/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240117.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, January 17, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 13
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Keating Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Kurtz Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Marquis Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: McDuffy Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Nichols Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Nuttall Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Patterson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Penning Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
AMBRX BIOPHARMA: M&A Class Action Firm Investigates J&J Sale
APPLE INC: Users Receive iPhone Batterygate Settlement Checks
ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Bid for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 5
BI-RITE MANAGEMENT: Faces Brown Class Action Lawsuit in Super. Cal.
BIOREFERENCE LABORATORIES: Calixte Sues Over Untimely Wage Payments
BLACK BADGE: Elby Sues Over Labor Law Breaches
BLIBAUM AND ASSOCIATES: Dixon and Dixon Sues Over Rent Collection
CALGARY STAMPEDE: Class Action Settlement Discussions Ongoing
CARDIOVASCULAR CONSULTANTS: Fiorentino Sues Over Breach of Contract
CELEBREE ENTERPRISES: Crumwell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
CHERRY TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Kawa TCPA Class Suit in S.D. Florida
CHICAGO, IL: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Speed Camera
CITIZENS BANK: Simone Suit Transferred to D. Rhode Island
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Faces Carey Class Action Lawsuit in S.D. Florida
CLIPPER REALTY: All Fact Discovery in Sanchez Due August 30
COMCAST CORPORATION: Verdier Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
CONSUMER PROGRAM: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Class Settlement in Guy Gets Initial Nod
CORPORATE CONSULTING: Faces Randall FDCPA Suit in D. Nevada
CREATIVE FOODS: Fails to Pay Overtime Compensation and Timely Wages
DAVID A. HIDALGO: Erkan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
DELTA DENTAL: Lamons and Robertson Sue Over Private Data Breach
DERMATOLOGY LASER: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
EDWARD S. KWAK: Erkan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ENTRATA INC: Dematties Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
ESO SOLUTIONS: Guiffre Files Suit in W.D. Texas
ESTES EXPRESS: Alvarez Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
EVEREVE INCORPORATED: Smyth Suit Removed to C.D. California
EVERGREEN ACRES: Lyon Firm Investigates Labor Violations
FINANCIAL SERVICES: Faces Randall FDCPA Suit in D. Nevada
FIRST AMERICAN: Court Strikes Improper Filing in Kimble Class Suit
FIRST TRANSIT: Settles Wage Class Action for $4.4 Million
FORO ENERGY: Faces Hernandez Employment Suit in Cal. Super Ct.
FRANK AND SAL: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
FULL CIRCLE HOME: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GRANDE LASH: February 27 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
GUGV 790 BROWARD: Dematties Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
HEALTH CARE: Sanchez Class Suit Moved from N.D. Ill. to D. Mass.
HEALTHEC LLC: Fails to Implement Data Security Measures, Leeb Says
HEALTHEC LLC: Lempinen Sues Over Unsecured Private Information
HSNI LLC: LoBello Seeks Proper Wages for Customer Service Reps
INTEGRIS HEALTH: Faces DiCenso Class Action Lawsuit in W.D. Okla.
JEWISH VOICES: Attorney Mulls Class Action Over Pro-Hamas Protests
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bryan Suit Moved From D. Neb. to E.D.N.Y.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Jergins Suit Moved From D. Utah to E.D.N.Y.
KIMCO STAFFING: Faces Guerrero Class Action Suit in C.D. Calif.
LANDSCAPE FORMS: Jones Sues Over Miscalculation of Hourly Wage
LIPPERT COMPONENTS: Gates & Bramley Sue Over Fiduciary Duty Breach
MALICHITA: Faces Third Class Action Over Cantaloupes
MEAD JOHNSON: Harden Sues Over Unsafe Nutramigen Powder Products
METLIFE LEGAL: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Garcia Suit Says
NATIONSTAR: McCartney Suit Moved From N.D. Oh. to N.D. Tex.
NECTAR BRAND: Longoria Suit Removed From State Ct. to N.D. Cal.
