK (AFMx), 2017 WL 6888289, at *4-5
(C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2017), Opp'n 9, but that case is
distinguishable, Judge Ryu says. In Coleman, the plaintiff asserted
a single claim for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA"). The court in Coleman concluded that "the Counterclaim
and the TCPA claim share at least a partial, but material, common
nucleus of operative facts."

In contrast, Judge Ryu notes, Sparkman does not identify any common
nucleus of operative facts between the EFTA and IVR claims.
Accordingly, the Court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over
Sparkman's IVR claims 4 and 8, and they are dismissed without
prejudice.

The Defendants next move to dismiss claim 2, violation of the EFTA,
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that Sparkman
has not alleged a concrete harm necessary to confer Article III
standing.

Judge Ryu finds that claim 2 does not allege "a bare procedural
violation, divorced from any concrete harm," citing Spokeo, Inc. v.
Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 341 (2016). Hence, the Defendants' motion to
dismiss this claim for lack of standing is denied.

Claim 3 is for breach of contract. The FAC alleges that the
Defendants breached Way2Go's informational sheet, which promised
"that, under 'Mastercard's Zero Liability Protection,' Ms. Sparkman
and members of the Class would 'not lose any funds if your Card is
lost or stolen.'"

Judge Ryu holds that the informational sheet is not attached to the
FAC and is not part of the record. Moreover, there are no
allegations in the FAC about how the informational sheet and Terms
of Use were presented to Sparkman and other cardholders.
Accordingly, it is not clear that the informational sheet and Terms
of Use were part of "substantially one transaction" and must be
"taken together" under California Civil Code section 1642. The
motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim is denied.

The FAC requests restitution in connection with the UCL claims,
claims 6 and 7. The Court previously dismissed the complaint's
claims for restitution because it failed to allege that the funds
Sparkman lost through third party fraud were taken by the
Defendants.

Accordingly, Judge Ryu finds that the FAC fails to state a claim
for restitution. The restitution claims are dismissed. As Sparkman
has already been given the opportunity to amend the complaint to
state claims for restitution, the dismissal is with prejudice.

For these reasons, Judge Ryu rules that the Defendants' motion to
dismiss is granted in part and denied in part, as follows: the
motion to dismiss claim 2, violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1693l, is
denied. The motion to dismiss claim 3 for breach of contract is
denied. Claims 4 and 8 on behalf of the IVR class and subclass are
dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

Ms. Sparkman's claims for restitution in connection with claims 6
and 7 (the remaining UCL claims) are dismissed with prejudice. The
Defendants' answer is due within 28 days of the date of this
Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 21, 2023, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/4tdsfrztfrom PacerMonitor.com.


CORE SCAFFOLD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Angel Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO JAVIER MARTINEZ ANGEL, on behalf of himself, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. CORE SCAFFOLD
SYSTEMS INC., M.D. SCAFFOLDING, INC., K & V GARCIA CORP., VALON
PILKU, and VICENTE GARCIA, Defendants, Case No. 700112/2024 (N.Y.
Sup., Queens Cty., January 3, 2024) alleges that the Defendants
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

On or about March 2018, Plaintiff Francisco Javier Martinez Angel
was hired by Defendants to work as a laborer for Defendants' Core
Scaffold Systems Inc. During his employment, Plaintiff was assigned
to perform work for Defendants at different sites in throughout New
York City, primarily in Manhattan. From in or around March 2020 to
September 2020, Plaintiff was on leave due to COVID but was not
compensated for any of this time. In his complaint, Plaintiff
asserts that the Defendants' compensation scheme failed to pay him
for all hours worked, including those worked over 40 in a work
week. In addition, Plaintiff claims that the Defendants failed to
provide proper wage statements and notices, says the suit.

Core Scaffold Systems Inc. provides scaffolding services to
buildings/construction sites throughout New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone.: (212) 465-1180
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

CW FORD RENTALS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Jaso Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JASON JASO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CW FORD RENTALS MANAGEMENT COMPANY L.L.C.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00003 (S.D. Tex., January 3, 2024)
seeks to recover unpaid compensation, including overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the provisions of Sections 207 and 216(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Plaintiff Jaso worked exclusively for CW Ford in Texas from
approximately July of 2023 until November 2023. He was not paid any
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours each
week. Among other things, CW Ford paid out non-discretionary
bonuses based on production quotas but failed to include these in
the regular rate of pay, says the Plaintiff.

CW Ford Rentals Management Company, L.L.C. is a domestic limited
liability company that provides oilfield services in Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Clif Alexander, Esq.
         Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
         Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
         Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
         ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
         101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
         Corpus Christi, TX 78401
         Telephone: (361) 452-1279
         Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
         E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                 austin@a2xlaw.com
                 lauren@a2xlaw.com
                 carter@a2xlaw.com

DERMOQ INC: Faces Bunting Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
RASHETA BUNTING, Plaintiff v. DERMOQ, INC., Defendant, Case No.
500115/2024 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., January 2, 2024) is a civil
rights action brought by Plaintiff Bunting, on behalf of herself
and all other persons similarly situated, against DermOQ for their
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
DermOQ's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Plaintiff for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.

Headquartered Sherman Oaks, CA, DermOQ, Inc., is a Delaware foreign
business corporation controls and operates elementeight.com in New
York State and throughout the United States. Its website sells
oxygen-infused anti-aging products and related beauty products.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Dan Shaked, Esq.
         SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
         14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
         Scarsdale, NY 10583
         Telephone. (917) 373-9128
         E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com

DIAMOND SECURITY: Shariff Sues Over Nonpayment of OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
MAHAMMAD SHARIFF, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIAMOND SECURITY SERVICES LTD.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00008 (S.D.N.Y., January 2, 2024)
asserts that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law by failing to pay overtime premium pay,
failing to pay manual laborers on a weekly basis, and failing to
provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff has worked for Defendant as a Security Guard since
2000. He worked about 80 hours per week. However, the Defendant
never paid Plaintiff for more than 20 overtime hours in a given
week. In addition, the Defendant never paid Plaintiff on a weekly
basis despite Plaintiff spent more than 25% of his workday
performing manual work, says the suit.

Diamond Security Services Ltd. provides private security guards who
monitor control into buildings, conduct vehicle patrols and crowd
control, and respond to emergency situations for clients throughout
New York State. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
        
         Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
         Frank J. Tantone, Esq.
         LIPSKY LOWE LLP
         420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
         New York, NY 10017-6705
         Telephone: (212) 392-4772
         E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com
                 frank@lipskylowe.com

DOUG SPECIALTIES: Alex Kontos Sues Over Unpaid Transaction
----------------------------------------------------------
ALEX KONTOS FRUIT CO., INC., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOUG SPECIALTIES LLC; and
DOUGLAS J. HABE, Defendants, Case No. 0:23-cv-62431-RAR (S.D. Fla.,
Dec. 29, 2024) alleges Defendants' violation of the Perishable
Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930.

The Plaintiff asserts in the complaint that the Defendants have
committed willful, repeated, and flagrant violations of PACA (i.e.,
Unfair Conduct provisions) and, as a direct result of said
violations, he has incurred damages of not less than $53,075.04,
plus further interest at the statutory rate of 1.5 percent per
month (18 percent APR) and costs of collection, including
attorneys' fees, as sums owing in connection with the Plaintiff's
unpaid Produce transactions with the Defendants.

The Defendants failed to pay or otherwise deliver good funds to the
Plaintiff in the amount set forth in complaint despite repeated
demands from the Plaintiff, says the suit.

DOUG SPECIALTIES LLC is engaged in the business of buying and
selling Produce. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory M. Ohl, Esq.
          Mark A. Gilbert, Esq.
          COLEMAN TALLEY LLP
          1 Independence Drive, Ste 3130
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 456-8949
          Facsimile: (229) 333-0885
          Email: gregory.ohl@colemantalley.com
                 mark.gilbert@colemantalley.com

               - and -

          Jason R. Klinowski, Esq.
          V. Walker Wells, Esq.
          KLINOWSKI DAMIANO LLP
          P.O. Box 43404
          Birmingham, AL 35243
          Telephone: (205) 644-8881
          Facsimile: (205) 644-8489
          Email: jklinowski@aglawyer.com
                 vwells@aglawyer.com

ERLANGER HEALTH: Doe Lawsuit Removed from State Ct. to E.D. Tenn.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Erlanger Health. The
class action lawsuit captioned as Doe et al v. Erlanger Health Case
No. 23-00730, was removed from the Hamilton County Chancery Court
to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee, on Dec. 13, 2023.

The E.D. Tennessee Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:23-cv-00297-CEA-SKL to the proceeding.

The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Charles E Atchley, Jr.

Erlanger Health is a system of hospitals, physicians, and medical
services based in Chattanooga, Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew E. Mize, Esq.
          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue
          Freedom Building, Ste 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          E-mail: amize@stranchlaw.com
                  gstranch@stranchlaw.com

                - and -

          Lynn A Toops, Esq.
          Mary Kate Dugan, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
          E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
                  mdugan@cohenandmalad.com

                - and -

          Raina Borelli, Esq.
          Samuel J Strauss, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703
          E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Arthur P Brock, Esq.
          Joseph Alan Jackson, II, Esq.
          SPEARS, MOORE, REBMAN & WILLIAMS P.C.
          601 Market Street, Suite 400
          Chattanooga, TN 37402
          Telephone: (423) 756-7000
          E-mail: apb@smrw.com
                  JAJ@smrw.com

                - and –

          Georgia L. Bennett, Esq.
          John P. Hutchins, Esq.
          Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
          1170 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 2400
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 946-9841
          E-mail: gbennett@bakerlaw.com
                  jhutchins@bakerlaw.com
                  pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com

FIG AND TOMATO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cordova Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
HERMEL CORDOVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIG AND TOMATO EATERY LLC; and OGGI
ECHAVARRIA, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-23429 (D.N.J., Dec. 31,
2023) is an action against the Defendants' failure to pay the
Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Cordova was employed by the Defendants as kitchen staff.

FIG AND TOMATO EATERY LLC is a restaurant that serves Italian
cuisine. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Sackowitz, Esq.
          KATZ MELINGER PLLC
          370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 460-0047
          Facsimile: (212) 428-6811
          Email: ajsackowitz@katzmelinger.com

FIRST FINANCIAL: Delaney's Bid for Judgment on Pleadings Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard Mark Gergel of the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina, Charleston Division, denies Defendant
Otha Delaney's motion for judgment on the pleadings in the lawsuit
entitled State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Plaintiff v. First
Financial of Charleston, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-00263-RMG (D.S.C.).

Before the Court are Defendant Otha Delaney and Plaintiff State
Farm Fire and Casualty Company ("Insurer")'s respective motions for
judgment on the pleadings. Defendant First Financial of Charleston
("FFC" or "Insured") supports Delaney's motion and opposes
Insurer's motion. Insurer opposes Delaney's motion. Delaney opposes
Insurer's motion.

Insurer brings this declaratory judgment action to determine
whether it must defend and indemnify FFC in a pending class action
lawsuit Delaney brings against FFC in South Carolina state court.
Delaney brings a counterclaim for declaratory judgment that
Insurer's policies with FFC require Insurer defend and indemnify
FFC with respect to his lawsuit. FFC brings similar counterclaims
against Insurer in addition to an insurance bad faith claim.

In Delaney v. First Financial of Charleston, Inc. (the "Underlying
Action"), Delaney alleges (i) FFC repossessed and sold consumers'
collateral without mailing them notices required by Article 9 of
South Carolina's Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC"), (ii) FFC mailed
notices that failed to provide information required by law, (iii)
FFC did not know its presale and post-sale notices were false, (iv)
said acts "harmed the class members' credit worthiness, credit
standing, credit capacity, character, and general reputation" and
"invaded the Class's privacy rights," and (v) alleges the defective
notices and the reporting of "false or inaccurate derogatory
information on the class members' credit reports" slandered or
libeled the class members. He brings two claims against FFC under
the UCC.

Insurer issued FFC policy 99-CV-4371-3 for the period Jan. 9, 2008,
to Jan. 9, 2009, and then renewed the policy (collectively, the
"Policies") annually through Jan. 9, 2022. The Policies provide
coverage, including Coverage L - Business Liability (Form FP-6103),
and Coverage L - Business Liability (Form CMP-4100). The Policies
define "occurrence" as "an accident, including continuous or
repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful
conditions."

The Court addresses Insurer's argument that the harm Delaney
alleges in the Underlying Action does not constitute an
"occurrence" under the Policies. Neither Delaney nor FFC address
this argument.

In the Underlying Action, Delaney alleges that FFC intentionally
sent notices, which it did not know contained false information or
did not know were defective under South Carolina law. Under the
case law, FFC's sending presale and post-sale notice was a
deliberate act and cannot be considered an accident.

Accordingly, as to the Policies governed by Form FP-6103, the acts
the Underlying Action challenges are not covered and the Court
grants Insurer judgment on the pleadings on this specific point.

As to Policies governed by Form CMP-4100, however, which provide
coverage for "offenses" constituting "personal and advertising
injuries," the Court analyzes the allegations in the Underlying
Action to determine whether it can declare—at this time—that
Insurer does or does not have a duty to defend FFC in the
Underlying Action.

