/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/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 ***