OHANA MILITARY: Camp Suit Removed from State Ct. to D. Hawaii
OREGON: Foster Care Class Action Against DHS Heads to Trial
OREGON: Prisoners Win Bid to Depose Ex-Governor in Class Action
PARKWEST BICYLE: Kusak Sues Over Discriminatory Harassment
PHILIP MORRIS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Securities Class Action Dismissal
REVOLUT USA: Faces Class Action Over Biometric Data Collection
ROMAN CATHOLIC: Abuse Claims to Undergo Verification Process
ROSCOE'S CHICKEN: Former Employee Files Labor Class Action
S&MA CONTRACTING: Jimenez Sues Over Unlawful Pay Practices
SHUTTERFLY INC: February 5 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
SOLOSUIT: Class Action to Remain in Federal Court
SPECTRUM BRANDS: Faces Garza Fraud Suit in E.D. Calif.
STITCH INDS: Faces Class Action Over False Reference Pricing
STUBHUB INC: Kaiser Class Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to S.D.N.Y.
TIMESHARE EXIT: Urges Washington Judge to Toss Class Action
TOM'S OF MAINE: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Natural Claims
TOYOTA AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over "Flex Commissions"
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Renewed Bid for Class Certification Due Jan. 25
UNITED COAL: Final Nod to Class Settlement Sought in Chapman
UNITED SERVICES: Insurance Lawsuit Gets Class Action Status
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: March 22 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
WORLEY LTD: Faces Class Action Threats Over Corruption Allegations
ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES: Jeffries Sues Over Private Data Breach
[*] Duane Morris LLP Releases 2024 Class Action Review
*********
3M COMPANY: Keating Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Keating, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), WILLFIRE HC
LLC, d/b/a WILLLIAMS FIRE & HAZARD CONTROL, Case No.
2:23-cv-06083-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 28, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
kidney 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:
Scott M. Hendler, Esq.
HENDLER FLORES LAW, PLLC
901 S. MoPac Expressway
Bldg. 1, Ste 300
Austin, TX 78746
Phone: (512) 439-3202
Fax: (512) 439-3201
Email: shendler@hendlerlaw.com
3M COMPANY: Kurtz Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond L. Kurtz, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), WILLFIRE HC
LLC, d/b/a WILLLIAMS FIRE & HAZARD CONTROL, Case No.
2:23-cv-06085-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 28, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
thyroid disease as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott M. Hendler, Esq.
HENDLER FLORES LAW, PLLC
901 S. MoPac Expressway
Bldg. 1, Ste 300
Austin, TX 78746
Phone: (512) 439-3202
Fax: (512) 439-3201
Email: shendler@hendlerlaw.com
3M COMPANY: Marquis Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Marquis, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), WILLFIRE HC
LLC, d/b/a WILLLIAMS FIRE & HAZARD CONTROL, Case No.
2:23-cv-06081-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 28, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott M. Hendler, Esq.
HENDLER FLORES LAW, PLLC
901 S. MoPac Expressway
Bldg. 1, Ste 300
Austin, TX 78746
Phone: (512) 439-3202
Fax: (512) 439-3201
Email: shendler@hendlerlaw.com
3M COMPANY: McDuffy Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tommie E. McDuffy, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), WILLFIRE HC LLC, d/b/a WILLLIAMS FIRE &
HAZARD CONTROL, Case No. 2:23-cv-06084-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 28, 2023),
is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure
to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic
chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances
("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic
acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and
related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or
PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott M. Hendler, Esq.
HENDLER FLORES LAW, PLLC
901 S. MoPac Expressway
Bldg. 1, Ste 300
Austin, TX 78746
Phone: (512) 439-3202
Fax: (512) 439-3201
Email: shendler@hendlerlaw.com
3M COMPANY: Nichols Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Nichols, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), WILLFIRE HC
LLC, d/b/a WILLLIAMS FIRE & HAZARD CONTROL, Case No.
2:23-cv-05787-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 9, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
testicular 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:
Scott M. Hendler, Esq.