Judge Gergel notes that the Insurer's argument against finding a
duty to defend "boils down to one main point: Delaney is not
seeking damages for defamation or invasion or privacy. The State
Farm policies only obligate State Farm to defend [FFC] against
suits seeking covered damages."

Insurer relatedly argues that Delaney's motion for judgment on the
pleadings should be denied because a question of material fact
exists as to whether FFC's nearly 10-year delay in providing notice
of Delaney's lawsuit to Insurer constitutes prejudice sufficient to
deny FFC coverage. Delaney, for his part, argues the alleged acts
are covered by the Policies.

The Court finds that while a colorable argument exists, the
Policies containing Form CMP-4100 could provide coverage for the
Underlying Action, a question of material fact exists as to whether
FFC's 10-year delay in tendering Delaney's claim to Insurer caused
Insurer substantial prejudice.

Accordingly, Judge Gergel holds that Insurer's motion for judgment
on the pleading must be denied as to Policies containing Form
CMP-4100. Delaney's motion for judgment on the pleadings is
likewise denied.

For the reasons set forth, the Court denies Delaney's motion for
judgment on the pleadings and grants Insurer's motion for judgment
on the pleadings only as to those Policies containing Form
SP-6103--Insurer's motion for judgment on the pleadings is
otherwise denied.

Within the next ten business days, all parties are furthered
ordered to provide the Court a joint status report describing their
respective positions as to whether this action should be stayed or
dismissed without prejudice with leave to refile pending resolution
of the Underlying Action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Opinion dated Dec. 21,
2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/3xaaa6cffrom
PacerMonitor.com.


FREE REIN: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Martinez Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO MARTINEZ, Plaintiff v. FREE REIN LLC, Defendant, Case No.
500110/2024 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., January2, 2024), arises from
the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate
their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation
of the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil
Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Plaintiff, Pedro Martinez, has made numerous attempts to complete a
purchase on freereincoffee.com, most recently on December 5, 2023;
December 15, 2023; and December 18, 2023, but was unable to do so
independently because of the many access barriers on Defendant's
website, says the suit.

Headquartered in San Angelo, TX, Free Rein LLC is a Texas Foreign
limited liability company that owns and operates
freereincoffee.com, which sells coffee, merchandise, and related
products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Dan Shaked, Esq.
         SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
         14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
         Scarsdale, NY 10583
         Telephone: (917) 373-9128
         E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com

FUNCTIONAL FRAGRANCES: Slade Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA SLADE, Individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. FUNCTIONAL FRAGRANCES
INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00010-JGLC (S.D.N.Y.,
January 2, 2024) arises from the Defendant's failure to make its
website fully accessible to and usable by the blind or
visually-impaired persons.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, says
the suit.

Functional Fragrances owns and operates the website, scentered.com,
which sells various beauty, health, wellness, and aromatherapy
products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Dan Shaked, Esq.
         SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
         14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
         Scarsdale, NY 10583
         Telephone. (917) 373-9128
         E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com

GROUP HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Patient Privacy Suit Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota issued an order granting in part and denying
in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled In
Re: Group Health Plan Litigation, Case No. 0:23-cv-00267-JWB-DJF
(D. Minn.).

Judge Blackwell notes that the digital era challenges many of
traditional understandings of rights, boundaries, and protections
under the law. This lawsuit is emblematic, poised at the
intersection of digital privacy and the proper use and sharing of
online patient healthcare data.

The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against Group
Health Plan Inc. ("HealthPartners") alleging violations of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Minnesota Unfair and
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, invasion of privacy, and other
violations. The Plaintiffs allege that HealthPartners intentionally
and unlawfully transmitted personal and health information about
them to third parties, including Meta Platforms Inc. (also known as
"Facebook").

HealthPartners has moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court conducted a hearing on Oct. 16,
2023.

HealthPartners is an integrated health care organization
headquartered in Bloomington, Minnesota. HealthPartners provides
healthcare-related services to more than a million patients and is
the nation's largest nonprofit health care organization.

The Plaintiffs, current patients of HealthPartners, have sued
HealthPartners in a consolidated class action complaint. At the
root of this dispute is the Plaintiffs' contention that
HealthPartners utilized Pixel Code and Conversions Application
Programming Interface ("CAPI") on its website servers and websites,
www.healthpartners.com and www.virtuwell.com (hereinafter the
"Website(s)").

These technologies, as alleged, surreptitiously tracked users'
interactions on the Websites and transmitted those interactions to
Facebook. Such interactions include duration spent on web pages,
button clicks, viewed pages, and typed text or phrases. This
alleged tracking and transmission of data, an undisclosed kind of
"spyware" that disclosed personally identifiable and health
information along with the Plaintiffs' unique Facebook ID, linked
their private health information to their specific profiles on
Facebook. Allegedly, this occurred without the Plaintiffs' consent
or knowledge, and was done for the commercial exploitation of
patient confidential health information.

The Plaintiffs assert nine causes of action: (1) Violation of the
Minnesota Health Records Act ("MHRA"); (2) Invasion of Privacy; (3)
Breach of Implied Contract; (4) Unjust Enrichment; (5) Breach of
Fiduciary Duty; (6) Breach of Confidence; (7) Negligence; (8)
Violations of Electronic Communications Privacy Act; and (9)
Violations of the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practice Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that they used the Websites to, among other
things, communicate private health information with healthcare
providers, and receive and discuss medical diagnoses and treatment
from healthcare providers. They also allege that the Websites
routinely provided Facebook with this health information and other
identifying information they had input into the Websites.

Judge Blackwell holds that the Plaintiffs' allegations are
sufficient to plausibly plead that health records were released
without their consent, considering the broad definition of health
records in the statute. HealthPartners' motion with respect to
Count I is denied.

The Plaintiffs have also plausibly pled a claim for invasion of
privacy based on intrusion upon seclusion, Judge Blackwell holds.
HealthPartners' motion with respect to Count II is denied.

HealthPartners argues that the Plaintiffs have not alleged
sufficient facts to claim an implied contract existed between them
and HealthPartners. Judge Blackwell finds that the Plaintiffs'
allegations are sufficient to state a claim. HealthPartners' motion
with respect to Count III is denied.

Viewing the Complaint and factual allegations in the light most
favorable to the Plaintiffs, Judge Blackwell finds that the
Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled facts supporting each element of
an unjust enrichment claim. HealthPartners' motion with respect to
Count IV is denied.

HealthPartners argues that the Plaintiffs' claim for breach of
fiduciary duty should be dismissed because there was no fiduciary
relationship between HealthPartners and the Plaintiffs when they
accessed the Websites.

Judge Blackwell opines that the Plaintiffs' reliance on Tucker v.
Marietta Area Health Care, Inc., No. 2:22-CV-184, 2023 WL423504, at
*6 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 26, 2023), where a court found that medical
providers in Ohio hold a fiduciary duty to keep patients' medical
information confidential, is not persuasive. That case is from
outside this district and not precedential, Judge Blackwell says.
Hence, HealthPartners' motion to dismiss with respect to Count V is
granted.

The Plaintiffs assert a general "breach of confidence" claim
against HealthPartners, based on its alleged disclosure of their
private medical information. They cite two cases for the
proposition that Minnesota has recognized a cause of action for
breach of confidence--In the first case, Mahoney & Hagberg v.
Newgard, 729 N.W.2d 302, 309 (Minn. 2007), and Goldberg v.
Medtronic, Inc., 686 F.2d 1219, 1227 (7th Cir. 1982).

Neither of the cases the Plaintiffs rely on demonstrate Minnesota
courts have affirmatively recognized a common law "breach of
confidence" claim of the sort alleged here, Judge Blackwell opines.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' breach of confidence claim is
dismissed with prejudice.

The Plaintiffs claim common law negligence against HealthPartners,
which requires pleading the following elements: the existence of a
duty of care, breach, an injury, and breach of the duty as the
proximate cause of the injury. In addition, the Plaintiffs have
alleged loss of privacy, mental anguish, diminished value of
private information, and other forms of harm.

Judge Blackwell finds that the forms of damages sought by the
Plaintiffs are cognizable. Thus, the Plaintiffs' allegations are
sufficient, and HealthPartners' motion with respect to Count VII is
denied.

The Plaintiffs allege HealthPartners violated the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act (otherwise known as the Wiretap Act).
They allege the communications intercepted included content
regarding their private information, including symptoms, medical
conditions, physician lookup, treatment, medication, and
scheduling. This is sufficient to allege covered "content" was
transmitted, Judge Blackwell holds.

HealthPartners contends that because it was the intended recipient
of the communication from the Plaintiffs, it was a party to those
communications and cannot be liable under the Wiretap Act for its
alleged interception of the communications. The Plaintiffs contend
that because the disclosure was through a simultaneous duplication
of the communication, HealthPartners should not be exempt from
liability under the party exception.

Judge Blackwell notes that this case is at the pleading stage.
While the Plaintiffs have alleged HealthPartners' motivations,
determination of HealthPartners' actual purpose for installing and
using the Pixel Code requires a factual undertaking. The
Plaintiffs, without the benefit of discovery, have met the pleading
requirements to plausibly allege the crime-tort exception applies,
Judge Blackwell holds. Therefore, the Wiretap Act claim moves
forward.

The Plaintiffs' final claim in their Complaint is for violation of
the Minnesota Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("MUDTPA").
HealthPartners argues that the Plaintiffs' MUDTPA claim fails to
satisfy the heightened pleading standards of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 9(b), with respect to the alleged "fraud" and any future
damages.

Judge Blackwell finds that the Complaint identifies with adequate
particularity the fraudulent conduct, and that their allegations in
support of the MUDTPA claim are in compliance with Rule 9(b). Thus,
the Plaintiffs' MUDTPA allegations are sufficient, and
HealthPartners' motion with respect to Count IX is denied.

Accordingly, Judge Blackwell holds that HealthPartners' Motion to
Dismiss Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is granted in part and
denied in part. Counts V (breach of fiduciary duty) and VI (breach
of confidence) of the Consolidated Class Action Complaint are
dismissed with prejudice. The motion is otherwise denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 21, 2023, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yh53dez2from PacerMonitor.com.

Bryan L. Bleichner -- bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com -- Chestnut
Cambronne PA; and Gary M. Klinger -- gklinger@milberg.com --
Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC, Interim Co-Lead
Class Counsel.

Cynthia A. Bremer -- cynthia.bremer@ogletree.com -- Nathan T. Boone
-- nathan.boone@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart, P.C.; Elizabeth Anne Scully -- EScully@bakerlaw.com --
Paul G. Karlsgodt -- PKarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler
LLP, counsel for the Defendant.


GROUP SOLAR: S.D. New York Narrows Claims in Lojewski Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled RAFAL LOJEWSKI, SMITH GARCIA, DANIELLE
GARCIA, MANUEL ACEVEDO, ISAMAR DELACRUZ, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GROUP SOLAR USA,
LLC, SOLAR MOSAIC, INC., SALAL CREDIT UNION, DANIEL YOMTOBIAN CORP
D/B/A SOLAR PROGRAM, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-10816-PAE
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York issued an Opinion & Order:

   (1) denying SALAL's motion to compel arbitration; and

   (2) granting in part and denying in part SALAL's motion to
       dismiss.

Plaintiffs Rafal Lojewski, Smith Garcia, Danielle Garcia, Manuel
Acevedo, and Isamar Delacruz allege that they were fraudulently
induced by the Defendants to purchase and install solar panels for
their homes. They bring individual claims and claims on behalf of
all similarly situated New York consumers against Defendants Group
Solar USA, LLC, Solar Mosaic, Inc., Daniel Yomtobian Corp. d/b/a
Solar Program, and Salal Credit Union ("SALAL").

Judge Engelmayer notes that because Group Solar, Solar Mosaic, and
Solar Program are related entities and none are parties to the
present motions, this Opinion will refer to them collectively as
"Group Solar."

SALAL filed two motions directed to the claims of Lojewski,
Acevedo, and Delacruz. SALAL so moves against only the three listed
Plaintiffs. The Court previously compelled arbitration of Smith and
Danielle Garcia's claims against Group Solar, Solar Mosaic, and
Solar Program, and stayed their claims while arbitration is
pending, while reserving decision on the present motion.

First, SALAL moves to compel arbitration of the claims against it,
and, if this motion is granted, to strike the class claims against
it in light of an allegedly applicable class action waiver in the
arbitration agreement. Second, it moves to dismiss the claims
against it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Plaintiff Lojewski is a resident of Brooklyn; Acevedo and Delacruz
are residents of the Bronx. Delacruz is the adult step-daughter of
Acevedo, whose "predominate language" is Spanish. SALAL is a
state-chartered banking association in Seattle, Washington.

The parties have produced several documents relevant to SALAL's
motion to compel and the Plaintiffs' claims against SALAL. First
are two Retail Installment Contract and Security Agreements
("RICs") entered into with Group Solar, one signed by Lojewski and
one signed by Acevedo and, apparently, Garcia on behalf of her
daughter, Delacruz. The RICs list Group Solar as "seller" but
stated that the contract is assigned to Salal Credit Union without
recourse.