HENDLER FLORES LAW, PLLC
901 S. MoPac Expressway
Bldg. 1, Ste 300
Austin, TX 78746
Phone: (512) 439-3202
Fax: (512) 439-3201
Email: shendler@hendlerlaw.com
3M COMPANY: Nuttall Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Clinton Nuttall, 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-05662-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 and was diagnosed
with Prostate Cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or
TOG products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq.
RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP
225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110
Atlanta, GA 30624
Phone: 404-381-2888
Email: buck@lawrsd.com
3M COMPANY: Patterson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Dean Patterson, 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-05685-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 hypothyroidism
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: Penning Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Penning, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), WILLFIRE HC
LLC, d/b/a WILLLIAMS FIRE & HAZARD CONTROL, Case No.
2:23-cv-05770-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 9, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott M. Hendler, Esq.
HENDLER FLORES LAW, PLLC
901 S. MoPac Expressway
Bldg. 1, Ste 300
Austin, TX 78746
Phone: (512) 439-3202
Fax: (512) 439-3201
Email: shendler@hendlerlaw.com
AMBRX BIOPHARMA: M&A Class Action Firm Investigates J&J Sale
------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2022 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:
Ambrx Biopharma, Inc. (Nasdaq: AMAM), relating to its proposed sale
to Johnson & Johnson. Under the terms of the agreement, AMAM
shareholders will receive $28.00 in cash per share they own. Click
here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/ambrx-biopharma-inc. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
CapStar Financial Holdings, Inc. (Nasdaq: CSTR), relating to its
proposed sale to Old National Bancorp. Under the terms of the
agreement, CSTR shareholders will receive 1.155 shares of Old
National per share they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/capstar-financial-holdings-inc.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
PGT Innovations, Inc. (NYSE: PGTI), relating to its proposed sale
to Masonite International Corp. Under the terms of the agreement,
PGTI shareholders will receive $7.50 in common shares of Masonite
and $33.50 in cash per share they own. Click here for more
information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/pgt-innovations-inc. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
WaveDancer, Inc. (Nasdaq: WAVD), relating to its proposed merger
with Firefly Neuroscience, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement,
WAVD shareholders will own approximately 8% of the combined
company. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/wavedancer-inc. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Monteverde & Associates PC is a national class action securities
and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of
dollars for shareholders and is committed to protecting investors
and consumers from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates
lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect
investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct.
Mr. Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019 and a Super Lawyers Honoree in
Securities Litigation in 2022-2023. He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2023 Top Rated Lawyer. The firm's
recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory
that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the
Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, the firm
successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a
writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States
Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019).
Also, over the years the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen
cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class
action cases.
If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341
Attorney Advertising. (C) 2023 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law
firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates
PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
APPLE INC: Users Receive iPhone Batterygate Settlement Checks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kylie Kirschner, writing for Business Insider, reports that seven
years after Apple's "batterygate" scandal, people are finally
seeing payments from the class action lawsuit settlement.
Back in 2017, owners of older iPhones began noticing performance
issues in their phones after certain iOS upgrades. Later that year,
Apple admitted to throttling the performance of older phones -- the
company said at the time that this was to prevent the impacted
phones from shutting down, which could happen as their batteries
degrade beyond a certain point.
The resulting class action lawsuit claimed that by doing this --
and not properly informing owners of these iPhones -- Apple pushed
users to upgrade their phones early rather than getting their phone
batteries replaced.
Without admitting any wrongdoing, Apple eventually reached a
settlement and agreed to pay $310 to $500 million depending on how
many claims were filed.
Claims had to be filed by October 2020, and to be eligible, users
must have had an iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, 7, 7 Plus, or SE
that ran a certain iOS in 2017 and experienced a decrease in speed
and performance.
Though it was previously estimated that the payment amounts would
come out to around $65, people who are receiving the payout are
reporting that they've had $92.17 deposited to their accounts. [GN]
ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Bid for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 5
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Assertio Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: ASRT)
investors who suffered substantial losses to submit your losses
now.
Class Period: Mar. 9, 2023 - Nov. 8, 2023
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Mar. 5, 2024
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/asrt
Contact An Attorney Now: ASRT@hbsslaw.com, 844-916-0895
Assertio Holdings, Inc. (ASRT) Securities Fraud Class Action:
On Jan. 5, 2024, Assertio's stock plummeted after it announced that
its President and CEO Daniel Peisert was leaving his post with the
Company. Notably, Assertio characterized Peisert's separation from
the company as an "involuntary termination."
Just days after Peisert's termination, investors launched a
securities class action suit against Assertio, Peisert and other
executives. The case is brought on behalf of investors who
purchased Assertio securities between Mar. 9, 2023 and Nov. 8,
2023, inclusive. The litigation, however, does not presently link
Peisert's departure and the corresponding stock drop with the
alleged fraud.
Rather, the complaint there alleges Assertio made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (1) its reliance
on Indocin products to boost its net income was unsustainable given
the risk of generic products competition; (2) the Spectrum
Acquisition was less valuable than Assertio had represented to
investors; and (3) accordingly, Assertio had overstated the
positive impact the sale of Indocin products and the Spectrum
Acquisition were likely to have on the company's profitability.
The truth began to emerge on Aug. 3, 2023, when the FDA granted a
180-day Competitive Generic Therapies exclusivity to Zydus
Lifesciences (a company competitor) to manufacture and market 50mg
indomethacin suppositories, a generic version of Assertio's Indocin
suppositories. In addition, Assertio withdrew its 2023 financial
outlook. On this news, Assertio's stock price fell 45%.
Then, on Nov. 8, 2023, Assertio announced disastrous Q3 2023
financial results. The company reported Q3 revenues of just $35.63
million (or nearly 30% below analysts' estimates) and non-GAAP EPS
of just $0.01 (or about 90% below analysts' estimates), blaming the
results on poor Indocin and ROLVEDONä sales.
"We are investigating the circumstances that led to Peisert's
involuntary termination and whether to expand the alleged
fraudulent period," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner
leading the firm's investigation.
If you invested in Assertio and have substantial losses, or have
knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to
discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman »
If you'd like more information and answers to frequently asked
questions about the Assertio case and our investigation, read more
»
Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Assertio should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email ASRT@hbsslaw.com.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a global plaintiffs'
rights complex litigation law firm focusing on corporate
accountability through class-action law. The firm is home to a
robust securities litigation practice and represents investors as
well as whistleblowers, workers, consumers and others in cases
achieving real results for those harmed by corporate negligence and
fraud. [GN]
BI-RITE MANAGEMENT: Faces Brown Class Action Lawsuit in Super. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BI-RITE MANAGEMENT
SERVICES LLC. The case is captioned as CONNOR BROWN vs. BI-RITE
MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC, A CALIFORNIA ET AL, Case No. CGC24611385
(Cal. Super., Jan. 3, 2024).
Bi-Rite is a grocery store in San Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Genish, Esq.
BLACKSTONE LAW
www.blackstonepc.com
8383 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 745
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442
Telephone: (855) 786-6355
Facsimile: (855) 786-6356
E-mail: jgenish@blackstonepc.com
BIOREFERENCE LABORATORIES: Calixte Sues Over Untimely Wage Payments
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ENEJAH CALIXTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BIOREFERENCE LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00083 (E.D.N.Y., January 4, 2024) seeks to recover
underpayment caused by untimely wage payments and other damages for
Plaintiff and similarly situated non-exempt hourly positions such
as lab technicians and/or phlebotomists who work or have worked for
Bioreference Laboratories, Inc. in violation of the New York Labor
Law.
Plaintiff Calixte was employed by Bioreference as a lab technician
and/or phlebotomist, an hourly worker, earning approximately $21.50
per hour from on or around September 2023 through November 2023.
Despite regularly spending more than 25 percent of her shift
performing physical tasks, the Plaintiff asserts that she has been
compensated by Defendant on a bi-weekly basis.