SALAL has produced two membership applications for membership with
SALAL that appear to have been signed by Lojewski and Acevedo and
Delacruz, respectively. SALAL also has produced two versions of the
cross-referenced Consumer Membership & Account Agreement ("CMAA")
from SALAL that SALAL maintains each Plaintiff received within a
couple of days of signing their Applications and, thereby, becoming
members of SALAL. The CMAA sets out the terms and conditions
associated with SALAL membership.

On SALAL's view of events, because Acevedo and Delacruz allegedly
became members on Nov. 10, 2020, after signing an Application, they
would have received a few days later the CMAA in effect at that
time, i.e., the 2015 CMAA. The 2015 CMAA does not contain an
arbitration clause or mention arbitration. By contrast, because
Lojewski is alleged to have signed his Application in April 2021,
on SALAL's view of events, he soon after received the new 2021 CMAA
in the mail. The 2021 CMAA contains an arbitration clause and class
action waiver.

On Dec. 22, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed the Complaint. On March 13,
2023, after an extension, SALAL filed its answer. On March 24,
2023, the Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint ("FAC")
after Solar Mosaic moved against the Garcias' claims.

On Feb. 1, 2023, Solar Mosaic moved to compel arbitration of, and
alternatively to dismiss, the Garcias' claims against it, and to
strike the Garcias' class allegations, On Aug. 17, 2023, the Court
issued a decision granting the motion to compel arbitration of the
Garcias' claims, staying their claims, and dismissing Solar
Mosaic's motion to dismiss without prejudice.

The FAC brings four claims, on behalf of a putative class, against
all Defendants: (1) a claim for deceptive acts and practices under
New York General Business Law ("NYGBL"); (2) a claim for false
advertisement under NYGBL Section 350; (3) a claim for breach of
contract; and (4) a claim pursuant to the Retail Installment Sales
Act under New York Personal Property Law ("NYPPL").

The FAC also brings 10 claims for individual (non-class) relief,
eight brought by Acevedo and two brought by Delacruz: 1) Breach of
implied warranty of merchantability under the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act ("MMWA"), brought by Acevedo; 2) Breach of express
written warranty under the MMWA, brought by Acevedo; 3) Unlawful
false advertising under NYGBL Section 350, brought by Acevedo; 4)
Breach of contract, brought by Acevedo; 5) Negligent hiring,
retention, training, and supervision, brought by Acevedo; 6) Unjust
enrichment, brought by Acevedo; 7) Recission/declaration of no
liability, brought by Delacruz; 8) Breach of express warranty under
the New York Uniform Commercial Code ("NY UCC") Section 2-313,
brought by Acevedo; 9) Breach of implied warranty of
merchantability under NY UCC Section 2-314, brought by Acevedo; and
10) Theft of identity under NYGBL Section 380-s, brought by
Delacruz.

The FAC bases federal jurisdiction on the Class Action Fairness Act
("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). It alleges that the putative
class exceeds 100 members, the aggregate value of their claims
exceeds $5 million, and one or more members of the putative class
are citizens of a state different from one or more defendants.

On April 14, 2023, SALAL filed the present motions to compel
arbitration or in the alternative to dismiss Lojewski, Acevedo, and
Delacruz's claims against it. On June 2, 2023, Lojewski, Acevedo,
and Delacruz filed an opposition. On June 30, 2023, SALAL filed a
reply.

In all events, Judge Engelmayer opines, even if the Application's
text had bound persons, who received the MCAA, such could avail
SALAL only as to the claims brought by Lojewski, who signed the
membership Application in April 2021, three months after the MCM
version containing the arbitration clause came into being. It could
not so bind Acevedo and Delacruz, who signed the Application in
November 2020 and, per SALAL, received the then-operative version
of the CMAA in the mail several days later.

The Court, thus, denies SALAL's motion to compel arbitration of the
claims by Acevedo, Delacruz and Lojewski. These Plaintiffs did not
enter into a binding agreement to arbitrate.

On SALAL's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court first
considers the Plaintiffs' claims on behalf of a putative class and
then their individual claims. SALAL argues that all putative class
claims in the FAC (and many individual claims) against it must be
dismissed because those claims, which seek to hold SALAL
derivatively liable for conduct by Group Solar, are inconsistent
with the "Holder Rule" promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission
("FTC").

SALAL is wrong, Judge Engelmayer holds. The Holder Rule allows the
Plaintiffs to bring the class claims based on derivative liability.
Judge Engelmayer adds, among other things, the Holder Rule and New
York law assignee liability provision apply to the Plaintiffs' New
York Retail Installment Sales Act claims.

Judge Engelmayer finds, among other things, that the Plaintiffs
insufficiently pled breach of implied warranty under New York state
law. The Court, thus, grants the motion to dismiss the claim for
breach of implied warranty under the MMWA. The Court also finds
that the FAC does not state a claim under New York law for breach
of express or implied warranty, and dismisses these claims.

SALAL next challenges the FAC's claim on Acevedo's behalf under NY
GBL Section 350 for false advertising. Judge Engelmayer notes that
first, under the Holder Rule, Acevedo can seek to hold SALAL
derivatively liable as an assignee of Group Solar's. Second, the
FAC adequately pleads that the alleged conduct was
"consumer-oriented." Third, there is no independent requirement
under Section 350 that the false advertising occur in writing. The
Court, therefore, denies SALAL's motion to dismiss this false
advertising claim.

SALAL argues, among other things, that the FAC's claim on Acevedo's
behalf of negligent hiring fails. The Court dismisses the claim for
negligent hiring, based on the absence of allegations plausibly
pleading that Group Solar knew or should have known about the
alleged misconduct of Group Solar representative, James.

Viewing the FAC's allegations about this episode in totality, Judge
Engelmayer finds that it plausibly alleges that James intentionally
misled Acevedo, whom he appreciated did not predominantly speak
English, to cause his wife to fabricate their daughter Delacruz's
signature without Delacruz's assent, and that James did so to take
advantage of Delacruz's favorable credit score and history.

These allegations plausibly allege James' intent to defraud
Delacruz by causing her assent to the agreement to be falsely
entered, Judge Engelmayer opines. The Court, thus, denies the
motion to dismiss this claim.

For these reasons, the Court denies SALAL's motion to compel, and
grants SALAL's motion to dismiss in part and denies in part.

The Court has dismissed the following claims in the First Amended
Complaint:

   (1) any class claim for direct liability under NYGBL Section
       349 alleged against SALAL (this holding does not affect
       any class claim brought under Section 349 against SALAL on
       a theory of derivative liability);

   (2) Acevedo's claims against SALAL for breach of express and
       implied warranty under the MMWA and the NY UCC, negligent
       hiring, and unjust enrichment; and

   (3) Delacrnz's claim against SALAL for recission. All other
       claims survive.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion pending at
Docket 45.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated Dec. 21,
2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/2p8fscy7from
PacerMonitor.com.


GRUMA CORPORATION: Class Settlement Gets Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEXTER'S LLC, et al., v.
GRUMA CORPORATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-00212-MMA-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Michael M. Anello entered an order:

-- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the class

    settlement;

-- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees, costs, and
a
    class representative enhancement award;

-- certifying the Settlement Class for the purposes of the
    Settlement;

-- approving the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate
    pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e);

-- directing the parties to undertake the obligations set forth in

    the Settlement Agreement that arise out of this Order;

-- awarding attorneys' fees to Class Counsel in the amount of
    $170,000 and costs in the amount of $49,696.40;

-- awarding Plaintiffs an incentive payment for work performed as
the
    Class Representatives in the total amount of $5,000; $1,000 to

    each of the following: Sophamany Moch, Gerardo Fuentes, Sr.,
    Gerardo Fuentes, Jr., Jorge Franco, and Mayte Gastelum;

-- awarding settlement administration fees and costs to Atticus
    Administration, LLC in the total amount of $14,370.72; and

-- directing the Clerk of Court to enter a separate judgment of
dismissal in accordance herewith, and to close the case.

The Settlement class consists of all persons or entities who/that
are or were signatories to a distribution agreement with Defendant
during the Class Period.

The Class Period is from July 1, 2020 through August 1, 2023.

The Plaintiffs are distributors who signed a "Store Door
Distributor Agreement' with Defendant. As a result, the Plaintiffs
were responsible for "distributing Defendant's products to
third-party
retail outlets, stocking the outlet's shelves with Defendant's
products, and ensuring that the shelves remain adequately stocked
with Defendant's products."

The Defendant is a manufacturer of corn and flour tortillas and
other food products and operates out of a tortilla plant in Los
Angeles.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vhkehd at no extra charge.[CC]

HEALTH CAREER: Roberson Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRITTANY ROBERSON, REBECCA
FREEMAN, BIANCA VIÑAS, TIFFANY KING, and TRESHA THOMPSON,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. HEALTH
CAREER INSTITUTE LLC (dba HCI COLLEGE LLC and HCI ACQUISITION LLC),
FLORIAN EDUCATION INVESTORS LLC, and STEVEN W. HART, Case No.
9:22-cv-81883-RAR (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and

    (i) certify the Primary Classes and four Subclasses under Rules

        23(b)(2) and (b)(3);

   (ii) appoint the Named Plaintiffs as class representatives; and


  (iii) appoint the undersigned as class counsel.

The Plaintiffs contend that Certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is
appropriate where, as here, "the party opposing the class has acted
or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so
that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is
appropriate respecting the class as a whole. A Rule 23(b)(2) class
is appropriate here because of Defendants’ common conduct toward
RN students."

The Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Defendants' challenged
practices violated Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
(FDUTPA+ and constituted breach of Defendants' contracts with
class members, and that as a result, all class members are absolved
from paying monies due under the contracts.

On behalf of the Targeting Subclass, the Plaintiffs seek a
declaration that Defendants’ challenged practices additionally
violated
ECOA and Title VI.

All Plaintiffs also seek an injunction prohibiting Defendants from
enrolling students in the "new" RN Program at HCI-WPB and from
collecting debts from class members or reporting delinquent
balances to consumer credit reporting agencies.

Additionally, the Plaintiffs seek an injunction requiring
Defendants to issue diplomas to all students who, like Ms.
Roberson, Ms.
Freeman, and Ms. King, completed all graduation requirements stated
in HCI college catalogs and enrollment agreements but were blocked
from graduating due to new testing policies, and to send those
students’ names to the BON so that they may sit for the NCLEX-RN.


Health Career provides health related educational programs.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 19, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41Ffzlg at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jennifer Thelusma, Esq.
          Rebecca Eisenbrey, Esq.
          Victoria Roytenberg, Esq.
          PROJECT ON PREDATORY STUDENT LENDING
          769 Centre Street, Suite 160
          Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
          Telephone: (617) 390-2669
          E-mail: jthelusma@ppsl.org
                  reisenbrey@ppsl.org
                  vroytenberg@ppsl.org

                - and -

          Nicole Mayer, Esq.
          MAYER LAW FIRM LLC
          171 Dommerich Drive
          Maitland, FL 32751
          Telephone: (352) 494-3657
          E-mail: Nicole@MayerLawFlorida.com


HUB GROUP TRUCKING: Matthews Alleges WARN Act Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
AUSTIN MATTHEWS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HUB GROUP TRUCKING, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-00003-UNA (D. Del., January 2, 2024) alleges that the
Defendant is liable under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act of 1988 for its failure to provide Plaintiff and
the other similarly situated former employees at least 60 days'
advance written notice of termination.

Plaintiff Austin Matthews was an employee who was employed by
Defendant and worked at or reported to a facility located at 4901
S. Monitor Avenue Chicago, IL until his termination without cause
on or about December 27, 2023. The Defendant ordered the
termination of Plaintiff's employment together with the termination
of approximately 60 other employees who worked at or reported to or
were assigned work from the said facility as part of a mass layoff
and/or plant closing, says the suit.

Headquartered in Illinois, Hub Group Trucking, Inc. provides
transportation, logistics and supply chain services across North
America. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Huggett, Esq.
          MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
          300 Delaware Avenue Suite 800
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 888-1112
          Facsimile: (302) 888-1119

                  - and -

          Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
          LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
          100 Church Street, 8th FL
          New York, NY 10078
          Telephone: (212) 581-5005
          Facsimile: (212) 581-2122

                  - and -

          Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
          M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
          THE GARDNER FIRM, PC
          182 St. Francis Street Suite 103
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Telephone: (251) 433-8100
          Facsimile: (251) 433-8181

INK 477: Petersen Sues Over Unlawful Pay Practices in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------
Jose Petersen, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Ink 477, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company d/b/a "Level 6", "Level 6 by Amal", "Amal", and "Amal
Miami", Grove Ink, LLC, a Florida limited liability company d/b/a
"Level 6", "Level 6 by Amal", "Amal", and "Amal Miami", Defendants,
Case No. 1:24-cv-20008-XXXX (S.D. Fla., January 2, 2024) arises
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and under Florida Common Law due
to Defendants' unlawful pay practices, failure to pay statutory and
common law wages and commissions, confiscation of "tips" earned by
Petersen as a server, and retaliatory conduct against him for his
exercise of protected rights.