Based in Elmwood Park, NJ, Bioreference Laboratories, Inc. is a
foreign business corporation that provides clinical laboratory
testing. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
BLACK BADGE: Elby Sues Over Labor Law Breaches
----------------------------------------------
JAMES ELEBY, Plaintiff v. BLACK BADGE EXECUTIVE PROTECTION; ELMA
KESHISHYAN, RONMA RASHID PERRY; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 24STCV00304 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
January 4, 2024) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff
alleging that the Defendants violated the California Labor Code and
the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order.
The Plaintiff started working at BLACK BADGE on or around June 2023
as a security guard. He was seemingly misclassified as a 1099
employee and his employment ended on or around September 2023.
Among other things, the Defendants allegedly failed to pay him and
other aggrieved employees overtime compensation, even though they
worked more than 8 hours per day, 12 hours per day, and/or 40 hours
per week throughout their employment, says the Plaintiff.
Black Badge Executive Protection provides security services in Los
Angeles, CA. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
BLIBAUM AND ASSOCIATES: Dixon and Dixon Sues Over Rent Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIELLE DIXON and SHAUL DIXON, on their own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BLIBAUM AND
ASSOCIATES, P.A. And HENDERSEN-WEBB, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-00029-EA (D. Md., January 4, 2024) alleges that the
Defendants violated Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the
Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act.
The class action involves a landlord who chose to disregard
Maryland law by seeking to collect unpaid rent for unlicensed
rental properties, and its debt collection law firm that
aggressively pursued payments for rent that Defendants were
prohibited from seeking to collect. Allegedly, the tenants were
illegally coerced into paying rent that Defendants were prohibited
from collecting.
Based in Baltimore County, Maryland, Blibaum and Associates, P.A.
is a Maryland professional corporation engaged in the daily
business of providing legal services and debt collection services
for Maryland landlords, filing hundreds of landlord/tenant
collection actions each year. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ingmar Goldson, Esq.
THE GOLDSON LAW OFFICE
One Research Court, Suite 450
Rockville, MD 20850
Telephone: (240) 780-8829
E-mail: igoldson@goldsonlawoffice.com
CALGARY STAMPEDE: Class Action Settlement Discussions Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
CTV News reports that settlement discussions continue nearly a
month since they started in the class-action lawsuit against the
Calgary Stampede that alleged the organization allowed a
performance school staffer to sexually abuse young boys for
decades.
A two-day mediation process was scheduled to take place on Dec. 14
and 15(opens in a new tab) at the Calgary Courts Centre to
determine how much money the victims are owed in a partial
settlement with the Calgary Stampede.
"Settlement discussions are ongoing between the parties; however,
we are unable to comment further at this time with respect to this
ongoing legal action," Shannon Greer, the communications and media
relations manager with the Calgary Stampede, said on
Jan. 8.
JSS Barristers, the law firm handling the class-action case, also
said there is no substantive update to provide.
Some of the more than three dozen people named in the lawsuit tell
CTV News they are anxious for a resolution and to learn the outcome
of the discussions.
However, Gerard Kennedy, an associate professor in the Faculty of
Law at the University of Alberta, said it's not unusual that a
settlement has not been reached yet.
"It's hard to entirely know how settlement discussions would go and
the fact that there's delay is not without more reason to be
concerned that things are going off the rails," he said.
Philip Heerema is serving a 10-year sentence for luring six boys
into sexual relationships when he worked for the school between
1992 and 2014.
He pleaded guilty to charges including sexual assault, sexual
exploitation, making child pornography and luring in 2018.
Heerema admitted to using his position with the Young Canadians
School of Performing Arts to lure and groom six boys into sexual
relationships between 1992 and 2014.
The Young Canadians is a performing arts group that performs
nightly at the Calgary Stampede Grandstand Show. The school is
operated by the Calgary Stampede Foundation.
The Stampede insisted it didn't hear of any problems until
2014(opens in a new tab), but victims cited evidence from Heerema's
criminal trial that allege concerns about him were reported to the
Stampede authorities as early as 1988.
The partial settlement was announced in July and approved by
Justice Alice Woolley in September(opens in a new tab), in which
the Stampede had agreed to an admission of negligence and breach of
duty, in addition to paying 100 percent of the damages.