The Plaintiff -- as well as any other similarly situated person who
may hereafter join this lawsuit who worked as wait-staff at the
restaurant operated by the Defendants from approximately December
2020 through September 2023 -- brings this action individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated to recover unpaid earnings,
overtime wages, minimum wages, liquidated damages, other relief,
including attorney's fees and costs.

Ink 477 and Grove Ink are Florida limited liability companies which
together are in the business of operating a restaurant, bar, and
hospitality establishment in Miami-Dade County, jointly under the
monikers "Level 6", "Level 6 by Amal", "Amal" and/or "Amal Miami".
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Anthony F. Sanchez, Esq.
         ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A.
         6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101
         Miami, FL 33143
         Telephone: (305) 665-9211
         E-mail: afs@laborlawfla.com

INNOVAGE HOLDING: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge William J. Martinez of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado grants in part and denies in
part the Defendants' joint motion to dismiss the amended class
action complaint filed in the lawsuit styled EL PASO FIREMEN &
POLICEMEN'S PENSION FUND, SAN ANTONIO FIRE & POLICE PENSION FUND,
and INDIANA PUBLIC RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. INNOVAGE HOLDING
CORP., MAUREEN HEWITT, BARBARA GUTIERREZ, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES
LLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, CITIGROUP
GLOBAL MARKETS INC., ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO. INCORPORATED, WILLIAM
BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C., PIPER SANDLER & CO., CAPITAL ONE
SECURITIES, INC., LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, SIEBERT WILLIAMS SHANK
& CO., LLC, and ROBERTS & RYAN INVESTMENTS, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-02770-WJM-SKC (D. Colo.).

The lawsuit is a securities fraud action arising out of alleged
false and misleading statements made by Defendant InnovAge Holding
Corp. (the "Company") and its former executives regarding
InnovAge's business practices, the success of its growth strategy,
and the potential impact of audits by government agencies in the
highly regulated Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly
("PACE") industry.

Lead Plaintiffs El Paso Fireman & Policemen's Pension Fund, San
Antonio Fire & Police Pension Fund, and Indiana Public Retirement
System bring this action pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder by the SEC
(the "Exchange Act"), Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"), on behalf of
themselves and other purchasers of InnovAge securities.

There are two putative classes in this action: (1) a class of all
purchasers of InnovAge securities between March 4, 2021, and Dec.
22, 2021, for claims brought under the Exchange Act; and (2) a
class of all persons, who purchased publicly traded common stock of
InnovAge in or traceable to its March 4, 2021, initial public
offering ("IPO").

Currently before the Court is Defendants InnovAge; Maureen Hewitt
and Barbara Gutierrez (together, the "Officer Defendants"); John
Ellis Bush, Andrew Cavanna, Caroline Dechert, Edward Kennedy, Jr.,
Pavithra Mahesh, Thomas Scully, Marilyn Tavenner, Sean Traynor, and
Richard Zoretic (collectively, the "Director Defendants"); and
Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe ("WCAS") and Apax Partners, L.P.'s
("Apax") (altogether, "Defendants") Joint Motion and Brief to
Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the
Federal Securities Laws ("Motion") pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 8, 9(b), and 12(b)(6).

The Lead Plaintiffs are pension funds operated to benefit public
employees and retirees (e.g., firefighters, police officers, and
teachers and professors of public schools and universities) in
Texas and Indiana. The Lead Plaintiffs purchased InnovAge common
stock at artificially inflated prices in or traceable to the IPO.

InnovAge is a healthcare company focused on PACE services. InnovAge
was incorporated as a nonprofit corporation in Colorado from May
2007 until May 2016. In May 2016, it reincorporated as a Delaware
for-profit corporation while maintaining its principal place of
business in Colorado. InnovAge accomplished this transition into a
for-profit business model with assistance from WCAS, a private
equity firm that bought a $196 million stake in the Company in May
2016.

In July 2020, Apax, another private equity firm, and WCAS entered
an agreement for Apax to acquire a 49% stake in the Company and for
the two firms to cause InnovAge to become a public company.
Together, WCAS and Apax beneficially own approximately 86% of
InnovAge's common stock, and therefore, control the vote of all
matters subject to shareholder vote, including all matters relating
to the members of the Company's Board of Directors.

PACE is a joint Medicare and Medicaid program that provides
comprehensive, community-based medical and social services to
certain elderly people. Rather than provide billing Medicare and
Medicaid for specific medical services at the time of service, PACE
organizations receive a fixed capitation payment, calculated on a
per member, per month basis. PACE participants have access to
around-the-clock medical services. PACE capitation payments are
pooled, and because that pool is used to pay for participant's
medical services, PACE organizations take on the risk that total
medical expenses for participants will exceed the pooled capitation
payments.

PACE organizations are highly regulated and subject to supervision
by both the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") and
State Administering Agencies ("SAAs"). To provide PACE services,
PACE programs must be approved by the state government and have an
agreement with CMS and that state's SAA.

Once enrolled, participants are assigned to an interdisciplinary
team ("IDT") responsible for assessments, care planning, and care
coordination. Each IDT must have a primary care provider to manage
a participant's general health and use of medical specialists and
inpatient care. The IDT must continually monitor
assigned participants' physical and mental health and the
effectiveness of their personalized plan of care.

The Lead Plaintiffs allege the IPO Offering Documents contained
twelve materially false and misleading statements, including the
Patient-Centered Care Statement, the Individualized and Coordinated
Care Statement, and the Standardized and Well-Staffed Operations
Statement. Among other things, the Lead Plaintiffs allege that the
Patient-Centered Care Statement was false and misleading because
InnovAge failed to provide all services determined necessary by the
IDT, ensure access to specialists, and failed to manage
participants' medical situations and use to specialists.

In addition to the twelve allegedly false and misleading
statements, the Lead Plaintiffs allege the Offering Documents were
false and misleading because they failed to disclose information
required to be disclosed by Items 303 and 105 of Regulation S-K.
Item 303 requires a description of "any known trends or
uncertainties that have had or that are reasonably likely to have a
material favorable or unfavorable impact on net sales or revenues
or income from continuing operations."

The Lead Plaintiffs also allege the Defendants made multiple false
and misleading statements after the March 2021 IPO.

During the Sept. 21, 2021 earnings call, Maureen Hewitt -- the
President and CEO and a Director of the Company from 2006 to Jan.
1, 2021 -- disclosed that on Sept. 17, the Company was notified the
CMS has determined to freeze new enrollments at its Sacramento
center based on deficiencies detected in the audit. She noted that
the freeze will remain in effect until the Company corrects the
deficiencies identified by CMS and the Company was working on
developing a corrective action plan to submit to CMS.

The price of InnovAge's common stock declined over 24% from $11.65
to $8.75 on Sept. 22, 2021, and fell another nearly 23% to $6.76
the next day.

As a result of the enrollment freeze, InnovAge withdrew its
guidance for fiscal year 2022. The market's reaction to this news
was harsh. The Company's common stock price plummeted by almost 36%
from $8.25 to $5.31 on Dec. 23, 2021, with record high volume of
more than 14 million shares. The price at the end of trading on
Dec. 23, 2021, represented a decline of more than 54% from the
price at the end of trading on Sept. 22, 2021.

On Jan. 3, 2022, Hewitt announced her resignation, effective Jan.
1, 2022. The Board appointed Patrick Blair as President and CEO,
effective immediately. The early months of Blair's tenure included
numerous disclosures; those most relevant to the Motion occurred on
May 10, 2022.

The Defendants argue that the Amended Complaint fails to adequately
plead (1) any of the identified statements were materially false or
misleading; (2) any identifiable material omissions that render the
statements false or misleading; (3) any failure to comply with the
Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 ("SOX") or Items 303 and 105 of
Regulation S-K; (4) scienter; and (5) control liability. Therefore,
they move the Court to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its
entirety with prejudice.

The Amended Complaint includes numerous allegations based on
information provided by six confidential former employees ("FEs")
and investigative reports from the Capitol Forum. The Defendants
challenge reliance on these sources under Adams v. Kinder-Morgan,
Inc., 340 F.3d 1083, 1095 (10th Cir. 2003).

The Court concludes, among other things, that the allegations based
on information from FE 6 can be relied upon with respect to the
Exchange Act claims. The Court rejects the Defendants' assertion
that allegations based on the FEs must be ignored because they are
"low-level" or "locally sited" or their specific responsibilities
are not pleaded with particularity.

The Defendants offer no legal authority for this position, which
they spend merely two sentences arguing, Judge Martinez opines.
Moreover, the Defendants cite no case supporting the proposition
that the Court should apply the rigorous pleading requirements of
Section 78u-4(b)(1) to a claim brought under the Securities Act.

Therefore, the Court will consider allegations based on the
statements of the FEs for purposes of the Lead Plaintiffs'
Securities Act claims.

The Court also concludes, among other things, that the
Individualized and Coordinated Care, COVID Continuity of Care, and
Home Care Statements are adequately pleaded as materially false and
misleading. Therefore, the Court concludes that the Lead Plaintiffs
have adequately pleaded Securities Act claims based on the
Individualized and Coordinated Care, COVID Continuity of Care, and
Home Care Statements.

Judge Martinez notes that the only argument the Defendants make
specific to the Exchange Act claims is that the Amended Complaint
inadequately pleads scienter. The Court has concluded that certain
allegations of scienter are sufficiently pleaded in the Amended
Complaint, including Hewitt's knowledge of the complaints that led
to the audits of the Company's Colorado centers, specifically as
this issue related to statements about the Company's staffing, and
Hewitt and Gutierrez's motivation to lie about the Company's
operations to attain and maintain a higher valuation.

The Court concludes the Amended Complaint permits a strong
inference of scienter only with respect to the post-offering
staffing statements. With respect to the Exchange Act claims, the
Court finds that only the post-offering staffing statements are
adequately alleged. The Court, without significant effort,
concludes the Amended Complaint adequately alleges control person
liability against WCAS and Apax.

For the reasons set forth in this Order, the Court rules as
follows:

   1. Defendants' Joint Motion and Brief to Dismiss Amended Class
      Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities
      Laws is granted in part and denied in part as more fully
      set forth in this Order;

   2. All claims dismissed by this Order are dismissed without
      prejudice; and

   3. The parties are directed to jointly contact United States
      Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews's chambers to set a
      Scheduling Conference or such other proceeding as Judge
      Crews deems appropriate to move this action forward.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 21, 2023, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y6564faefrom PacerMonitor.com.


INSIGHT GLOBAL: Has Until Jan. 30 to File Class Cert Reply
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDER FLOYD,
individually and on behalf of himself and persons similarly
situated, v. INSIGHT GLOBAL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; and DOES 1-20, Case No. 2:23-cv-01680-BJR (W.D. Wash.),
the Hon. Judge Barbara J. Rothstein entered an order granting joint
stipulated motion to set
briefing schedule as follows:

           Event                  Original               Extended
                                  Deadline               Deadline

  Plaintiff's Response:         Dec. 22, 2023         Jan. 16,
2024

  Defendant's Reply             Jan. 5, 2023          Jan. 30,
2024

  FRCP 26(f) Conference         Dec. 18, 2023         Feb. 2, 2024

  Initial Disclosures           Dec. 26, 2023         Feb. 9, 2024
  Pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(1):

  Combined Joint Status         Jan. 2, 2024          Feb. 16,
2024
  Report and Discovery Plan
  as Required by FRCP 26(f)
  and Local Civil Rule 26(f):

Insight Global provides top talent and staffing solutions that help
job seekers find careers in healthcare, finance, IT, government,
and more.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 18, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tLk6G2 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy W. Emery, Esq.
          Patrick B. Reddy, Esq.
          Paul Cipriani, Esq.
          EMERY | REDDY PLLC
          600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100
          Seattle, WA 98101-1269
          Telephone: (206) 442-9106
          Facsimile: (206) 441-9711
          E-mail: emeryt@emeryreddy.com
                  reddyp@emeryreddy.com
                  paul@emeryreddy.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Chris Marquardt, Esq.
          Leigh Shapiro, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          1201 West Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 881-7000
          Facsimile: (404) 881-7777
          E-mail: chris.marquardt@alston.com
                  leigh.shapiro@alston.com

                - and -

          Todd S. Fairchild, Esq.
          DORSEY & WHITNEP LLP
          701 5th Ave, Suite 6100
          Seattle, WA 98104-7043
          Telephone: (206) 903-8800
          Facsimile: (206) 903-8820
          E-mail: Fairchild.todd@dorsey.com

INSOMNIA COOKIES: Wins Bid for Arbitration; Forte FLSA Suit Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Damon R. Leichty of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana, South Bend Division, grants the Defendants'
motion to compel arbitration and stays the lawsuit captioned
JENNIPHER FORTE, on her own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSOMNIA COOKIES, LLC d/b/a
INSOMNIA COOKIES; SERVE U BRANDS, INC; and SETH BERKOWITZ,
Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00551-DRL-MGG (N.D. Ind.).

Plaintiff Jennipher Forte sues Insomnia Cookies, LLC, Serve U
Brands, Inc., and Seth Berkowitz (collectively "Insomnia") for
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
Section 201, et seq., and Indiana wage-and-hour laws. Her complaint
also includes collective action and class action allegations.
Insomnia asks the Court to enforce an arbitration agreement and
dismiss the case.