"The fact that the individual was convicted of a crime did prevent
the Calgary Stampede from arguing that the abuse did not happen.
So, that was probably a particular incentive for them to concede
liability and look like they're behaving like your responsible
litigant," said Kennedy.
Kennedy said there are many factors that play a role in these types
of settlement discussions taking longer than scheduled, including
the holiday season and the possibility of different settlements
being negotiated for different victims based on the severity of
abuse.
"This is the nature of litigation settlement negotiations,
generally speaking. Because of the partial settlement that occurred
last summer and fall the liability has been conceded," he
explained.
"They're simply trying to negotiate damages to dispense with the
need for a trial on the issue of the damages and it could be that
different victims are in different situations and they haven't been
able to resolve that appropriately or to the satisfaction of people
that have to be satisfied."
If the mediation process is not successful then the case would go
to trial.
"Mediation never guarantees settlement. It's not like arbitration
in that regard. It's supposed to facilitate settlement, but it
doesn't promise it. So, if settlement is unable to be reached,
there will have to be a trial only on the issue of damages,"
Kennedy said.
"So only in other words, what the class members are entitled to is
compensation, not whether they are entitled to compensation, which
again, has been conceded and accepted." [GN]
CARDIOVASCULAR CONSULTANTS: Fiorentino Sues Over Breach of Contract
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cardiovascular
Consultants Limited. The case is captioned as Fiorentino v.
Cardiovascular Consultants Limited, Case No. 2:24-cv-00015-DMF (D.
Ariz., Jan. 3, 2024).
The nature of suit states Breach of Contract.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Deborah M Fine.
Cardiovascular Consultants offers comprehensive cardiology
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brittany N Resch, Esq.
Raina C Borrelli, Esq.
Samuel J Strauss, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson St., Ste. 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
E-mail: brittanyr@turkestrauss.com
raina@turkestrauss.com
- and -
Cristina Perez Hesano, Esq.
PEREZ LAW GROUP PLLC
7508 N 59th Ave.
Glendale, AZ 85301
Telephone: (623) 826-5593
E-mail: cperez@perezlawgroup.com
CELEBREE ENTERPRISES: Crumwell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DENISE CRUMWELL, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CELEBREE ENTERPRISES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00045-VSB (S.D.N.Y., January 4, 2024)
arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain,
and operate its website, www.celebree.com, to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people in violation of her rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights
Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff has been denied the full use and enjoyment of the
facilities, goods, and services of Defendant's website while
attempting to access the website from her home in New York County.
Now, Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Based in Lutherville, MD, Celebree Enterprises LLC operates the
website and offer several services including allowing consumers to:
purchase day care franchises, and other services available online
for purchase and to ascertain information relating to startup
investment pricing, training and support, marketing system and
franchise model, terms and conditions and privacy policies. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
CHERRY TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Kawa TCPA Class Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cherry Technologies
Inc. The case is captioned as Kawa Orthodontics LLP v. Cherry
Technologies Inc., Case No. 9:24-cv-80005-RLR (S.D. Fla., Jan. 3,
2024).
.
The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
and is assigned to the Hon. Judge Robin L. Rosenberg.
Cherry Technologies is a "buy now, pay later" provider at the point
of sale.[BN]
Plaintiff Kawa Orthodontics LLP a Florida limited liability
partnership, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, is represented by:
Ryan Michael Kelly, Esq.
ANDERSON + WANCA
3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Telephone: (847) 368-1500
Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com
CHICAGO, IL: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Speed Camera
---------------------------------------------------------
Cook County Record reports that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against the city of Chicago by a woman who received a $35
traffic ticket from an automated speed camera located in what she
claims was an illegal "park safety zone."
The plaintiff, Marianne G. Dwyer, alleges that the city violated
Illinois Traffic Law by reducing the urban speed limit from 30 mph
to 25 mph in a long a stretch of Clark Street, between Maple and
Oak, without proper signage.