Judge Leichty notes that only the first of the three requirements
to compel arbitration is at issue--whether there is an arbitration
agreement. Because all relevant events occurred in Indiana, Indiana
law determines the validity of the agreement--a point not in
contention.

The dispute centers on whether a clickwrap arbitration agreement
was completed by Ms. Forte. She says she does not believe she
completed the agreement and suggests her manager may have logged
into her account to consent to it. The metadata provided by
Insomnia shows that the agreement was completed on Dec. 14, 2022,
under Ms. Forte's login.

Ms. Forte argues that she never saw the "arbitration
agreement"--not until this suit--and never completed the clickwrap
online, so there is no agreement to arbitrate. In her declaration,
she asserts she began work on Dec. 14, 2022, before her
orientation, to help fill a large order. She says she did not
complete any paperwork or orientation on Dec. 14, 2022. The
following day, she had an orientation with her manager, Kenneth
Pinkerton, beginning with a demonstration of stocking the cookies.
She then was led into the manager's office by Mr. Pinkerton to
complete onboarding and orientation videos relating to workplace
safety and sexual harassment.

After resetting her password due to a failed login attempt, and
sharing this password with Mr. Pinkerton, Ms. Forte logged into her
account. In her affidavit, she explains that Mr. Pinkerton then
took control of the store's computer, already logged into her
account, for about ten minutes. She says that Mr. Pinkerton
explained to her he needed to enter some personal information that
she had provided on her application materials and asked her not to
watch.

Ms. Forte accommodated his request, only watching the computer once
he was done to complete the videos. She does not believe she signed
an arbitration agreement, but that Mr. Pinkerton may have completed
other documents during the account setup, unbeknownst to her and
without her consent.

Insomnia tells a different story. It contends that Ms. Forte
reviewed and assented to each of the documents, including the
arbitration agreement, on Dec. 14, 2022 (not Dec. 15, 2022). To
substantiate this, it attaches the metadata for Ms. Forte's
onboarding, which demonstrates the agreement being signed from her
account and IP address 73.211.40.110 on Dec. 14, 2022, at 20:26
UTC. It explains the IP address attached to this entry is not that
of the store's computer.

Furthermore, Ms. Forte's timecard demonstrates that she did not
work extra hours to fill a large order on Dec. 14, 2022. Rather,
Insomnia claims the first day Ms. Forte worked was Dec. 19, 2022.
Insomnia also produces the metadata to show that Ms. Forte
completed the anti-harassment materials as part of orientation on
Dec. 23, 2022. Finally, Insomnia attaches metadata of Ms. Forte's
failed login attempts that only show failed attempts on or after
Dec. 26, 2022.

Judge Leichty notes that Ms. Forte does not say she does not
remember seeing the arbitration agreement. Rather, she claims that
she does not believe she signed an arbitration agreement. Her
belief that she did not sign any agreement is more definitive than
simply not recalling signing an agreement; however, it is still not
an affirmative statement that she did not sign any agreement.

Even if the Court ignores the distinction between a belief and a
positive assertion, Judge Leichty says a triable issue of fact does
not exist when a plaintiff has only her own word in contradiction
to the Defendant's metadata, and when it debunks the alternative
theory she guesses at.

Ms. Forte's assertions that she did not login and complete the
agreement on Dec. 14, 2022, and that perhaps her manager did it for
her the next day are not sufficient to warrant a trial, Judge
Leichty holds. The first is mere uncorroborated belief, and the
latter is mere speculation, and speculation undone by the metadata.
Neither creates a factual issue, Judge Leichty points out, among
other things.

Ms. Forte argues that dismissing her collective or class claim now
would be premature. She asserts that the appropriate action is to
stay the case.

Judge Leichty holds that dismissal is inappropriate as there might
later be grounds for reinstating the claims after arbitration. The
parties' arbitration agreement provides that the arbitrator will
have the exclusive authority to resolve any dispute relating to the
arbitrability of any individual claim.

Due to this, Judge Leichty says it is not for the Court to decide
whether the scope of the claim is appropriate for arbitration, so
it would be premature to conclude that all of the claims are
subject to arbitration--the exception to the general rule of
staying the case pending arbitration.

Additionally, the arbitration agreement provides that any disputes
concerning the applicability or validity of this class action
waiver will be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction. This
leaves an open question that does not need answered today, Judge
Leichty says.

Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to compel arbitration,
denies the motion to dismiss, stays the case pending arbitration,
and orders the parties to file a joint status report with the Court
within twenty-one (21) days of the completion of arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Dec. 21,
2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/5bbm37vkfrom
PacerMonitor.com.


INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL: Court Continues Class Cert Deadlines
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD PENA and BRANDON
MILLER, individually and on behalf of persons similarly situated,
v. INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL DEVICES, INC., MENOVA INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
GESIVA MEDICAL, LLC, JAMES J. ELIST, M.D., A MEDICAL CORPORATION,
AND DR. JAMES ELIST, Case No. 2:22-cv-03391-SSS-RAO (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Sunshine S. Sykes entered an order the deadlines
applicable to Plaintiffs' anticipated motion for class
certification:
              Event                         Deadline

  Motion for Class Certification       120 days after the
resolution
  and any Class Certification          of Defendants' Motion to
Compel
  Expert Report                        Arbitration and to Stay and
any
                                       related appeals

  Defendants' Opposition to Class      42 days after Plaintiffs'
  Certification and any Class          Motion for Class
Certification
  Certification Expert Report

  Reply in Support of Class            28 days after Defendants'
  Certification and any Class          Opposition
  Certification Rebuttal Expert
  Report

International Medical offers modern integrated solutions in the
fields of clinical chemistry, hematology, immunology and
microbiology.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 18, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tFaTPF at no extra charge.[CC]



IR LABS DE: Menaugh Sues Over WARN Act and FLSA Breaches
--------------------------------------------------------
DAKOTAH MENAUGH, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. IR LABS DE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:24-cv-00002-SHL-SBJ (S.D. Iowa, January 2, 2024) alleges
violations of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for IR Labs DE, LLC prior to her termination
on September 20, 2023. Plaintiff was one of the 157 or more
employees who were terminated but were not provided with 60 days'
worth of advance notice. Throughout her employment, Plaintiff's
non-discretionary, performance-based pay was not included into the
calculation of her regular rate of pay, says the suit.

Headquartered in Des Moines, IA, IR Labs DE, LLC is a consulting
firm aimed to capitalize on the employee retention credit. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Timm W. Reid, Esq.
         REID LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
         100 Court Avenue, Suite 315
         Des Moines, IA, 50309
         Telephone: (515) 381-9842
         Facsimile: (515) 219-8746
         E-mail: timm@treidlawfirm.com

JGR SERVICES: Court Approves $55K Class Settlement in Farez Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled MARCO MOROCHO FAREZ, et al., Plaintiffs v.
JGR SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 7:21-cv-08205-KMK
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Kenneth M. Karas of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York grants the Parties' request for
approval of their proposed settlement agreement.

Plaintiffs Marco Morocho Farez, Jorge Morocho Farez, Moises Nugra
Morocho, Abraham Nugra Morocho, and Diego Farez, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, brought this Class
Action against JGR Services, Inc., Cuetes Corp., and Juan Martinez
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and the
New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs are former carpenters, scaffolders, and laborers at
JGR and Cuetes. They allege that they were regularly required to
work approximately six days per week and approximately twelve hours
per day for a total of approximately seventy-two hours per week.
They further contend that they were paid the same hourly rate for
all hours worked, including those in excess of forty hours per
week.

In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs requested that the Court declare
the Defendants' conduct in violation of the Plaintiffs' rights
under the FLSA, the New York Labor Law, and its regulations; award
the Plaintiffs unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages pursuant
to 29 U.S.C. Section 216 and New York Labor Law Sections 198(1-a),
663(1), prejudgment and post-judgment interest, the costs of this
action together with reasonable attorneys' fees; and award any
further relief that the Court deemed necessary and proper.

The Plaintiffs filed this Action on Oct. 5, 2021. On Jan. 20,
2022, after the Parties stipulated to extend the time to answer the
Complaint, the Defendants filed their Answer. The Parties submitted
a proposed case management plan on March 7, 2022. The Court held a
conference on March 8, 2022, during which it adopted the case
management plan and referred the Parties to Mediation.

On Sept. 1, 2022, the Parties attended their first mediation
conference. On Sept. 12, 2022, the Parties submitted a Joint Letter
Motion to adjourn a conference, requesting to reschedule the
conference to sometime after the Parties' second mediation
conference, which the Court granted. Thereafter, the Parties filed
a Joint Letter requesting an extension of time regarding the Court
conference due to ongoing mediation between the Parties, which the
Court granted.

The Parties attended their second mediation conference on Dec. 1,
2022. The Court held a status conference on Dec. 7, 2022. The
mediator filed a final report on Jan. 25, 2023, noting that
agreement was reached on all issues. The Court held a status
conference on Jan. 25, 2023.

On March 16, 2023, the Parties submitted their Motion, seeking
approval of their Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to the Court's
request, on Dec. 18, 2023, the Plaintiffs' counsel submitted
contemporaneous billing records related to counsel attorneys' fees
request.

The Court finds that the settlement sum is fair and reasonable.
Under the Settlement Agreement, the Defendants agreed to pay
$55,000 (the "Settlement Amount") to resolve the Plaintiffs'
claims. Of the Settlement Amount, $18,023 will go towards
attorneys' fees and $929 will go towards attorneys' expenses. Thus,
the Plaintiffs' net settlement--after the deduction of attorney
fees and costs--is $36,048.

Judge Karas notes that a net recovery of $36,048 would represent
about 36% of the Plaintiffs' total alleged damages. The Court finds
that, given the risks identified by the Plaintiffs, the settlement
amount is reasonable.

The Court is not aware of other employees, who are similarly
situated to the Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiffs will be the only
employees affected by the settlement and dismissal of the lawsuit.
Judge Karas says these facts weigh in favor of approval of the
Settlement Agreement.

The Court determines that the attorneys' fees and costs requested
by the Plaintiff's counsel are reasonable.

For these reasons, Judge Karas grants the Parties' request for
approval of their Settlement Agreement. The Clerk of the Court is
directed to terminate the pending motion and close this case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated Dec. 21,
2023, is available at http://tinyurl.com/4a59h4dufrom
PacerMonitor.com.

James Patrick Peter O'Donnell -- jamespodonnell86@gmail.com -- in
Kew Gardens, New York, Counsel for the Plaintiffs.

Roman Mikhail Avshalumov -- avshalumovr@yahoo.com -- Avraham Y.
Scher -- avi@helendalton.com -- Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C.
-- in Kew Gardens, New York, Counsel for the Plaintiffs.

Hector M. Roman, Jr. -- hroman@roman-law.org -- Law Office of
Hector M. Roman, P.C., in Richmond Hill, New York, Counsel for the
Defendants.


LA-Z BOY: Sanford Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------
Josh Sanford, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. La-Z-Boy Inc., Defendant, Case No.
5:24-cv-10005-JEL-APP (E.D. Mich., January 2, 2024) arises from a
telemarketing campaign by Defendant who made phone calls to market
its services by contacting numbers on the National Do Not Call
Registry in plain violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received more than one
telemarketing call/or text message in a 12-month period without his
prior express written consent or permission and without any active
non-terminated established business relationship.

Headquartered in Monroe County, MI, La-Z-Boy Inc. is one of the
world's leading residential furniture producers and it markets
furniture for every room  the home. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Nick Suciu III, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
         6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115
         Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
         Telephone: (313) 303-3472
         E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com

                 - and -

         Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
         227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (866) 252-0878
         E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com

LB RETAIL: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Martinez Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO MARTINEZ, Plaintiff v. LB RETAIL, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
500122/2024 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., January 2, 2024) alleges
violations of the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York
City Human Rights Law due to Defendant's failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons.

The inaccessibility of Defendant's website, liquidblue.com, has
deterred Plaintiff from making an online purchase of the Grateful
Dead Steal Your Vinyl Tie-Dye T-Shirt, the Grateful Dead Spiral
Bears Tie-Dye T-Shirt, and a gift card. Accordingly, Plaintiff, on
behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in LB Retail's policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. He
also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Plaintiff for having
been subjected to unlawful discrimination.

LB Retail, LLC is a Rhode Island Foreign limited liability company
that that offers licensed T-shirts and related products through its
website. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Dan Shaked, Esq.
         SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
         14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
         Scarsdale, NY 10583
         Telephone: (917) 373-9128
         E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com

LEXISNEXIS RISK: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to April 15
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KERRY JENNIFER SCROGGINS,
V. LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS FL INC., Case No.
3:22-cv-00545-MHL-SLS (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge M. Hannah Lauck
entered an order modifying class certification deadlines:

                        Event                        Deadline

-- Class expert disclosures:                       March 8,2024

-- Rebuttal class expert disclosures:              March 22,2024

-- Deadline to file Plaintiffs motion              April 15,2024
    for class certification:

-- Deadline to file Defendant's                    May 27, 2024
    opposition to any motion for
    class certification:

-- Deadline to file Plaintiffs reply              June 24, 2024
    in support of any motion for class
    certification:

-- Trial No later than:                           Dec. 23, 2024

Lexisnexis was founded in 1994. The company's line of business
includes providing full service legal advice.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 18, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Rz9RwA at no extra charge.[CC]

MAISON SOLUTIONS: Kim Sues Over Misleading IPO Documents
--------------------------------------------------------
ILSAN KIM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. MAISON SOLUTIONS INC., JOHN XU, ALEXANDRIA
M. LOPEZ, TAO HAN, BIN WANG, DR. XIAOXIA ZHANG, MARK WILLIS, JOSEPH
STONE CAPITAL, LLC, and AC SUNSHINE SECURITIES LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 150024/2024 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., January 2, 2024)
seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants’
violations of the securities laws and to pursue remedies under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The class action arises from Maison Solutions' materially
misleading Offering Documents issued in connection with the initial
public offering (IPO) conducted on or about October 5, 2023 through
October 10, 2023. Specifically, the Offering Documents were false
or misleading or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had
engaged with auditors and underwriters with poor respective track
records for its IPO; (2), the Company's principal vendor is an
undisclosed related party; (3) Chief Executive Officer John Xu has
had past legal issues as a result of his business conduct, says the
suit.

Headquartered in Monterey Park, CA, Maison Solutions is a
"specialty grocery retailer offering traditional Asian food and
merchandise to modern US consumers, in particular to members of
Asian-American communities." Its shares trade on the NASDAQ
exchange under the ticker symbol "MSS". [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 lrosen@rosenlegal.com

MANUELITO FURNITURE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Araujo Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC GUILIANO MONANGE ARAUJO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. MANUELITO FURNITURE INC (D/B/A BIG BOSS
FURNITURE) and MAHMOUD SALEH, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00030
(E.D.N.Y., January 2, 2024) asserts violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Monange was employed as a salesperson and furniture
builder at the Defedants' furniture store. However, throughout his
employment, Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours
per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime
compensation for the hours that he worked. In addition, the
Defendants also failed to maintain accurate and complete timesheets
and payroll records, says the Plaintiff.

Manuelito Furniture Inc owns and operates a furniture store,
located at 93-03 Roosevelt Ave, Jackson Heights, NY 11372, under
the name "Big Boss Furniture".

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Catalina Sojo, Esq.
         CSM LEGAL, P.C.
         60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
         New York, NY 10165
         Telephone: (212) 317-1200
         Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
         E-mail: catalina@cmslegal.com

MCLAREN HEALTH: Filings in Lewis Suit Banned Until Further Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Matthew F. Leitman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, prohibits filings until
further Court order in the lawsuit styled SARAH LEWIS, Plaintiff v.
McLAREN HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-12571-MFL-CI (E.D. Mich.).

On Oct. 11, 2023, Plaintiff Sarah Lewis filed this putative class
action against Defendant McLaren Health Care Corporation. The Court
intends to hold a status conference to discuss next steps in this
case.

Until the Court holds that status conference, and until further
order of the Court, Judge Leitman holds that there will be no
filings in this action other than attorney appearances. In other
words, McLaren need not answer or otherwise respond to the
Complaint prior to the status conference.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 21, 2023, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yc493tkxfrom PacerMonitor.com.


MCLAREN HEALTH: Filings in Turri Suit Banned Until Further Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Matthew F. Leitman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, prohibits filings until
further Court order in the lawsuit captioned KYLE TURRI, Plaintiff
v. McLAREN HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-13119-MFL-CI (E.D. Mich.).

On Dec. 8, 2023, Plaintiff Kyle Turri filed this putative class
action against Defendant McLaren Health Care Corporation. The Court
intends to hold a status conference to discuss next steps in this
case.

Until the Court holds that status conference, and until further
order of the Court, Judge Leitman holds that there will be no
filings in this action other than attorney appearances. In other
words, McLaren need not answer or otherwise respond to the
Complaint prior to the status conference.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 21, 2023, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/4erk239kfrom PacerMonitor.com.


MICROSOFT CORP: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Saeedy Privacy Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the lawsuit captioned NOAH SAEEDY, et al.,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-01104-BJR (W.D. Wash.).

The Plaintiffs sued Microsoft Corporation on July 21, 2023, in this
putative class action, alleging that the Microsoft Edge browser
intercepts and collects users' internet browsing activities and
private data for Microsoft's use, which results in numerous
violations of both federal and state laws.

In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs claim economic injury because of
Microsoft's unlawful and unauthorized interceptions and recordings.
They have sued Microsoft, on behalf of a nationwide class and
subclasses, for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and various California and
Washington state law claims. In total, they assert 13 causes of
action.

The Complaint identifies two general theories of harm--invasion of
privacy-related claims (Counts 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12), and
property-related claims (Counts 2, 6, 7, 8, 10).

Currently pending before the Court is Microsoft's Motion to Dismiss
Under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, which the Plaintiffs have opposed. Microsoft argues that
the Plaintiffs lack standing under Article III of the Constitution.
Microsoft also argues that Plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed
under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on which relief
may be granted.

Having reviewed the parties' filings and the relevant legal
authorities, the Court grants Microsoft's motion to dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of standing.

Judge Rothstein finds that the collected browser information of
which the Plaintiffs complain is not a legally protected privacy
interest in which they had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Therefore, they have not alleged a sufficiently concrete privacy
injury to provide a basis for Article III standing.

Judge Rothstein also finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to
allege how they were personally injured by the collection of their
data sufficient to establish standing for their property-related
claims.

Because the named Plaintiffs fail to allege a particularized,
concrete injury to a legally protected interest, Judge Rothstein
opines that they have failed to allege standing to proceed with
their claims. Given this lack of standing, the Court will not
consider Microsoft's alternative argument under Rule 12(b)(6).

Microsoft's Motion to Dismiss is granted, Judge Rothstein rules.
The Plaintiffs' Complaint is dismissed without prejudice for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Plaintiffs have asked for leave to amend. Ordinarily, leave to
amend a complaint should be freely given, Judge Rothstein says.

Microsoft asks the Court to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims with
prejudice, contending that all of their claims fail on some
essential element and cannot be adequately pleaded under their
theories.

Because the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the Plaintiffs'
claims on the merits, it would be premature to dismiss with
prejudice, Judge Rothstein says. If the Plaintiffs wish to amend
their Complaint, they must file a motion for leave to amend within
30 days of the date of this Order. The motion must attach any
proposed amended complaint and cite relevant authority explaining
why leave to amend is appropriate, how they have addressed the
raised deficiencies, and why the proposed amendments will not be
subject to dismissal under the legal authorities.

For these reasons, the Court grants Microsoft's Motion to Dismiss
Under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Plaintiffs may file a motion
for leave to amend their Complaint within 30 days of the date of
this Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 21, 2023, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/4n6c8tsnfrom PacerMonitor.com.


NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS: Harvey & Deprospo Sue Over Private Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NATHAN HARVEY and NICK DEPROSPO on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS INC.
d/b/a SHOWCASE CINEMAS, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-10027 (D.
Mass., January 3, 2024) arises from the Defendant's failure protect
and safeguard Plaintiffs' and Class member's personally
identifiable information from a data breach perpetrated by
cybercriminals and impacted over 82,000 current and former
employees.

The data breach began on or around December 13, 2022, but was not
discovered by Defendant until December 15, 2022. However, it was
only on or about December 22, 2023--an appalling year after the
Data Breach occurred -- the Defendant began notifying Class members
about the data breach. Moreover, the Defendant's breach notice
obfuscated the nature of the breach and the threat it posted --
refusing to tell its employees how many people were impacted, how
the breach happened, or why it took the Defendant an entire year to
finally begin notifying victims that cybercriminals had gained
access to their highly private information, says the suit.

Headquartered in Massachusetts, National Amusements is a privately
owned American movie theater operator and mass media holding
company that operates 839 movie screens in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
         Raina Borrelli, Esq.
         TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
         613 Williamson, WI 53703
         Telephone: (608) 237-1775
         Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
         E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com
                 raina@turkestrauss.com

ODELE LLC: Faces Morgan Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
PARADISE MORGAN, Plaintiff v. ODELE LLC, Defendant, Case No.
150033/2024 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., January 2, 2024) is a class
action arising under the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights
Law.

Plaintiff Morgan, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, asserts that the Defendant violated the said
state and city laws by failing to make its website accessible to
blind persons. She seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change
in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. She also seeks compensatory damages
for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination.

Headquartered in Minneapolis, MN, Odele is a Delaware foreign
limited liability company that controls and operates the website,
odelebeauty.com, which sells hair care products online. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Telephone: (917) 373-9128
          E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com

OUTLOOK THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Suit Over Drug Licensing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Outlook Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 22, 2023, that on November 3,
2023, a securities class action lawsuit was filed against the
company and certain of its officers in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

The class action complaint alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, in
connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by
us related to the company's Biologics License Application (BLA)
during the period from December 29, 2022 through August 29, 2023.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that it violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 by
failing to disclose that there was an alleged lack of evidence
supporting ONS-5010 as a treatment for wet age-related macular
degeneration and that the company and/or its manufacturing partner
had deficient chemical, manufacturing and control for ONS-5010,
which remained unresolved at the time the BLA was re-submitted to
the FDA and, as a result, the FDA was unlikely to approve its BLA,
and that the company's stock price dropped when such information
was disclosed.

The plaintiffs in the class action complaint seek damages and
interest, and an award of reasonable costs, including attorneys'
fees.

Outlook is a biopharmaceutical company working to launch the first
ophthalmic formulation of the angiogenesis inhibitor "bevacizumab"
approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or the FDA, for
use in retinal indications.


PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Carrick Labor Suit Stayed in N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California stays the lawsuit styled
GABRIELLE E. CARRICK, Plaintiff v. PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-04233-SVK (N.D. Cal.), under the
"first-to-file" rule.

Plaintiff Gabrielle Carrick commenced this putative class action
against Defendant Peloton Interactive, Inc., alleging that Peloton
violated several provisions of the California Labor Code (the
"CLC") in connection with its employment of the Plaintiff and the
members of her putative class.

Judge Van Keulen notes that it turns out that this is now at least
the third lawsuit pending against Peloton alleging substantially
the same violations of law stemming from substantially the same
conduct. In light of these earlier-filed, overlapping actions,
Peloton moves to dismiss or stay this action under the
"first-to-file" rule. The Plaintiff opposes the Motion, and Peloton
filed a reply.

All necessary parties--the Plaintiff and Peloton--have consented to
the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. The Plaintiff also sued 100
Doe Defendants. These Doe defendants are not "parties" for purposes
of assessing whether there is complete consent to magistrate judge
jurisdiction.

Peloton currently faces at least three actions alleging it violated
the CLC. Originally filed in California state court on Jan. 3,
2022, the first action is currently pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Cohen v. Peloton
Interactive, Inc., No. 22-cv-01425-MFW, Dkt. 1 (C.D. Cal.). The
parties in the Cohen action have reached a settlement in principle
and intend to seek Court approval of their settlement upon
execution of a settlement agreement.

Originally filed in California state court on April 15, 2022, the
second action is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, McKinnon v. Peloton
Interactive, Inc., No. 22-cv-03368-MFW, Dkt. 1 (C.D. Cal.). On May
19, 2022, the McKinnon court transferred the action to the
Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald, who was already presiding over the
Cohen action. The McKinnon court subsequently stayed that action in
light of the Cohen action.

Originally filed in California state court on June 16, 2023, the
instant action was removed to this Court on Aug. 18, 2023. In this
action, the Plaintiff asserts seven causes of action against
Peloton and 100 Doe defendants based on violations of the CLC and
the CUCL, stemming from Peloton's alleged failure to comply with
the requirements of the CLC in connection with its employment of
the Plaintiff and the members of her putative class.

The Plaintiff seeks to certify nine different classes, all of which
effectively constitute subclasses to the following overarching
class: "All current and former hourly non-exempt employees employed
by Defendants [i.e., Peloton and Doe defendants] as direct
employees as well as temporary employees employed through temp
agencies in California."

There are several overlapping claims in the instant action and the
Cohen and McKinnon actions, including failure to pay overtime
wages, and failure to authorize or permit meal periods. Similarly,
there is overlap between the putative classes in all three
actions.

Courts look to three factors when applying the first-to-file rule:
(1) the chronology of the two actions; (2) the similarity of the
parties; and (3) the similarity of the issues.

The Court finds that all three factors of the first-to-file rule
weigh in favor of applying the rule in this action.

Judge Van Keulen explains that all three actions effectively seek
to certify a class covering all current and former hourly,
non-exempt employees, who worked for Peloton in California, and the
proposed classes vary only in terms of how they subdivide this
class and the class periods applied. Contrasting these minor
differences, the similarities among the putative classes are
substantial.

The McKinnon court has stayed that action, and the parties in the
Cohen action have reached a settlement in principle that
encompasses both the Cohen and McKinnon actions. Judge Van Keulen
says it is not clear whether or how this settlement would impact
the claims asserted in this action. The Court will, therefore, stay
this action.

For these reasons, the Court grants the Motion and stays this
action. The Parties will file a status report by the earlier of (1)
14 days after the Cohen court preliminarily approves settlement in
that action or (2) June 21, 2024.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 21, 2023, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/hhmd7ab5from PacerMonitor.com.


PENN FOSTER: E.D. California Directs Clerk to Close Nipper Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California directs the Clerk of the
Court to close the lawsuit entitled JOSEPH NIPPER, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PENN
FOSTER, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01655-CDB (E.D. Cal.).

On Nov. 28, 2023, Plaintiff Joseph Nipper filed the operative
complaint in which he asserts claims on behalf of himself and a
putative class against Defendant Penn Foster, LLC. The Defendant
has not filed an answer to the complaint.

Pending before the Court is the Plaintiff's notice of voluntary
dismissal without prejudice.

As the Plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal comports with the
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Judge Baker says
the Plaintiff is entitled to dismiss his individual claims (at
least) without court order. In a class action, however, court
approval of dismissal may be required under Rule 41(a)(2) if the
class has been certified.

In this case, the Plaintiff seeks to dismiss the putative class
claims pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) without prejudice. No class has
been certified, the Plaintiff has not sought certification, nor has
certification been proposed for purposes of settlement.

Because no class has been certified in this case, and because any
dismissal would not affect putative class members' claims, Rule
23(e) does not mandate either Court approval of the parties'
settlement or notice to putative class members, Judge Baker
opines.

In light of Plaintiff's filing that is consistent with Rule
41(a)(1)(A)(i) and the Court's finding above that under the
circumstances, Rule 23(e) does not require Court approval of the
dismissal, Judge Baker rules that the action has been terminated by
operation of law without further order of the Court.

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to close the file
in this case and adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal
of this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i).

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 21, 2023, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/2hkba27dfrom PacerMonitor.com.


PHE INC: Faces Doe Class Suit Over Invasion of Privacy
------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. PHE, INC. and GOOGLE LLC, Defendants, Case No.
24STCV00181 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 3, 2024)
alleges violations of the California Invasion Privacy Act.

By using the Google Analytics tool without anonymization IP
feature, PHE is sharing with Google Plaintiff's online activity,
along with her IP addresses, even when consumers have not shared
(nor have consented to share) such information, says the suit.

Headquartered in Hillsborough, NC, PHE, Inc. developed, owns,
and/or operates the website, www.adameve.com, which is the largest
adult product marketer in the United States. [BN]


The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Mike Arias, Esq.
         Arnold C. Wang, Esq.
         M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq.
         ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TEAM LLP
         6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90045
         Telephone: (310) 844-9696
         Facsimile: (310) 861-0168

                  - and -

         Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
         Julia G. Haghighi, Esq.
         LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON P.C.
         975 E. Jefferson Avenue
         Detroit, MI 48207
         Telephone: (313) 392-0015
         Facsimile: (313) 392-0025

PITCHBOOK DATA: Kuehn and Lee Seek to Recover Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN KUEHN and PATRICK LEE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PITCHBOOK DATA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00031 (N.D. Ill., January 2, 2024)
seeks to recover overtime compensation for Plaintiffs and similarly
situated workers who worked as Sales Development Representatives
(SDRs) and Team Leads, or an equivalent position, for Defendant
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Kuehn worked as an SDR for Defendant from approximately June 2021
until August 2021. Defendant employs SDRs to make sales of its
services to prospective clients. However, Defendant did not pay
Plaintiff Kuehn overtime wages for hours worked over 40 in a
workweek even though Plaintiff Kuehn regularly worked more than 40
hours in a workweek, says the suit.

Headquartered in Seattle, WA, PitchBook Data, Inc. offers database
for private equity-focused intelligence. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          335 18th Pl NE
          Washington D.C. 20002
          Telephone: (202) 830-2016
          E-mail: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com

                  - and -

          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 W. Washington Street Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008
          E-mail: msalas@flsalaw.com
                  dwerman@flsalaw.com

REPUBLIC SERVICES: Class Communication Issue in Buffalo Suit Fixed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard M. Gergel of the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina, Charleston Division, issued an order resolving
the issue on class communications in the lawsuits titled Buffalo
Seafood House LLC, et al., Plaintiffs v. Republic Services, Inc.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 7:22-cv-01242-RMG (D.S.C.), and A+
Auto Service, LLC, Plaintiff v. Republic Services of South
Carolina, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-1492 (D.S.C.).

The matter comes before the Court following a remand from the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit "for the
limited purpose of allowing the district court to rule on the
parties' joint motion" to modify the Court's earlier order on class
communications" (Buffalo Seafood House LLC v. Republic Services,
Inc., Appeal No. 23-1922 (4th Cir. 2023).

The parties jointly moved on Sept. 26, 2023, to modify the Court's
class communication order by stipulating that arbitration/contract
waiver provisions included in the Defendants' contracts on or after
April 1, 2021, would not be applied retroactively to claims for
damages, which arose under prior contracts, which did not contain
arbitration/class waiver provisions.

The parties further stipulated that the enforceability of
arbitration/class waiver provisions contained in contracts executed
after April 1, 2021, regarding claims for damages, that arose after
the execution of such contracts, would remain an open issue, with
all parties able to argue for or against such provisions.

The Court issued its class communication order on March 22, 2023,
following uncontested reports that the Defendants were
communicating with putative class members by offering a new
contract with an arbitration/class waiver provision without
disclosing this pending litigation and the potential adverse impact
the signing of the new contract might have on their right to
recover in this action. The Court found such communications were
designed "to reduce the number of potential class members in the
case" and were "improper and threatened the proper functioning of
this litigation."

The Court ordered that the Defendants must fully disclose to
putative class members offered new contracts with the
arbitration/class waiver provision of "the existence of this
litigation and the consequence of executing the new agreement." The
Court further directed that any putative class members, who had
already executed the new contracts after March 2019, to be informed
of the claims in this litigation and afforded the opportunity to
rescind the new agreement.

The Defendants, thereafter, moved before the Court to reconsider
the class communication order, filed an appeal to the Fourth
Circuit, withdrew that appeal, and filed a second appeal. While the
class communication order was on appeal in the Fourth Circuit, the
parties moved before the Court to modify the class communication
order.

The Court issued an Indicative Ruling on Oct. 3, 2023, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1, stating that the parties'
proposal addressed a number of the Court's concerns regarding the
Defendants' introduction of an arbitration/class waiver provision
in new contracts and raised substantial issues worthy of further
consideration as a possible acceptable alternative to the
previously issued class communication order if the Fourth Circuit
determined to remand the matter to the Court.

On Nov. 15, 2023, the Fourth Circuit remanded this matter to the
Court for consideration of the proposed modification of the class
communication order.

Having reviewed the full record in this matter and the parties'
proposal to resolve the class communication issue, the Court is
persuaded that the following offers an equally effective method to
prevent any erosion of the rights of putative class members during
the pendency of this litigation.

First, in accord with the stipulations of the parties, the
arbitration/class waiver provisions of the Defendants' contracts
with their customers issued on or after April 1, 2021, will not be
applied to reach claims that arose under prior agreements that did
not contain an arbitration/class action waiver. Thus,
arbitration/class waiver provisions adopted in contracts issued on
or after April 1, 2021, will not be applied retroactively to
exclude those customers from being a member of the putative class
in this action or limit those putative class members' alleged
damages for injuries that occurred before the execution of
contracts containing an arbitration/class waiver provision. Nothing
in this order will be construed to indicate that the named
Plaintiffs or putative class members have any entitlement to a
damage award, which remains unresolved at this time.

Second, the enforceability of the arbitration/class waiver
provisions of any of the Defendants' contracts issued on or after
April 1, 2021, for alleged damages which occurred after the
execution of contracts with arbitration/class waiver provisions
remains unresolved at this time. Each party maintains its right to
argue for or against the enforceability of the arbitration/class
waiver provision for alleged damages which arose after the
execution of contracts with arbitration/class action waivers.

Third, no party has waived any argument it may make at class
certification or in any pending or future appeal except for the
joint stipulations of the parties. Fourth, this ruling does not
apply to the enforcement of arbitration/class waiver provisions
contained in legacy contracts (contracts with companies that were
acquired by the Defendants).

Lastly, the Court vacates its earlier order regarding class
communications.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 21, 2023, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/3zvw5k7mfrom PacerMonitor.com.


REPUBLIC SERVICES: Must Show Unredacted Spreadsheet in Buffalo Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Buffalo Seafood House LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No.
7:22-cv-01242-RMG (D.S.C.), Judge Richard Mark Gergel of the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston
Division, orders the Defendants to produce in camera an unredacted
version of the subsidiary mapping spreadsheet as requested by the
Plaintiffs.

The Court conducted a hearing on Dec. 21, 2023, to address the
Defendants' Motion for Relief, the Plaintiffs' Fourth Motion to
Compel, the Defendants' Motion to Compel and the Defendant's Motion
to Amend the Current Scheduling Order.

As explained at the hearing, the Court will not tolerate speaking
objections and other improper deposition conduct by the Plaintiffs'
counsel. The Court noted on the record the potential sanctions that
the Plaintiffs' counsel may face if such conduct continues. As of
now, the Court denies without prejudice the Defendants' Motion for
Relief.

The Plaintiffs request the Court to compel the Defendants to (1)
produce an unredacted version of the subsidiary mapping
spreadsheet, (2) provide Republic Services, Inc.'s former Chief
Operating Officer Tim Stuart for deposition, and (3) produce
records regarding Republic Services, Inc.'s collection, lien, and
lawsuit practices.

The Defendants object to producing an unredacted version of the
subsidiary mapping spreadsheet, arguing that the redacted
information is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the
work product doctrine.

The Court could not discern the nature of the redacted information
and orders the Defendants to produce in camera an unredacted
version of the subsidiary mapping spreadsheet for the Court's
review. The Defendants may submit with the document a statement
describing their position that the redacted information should not
be subject to discovery. The Defendants will make this in camera
submission within 15 days of this Order.

The Defendants argue that they cannot force the deposition of Mr.
Stuart, who through his own counsel, moved to quash the Plaintiffs'
subpoena for deposition in Arizona Federal Court. The motion to
quash is currently pending before the Arizona District Court. The
Court here will not interfere with the Arizona District Court's
decision on Mr. Stuart's motion to quash and denies without
prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion to compel Republic Services, Inc.,
to produce Mr. Stuart for deposition.

The Plaintiffs argue that Republic Services, Inc., at the corporate
level, aggressively pursues customers, who cannot pay the rate
increases and fees at issue in this case. The Plaintiffs argue that
this information is relevant to the Defendants' defenses in this
case.

The Defendants argue that Republic Services, Inc., does not possess
collection action information and that the few instances in which
Republic Services, Inc., was a named party in a collection action
were inadvertent filings that were eventually corrected. The Court
heard from the parties on the relevance of the requested documents
and considered the burden to the Defendants to produce such
information for all of Republic Services, Inc.'s subsidiaries.

The Court finds that the collection action information may be
relevant to the Plaintiffs' alter ego theory, but also notes the
burden of producing irrelevant information if Republic Services,
Inc., is only named inadvertently in certain isolated collection
actions. Accordingly, the Court orders the Defendants to produce
initially all complaints and amended complaints in collection
actions from Jan. 1, 2016, to the present for all of Republic
Service, Inc.'s South Carolina subsidiaries.

The Defendants are further ordered to produce all retainer
agreements between the Defendants and law firms handling the South
Carolina collection actions in effect during the period Jan. 1,
2016, to the present.

The Defendants moved to compel 30(b)(6) deposition of Plaintiff
Garibian & Associates. The parties indicated at the hearing that
they have reached an agreement regarding this deposition, and the
Defendants have filed a withdrawal of their motion.

The Defendants request an extension to the expert schedule to allow
their expert an additional 30 days to complete its written report;
and for a corresponding 30-day adjustment as to the dates for when
the Plaintiffs must file a class certification motion, for when the
Defendants must file a response, and for when the Plaintiffs must
file a reply. The Plaintiffs agreed to the 30-day extension at the
hearing.

Accordingly, the Court extends the listed deadlines by 30 days. The
parties will submit to the Court an amended proposed scheduling
order within 15 days of this order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 21, 2023, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/4jadepzpfrom PacerMonitor.com.


RETINA GROUP: Dapaah-Siakwan Sues Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
KWAME DAPAAH-SIAKWAN, on behalf of himself individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE RETINA
GROUP OF WASHINGTON, PLLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-00016 (D.
Md., January 3, 2024) arises out of the recent cyberattack and data
breach resulting from The Retina Group of Washington's failure to
implement reasonable and industry standard data security practices
and asserts claims against the Defendant for negligence, and for
violations Federal Trade Commission Act and the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.

According to the untitled letter that Defendant sent to Plaintiff
and other impacted Class members, on March 26, 2023, Defendant
"began experiencing difficulty accessing information in some of its
systems. Defendant's investigation concluded that the incident
resulted in the unauthorized acquisition of some of patients'
information. Moreover, Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and
prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and
stolen as a result of the data breach and who remain at risk due to
Defendant's inadequate data security practices.

Headquartered in Greenbelt, MD, The Retina Group of Washington,
PLLC is a Virginia limited liability company that provides medical
services to its patients, including specialized ophthalmology for
retina diseases and vitreoretinal surgery and procedures in
treating retinal diseases, conditions and disorders. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Thomas A. Pacheco, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
         900 W Morgan Street
         Raleigh, NC 27603
         Telephone: (212) 946-9305
         E-mail: tpacheco@milberg.com

                 - and -

         David K. Lietz, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
         5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW
         Washington, DC.20015-2052
         Telephone: (866) 252-0878
         Facsimile: (202) 686-2877
         E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com

                 - and-

         Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
         TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
         1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
         Seattle, WA 98101-3147
         Telephone: (206) 682-5600
         E-mail: jdennett@tousley.com

SCOR HOLDING: Court Allows Cy Pres Distribution in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled IN RE: SCOR HOLDING (SWITZERLAND) AG
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:04-cv-07897-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), Judge
Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York authorizes cy pres distribution of $14,519 in residual
settlement funds to the Investor Protection Trust.

By its 2010 Order and Final Judgment, the Court approved the terms
and provisions of the Stipulation of Settlement as to SCOR Holding
(Switzerland) AG (the "SHS Stipulation") and the Amended
Stipulation of Settlement as to Zurich Financial Services.

The Court directed the parties to consummate the Settlements in
accordance with the terms and provisions of the Stipulations.

By its Order Preliminarily Approving Proposed Settlement dated Aug.
11, 2008, the Court approved the retention of Epiq Class Action &
Claims Solutions, Inc., as Claims Administrator to, among other
things, process Claim Forms submitted.

By its Order and Final Judgment, the Court approved the plan of
allocation of the Net Settlement Funds to Authorized Claimants.

Pursuant to the Court's Order Approving Distribution Plan, Epiq has
conducted two (2) distributions of the Net Settlement Funds to
Authorized Claimants and has determined that further distributions
would not be cost effective.

Lead Counsel has asked the Court to approve a distribution of the
remaining unclaimed balance of $14,519.66 in the Net Settlement
Funds to the Investor Protection Trust, a private, non-sectarian,
nonprofit organization with Internal Revenue Code Section
501(c)(3) tax-deductible status.

The Defendants have no legal interest in the relief requested by
Lead Plaintiffs' motion.

Upon reviewing the Declaration of Jessie Mahn in Support of Lead
Plaintiffs' Motion for Order Authorizing Cy Pres Distribution of
Residual Settlement Funds, and the Dec. 19, 2023 Response by Class
Counsel to the Nov. 8, 2023 Order, the Court authorizes the Claims
Administrator to distribute the unclaimed balance of $14,519.66 in
the Net Settlement Fund to the Investor Protection Trust.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 21, 2023, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/3pecm8kxfrom PacerMonitor.com.


SIMA COE: Case Management Order Entered in Guardian Life Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA, v. SIMA COE et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-08435-ALC-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gabriel W.
Gorenstein entered a case management order as follows:

-- All pre-trial applications, including those relating to
scheduling
    and discovery, shall be made to the undersigned (except motions
to  
    dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive
relief,
    for summary judgment, or for class certification).

-- All applications must comply with this Court's Individual
    Practices, which are available through the Clerk's Office or
at:
    https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-gabriel-w-gorenstein.

-- The parties should write to the Court at any time that they
wish
    to participate in Courtsponsored mediation.

-- The Court is aware of the letter filed as docket No. 92 raising

    discovery disputes and a response filed as docket No. 93.

-- Additionally, it does not appear from the docket sheet that
there
    was ever a scheduling order issued in this case or that the
    parties ever devised a discovery plan as required by Fed. R.
Civ.
    P. 26(f).

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 18, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47yqRsZ at no extra charge.[CC]

SPECTRUM BRANDS: Garza Sues Over Pet Food's False Labeling
----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE GARZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPECTRUM BRANDS PET LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-at-00007 (E.D. Cal., January 3, 2024) arises from the
Defendant's false and misleading business practices with respect to
the sale its DreamBone Dream Kabobz product and asserts claims
against the Defendant for, among other things, breach of implied
warranty, common law fraud, intentional misrepresentation, and for
violations of the California Business and Professions Code and the
California's False Advertising Law.

Allegedly, the Defendant has marketed, advertised, and labeled the
product in a false and deceptive manner. Defendant misleads
consumers into believing that the product is predominately made
with meat, when it is not. Contrary to the labeling and packaging
of the product, the featured meats are not the predominant
ingredients. In fact, there are several more prominent ingredients,
including rice flour, pea flour, glycerin and sorbitol, says the
suit.

Spectrum Brands Pet LLC is a Limited Liability Company located at
One Ryder Trail Plaza Dr, Suite 300 Earth City, Missouri 63045. The
company formulates, manufactures, labels, packages, advertises,
distributes, and sells pet products for dogs, cats, birds, fish,
and small animals. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Lisa Omoto, Esq.
         FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
         1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1060
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (424) 256-2884
         Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
         E-mail: lomoto@faruqilaw.com

TALLAHASSEE MEMORIAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
D.S., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. TALLAHASSEE MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE, Defendant, Case No.
4:23-cv-00540-MW-MAF (N.D. Fla., Dec. 29, 2024) is an action
seeking to address the Defendant's unlawful practice of disclosing
its patients confidential personally identifiable information
("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively
referred to as "Private Information") to unauthorized third
parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta ("Facebook") and
Google LLC ("Google"), without consent, through the use of tracking
software that is embedded in the Defendant's website.

According to the complaint, unbeknownst to its patients, the
Defendant installed tracking technologies ("Tracking Tools") onto
its Website, including Meta Platforms, Inc.'s Tracking Pixel (the
"Meta Pixel" or "Pixel") and Google, LLC's Google Analytics tool,
which allow unauthorized third parties to intercept the contents of
patients' communications, receive and view patients' Private
Information, mine it for purposes unrelated to the provision of
healthcare, and further monetize it in the form of targeted
advertisements.

Allegedly, the Defendant breached its statutory and common law
obligations to Plaintiff and Class Members by: (i) failing to
remove or disengage technology that was known and designed to share
web-users' information; (ii) failing to obtain the written consent
of Plaintiff and Class Members to disclose their Private
Information to Facebook, Google, and others; (iii) failing to take
steps to block the transmission of the Plaintiff's and Class
Members' Private Information through Tracking Tools like the
Facebook Pixel or Google Analytics; (iv) failing to warn Plaintiff
and Class Members; and (v) otherwise failing to design and monitor
its Website to maintain the confidentiality and integrity of
patients' communications and Private Information.

As a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff and Class
Members have suffered numerous injuries, including invasion of
privacy, loss of benefit of the bargain, diminution of value of
their Private Information, statutory damages, and the continued and
ongoing risk to their Private Information, says the suit.

TALLAHASSEE MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE, INC. operates as a non-profit
organization. The Organization provides behavioral health,
endocrinology, neurology, oncology, cancer, diabetes, vascular,
neuroscience, orthopedic, pharmacy, rehabilitation, surgery,
imaging, and other healthcare services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott C. Harris, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLCR
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5003
          Email: sharris@milberg.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (866) 252-0878
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com

               - and -

          Glen L. Abramson, Esq.
          Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (866) 252-0878
          Email: gabramson@milberg.com
                 ahoneycutt@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 -

          Terence R. Coates, Esq.
          Dylan J. Gould, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          119 E. Court St., Ste. 530
          Cincinnati, Ohio 4502
          Telephone: (513) 651-3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
          Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com
                 dgould@msdlegal.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
          THE LYON LAW FIRM
          2754 Erie Ave.
          Cincinnati, OH 45208
          Telephone: (513) 381-2333
          Facsimile: (513) 766-9011
          Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Agha Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
MAZEN HASAN AGHA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-17182 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 29, 2024) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Agha was employed by the Defendant as a driver.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC. provides ride hailing services. The Company
develops applications for road transportation, navigation, ride
sharing, and payment processing solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradley Manewith, Esq.
          Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.
          5 Revere Drive, Suite 200
          Northbrook, IL 60062
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
          Email: bmanewith@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Matthew Carrieri, Esq.
          Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Ste. 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
          Email: sliss@llrlaw.com
                 mcarrieri@llrlaw.com

UNITED STATES: Argueta Class Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILMER ARGUETA, v. UNITED
STATES, et al., the Hon. Judge Christopher C. Conner entered an
order agreeing with Judge Mehalchick's analysis and recommendation,
and concluding there is no clear error on the face of the record:

   1. Judge Mehalchick’s report is adopted.

   2. The Defendants' motion to dismiss and for summary judgment is

      granted.

   3. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of
defendants.

   4. The Plaintiff's motions to amend are denied.

   5. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied as
      moot.

   6. The Clerk of Court shall close the case.

Chief Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick, recommended that the
Court:

   (1) grant defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's second
amended
       complaint and for summary judgment;

   (2) to deny plaintiff's motions to amend because, inter alia,
he
       failed to file briefs in support of either motion and failed
to
       file a proposed amended complaint with respect to one
motion,
       and the proposed amendments he did file are either legally
       frivolous or futile insofar as plaintiff seeks to name new
       parties without alleging any facts to establish their
       involvement in the underlying conduct giving rise to his
       claims; and

   (3) to deny his motion for class certification as moot, and the
court noting that no objections have been filed to date, and
further noting that failure of a party to timely object to a
magistrate judge’s conclusions "may result in forfeiture of de
novo review at the
district court level."

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 18, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NKJcvK at no extra charge.[CC]

WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Fernandez Suit Moved from State Ct. to C.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTIAN FERNANDEZ,
individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v.
WORLDWIDE FLIGHT SERVICES, INC., an active Delaware Corporation;
and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 23STCV23197 (Filed Sept. 25, 2023),
was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court of the State of
California to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on Dec. 13, 2023.

The Central California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:23-cv-10435-DSF-JPR to the proceeding.

The suit is a putative wage and hour class action.

The Plaintiff brings this Complaint pursuant to California Code of
Civil Procedure section 382 on behalf of "himself and all other
employees of WORLDWIDE who are similarly-situated persons." He
defines the "Plaintiff Class" as "all of the Defendant's current
and former non-exempt employees who worked for the Defendant in
California during the four years before the filing of the Complaint
through the time of class certification."

The Plaintiff also seeks to represent eight sub-classes of
employees defined as follows:

      Meal Period Subclass: All members of Plaintiff Class who
      worked each period exceeding five (5) hours without an
      uninterrupted, off duty, 30 minute meal period and/or periods

      in excess of ten (10) hours without a second uninterrupted,
      off duty, 30 minute meal periods; and were not provided
      compensation of one hour's pay at the employee's regular rate

      for each day that a meal period was not provided
      (collectively referred to as "Meal Period Subclass");

      Rest Period Subclass: All members of the Plaintiff Class who

      worked periods of four (4) hours or major fraction thereof
      without a duty free rest period of at least 10-minutes and
      who were not compensated one hour's pay at the employee's
      regular rate for each day that a rest period was not
      permitted (collectively referred to as "Rest Period
      Subclass");

      Unpaid Wage Subclass: All members of Plaintiff Class who were

      not paid their minimum/actual wages, including any time that

      was unlawfully rounded by the Defendant or otherwise
      considered as off-the-clock, as well as overtime wages for
      hours worked in excess of eight hours per day at the one and

      a half rate (of an employee's regular rate of pay) or at a
      double time rate (of an employee's regular rate of pay) or at

      a double time rate (of an employee's regular rate of pay as
      applicable (collectively referred to as "Unpaid Wage
      Subclass");

      Waiting Time Subclass: All members of the Plaintiff Class to

      whom the Defendant failed to pay all wages due to them upon
      termination or resignation under Labor Code sections 201-203

     (collectively referred to as "Waiting Time Subclass");

      Vacation Pay Subclass: All members of the Plaintiff Class to

      whom the Defendant failed to pay all vacation wages owed,
      vested, or agreed to upon termination or resignation as
      required by Labor Code section 227.3 (collectively referred
      to as "Vacation Pay Subclass");

      Wage Statement Subclass: All members of the Plaintiff Class
      to whom the Defendant improperly failed to provide accurate
      itemized wage statements under Labor Code section 226
      (collectively referred to as "Wage Statement Subclass");

      Expense Reimbursement Subclass: All members of the Plaintiff

      Class to whom the Defendant failed to fully reimburse
      employee business expenses as required by Labor Code section
      2802 (collectively referred to as "Expense Reimbursement
      Subclass"); and

      UCL Subclass: All members of the Meal Period, Rest Period,
      Unpaid Wage, Waiting Time, Vacation Pay, Wage Statement, and

      Expense Reimbursement Subclasses, who were subject to
      unlawful, illegal unfair, and/or deceptive business acts and

      practices by the Defendant (collectively referred to as "UCL

      Subclass").

The Plaintiff was and is a resident of the State of California.

Worldwide Flight is a ground handling organisations, providing
cargo, passenger, ramp, baggage and technical services.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          James C. Fessenden, Esq.
          Steven D. Eheart, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (858) 597-9600
          Facsimile: (858) 597-9601
          E-mail: jfessenden@fisherphillips.com
                  seheart@fisherphillips.com


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 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 ***