She is seeking a refund for all tickets paid by drivers cited in
that zone. The lawsuit also requests the voiding of all citations
issued before Dec. 10, 2023, when the city allegedly corrected its
violation by placing a proper warning sign in the area.
The complaint says the case should proceed as a class action,
because the individual claims are small in amount, but are
numerous and would be best to combine into one action.
The case was filed on Dec. 15 in Cook County Circuit Court by
attorney Albert Brooks Friedman, of Chicago.
Friedman and Dwyer are also asking the court to award attorney
fees. [GN]
CITIZENS BANK: Simone Suit Transferred to D. Rhode Island
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Lisa De Simone, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Citizens Bank, N.A., Case No.
1:23-cv-00482 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Rhode Island on Dec. 27, 2023.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-00545-WES-PAS to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Breach of
Contract.
Citizens Financial Group, Inc. --
https://www.citizensbank.com/homepage.aspx -- is an American bank
holding company, headquartered in Providence, Rhode Island.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
700 Broadway
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 558-5856
Fax: (646) 293-7937
Email: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Boris Brownstein, Esq.
CLARK HILL PLC
830 Third Avenue, Suite 200
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (609) 785-2923
Fax: (609) 785-2999
Email: bbrownstein@clarkhill.com
- and -
Robert J. Hannen, Esq.
CLARK HILL, PLC (PITTS)
14th Floor One Oxford Centre
301 Grant Street
Pittsburg, PA 15219
Phone: (412) 394-2322
Fax: (412) 394-2555
Email: rhannen@clarkhill.com
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Faces Carey Class Action Lawsuit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Citrix Systems, Inc.
et al. The case is captioned as Carey v. Citrix Systems, Inc. et
al., Case No. 0:24-cv-60008-WPD (S.D. Fla., Jan. 3, 2024).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William P. Dimitrouleas.
Citrix Systems, Inc. is an American multinational cloud computing
and virtualization technology company that provides server,
application and desktop virtualization, networking, software as a
service, and cloud computing technologies.[BN]
The Plaintiff represented by:
Christina L. Gregg, Esq.
Patrick T. Egan, Esq.
Jay W. Eng, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
One Liberty Square
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 542-8300
E-mail: cgregg@bermantabacco.com
pegan@bermantabacco.com
jeng@bermantabacco.com
CLIPPER REALTY: All Fact Discovery in Sanchez Due August 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rodney Sanchez, v. Clipper
Realty, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-08502-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered a scheduling order as
follows:
-- All fact discovery shall be completed Aug. 30, 2024
no later than:
-- Initial requests for production of Jan. 31, 2024
documents shall be served by:
-- Interrogatories pursuant to Jan. 31, 2024
Rule 33.3(a) of the Local Civil
Rules of the Southern District
of New York shall be served by:
-- Depositions of fact witnesses shall Aug. 30, 2024
be completed by:
-- Requests to admit shall be served by: July 15, 2024
Clipper Realty is a self-administered and self-managed real estate
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4aSyoFV at no extra charge.[CC]
COMCAST CORPORATION: Verdier Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Comcast Corporation,
et al. The case is styled as Veronica Verdier, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Comcast Corporation
d/b/a Xfinity, Citrix Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-05137 (E.D.
Pa., Dec. 27, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Comcast Corporation -- http://corporate.comcast.com/--
incorporated and headquartered in Philadelphia, is the largest
American multinational telecommunications and media
conglomerate.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW FIRM LLC
954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518
San Juan, PR 00907
Phone: (215) 789-4462
Email: klaukaitis@ecf.courtdrive.com
CONSUMER PROGRAM: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Emily Enfinger, writing for Law360, reports that a vehicle care
protection provider and its insurer urged a Washington state
federal court to toss a "fact-phobic" proposed class action
accusing the provider of illegally selling noncompliant service
contracts.
CASE INFORMATION
Case Title
Anderson v. Consumer Program Administrators Inc et al
Case Number
2:23-cv-00352
Court
Washington Eastern
Nature of Suit
Insurance
Date Filed
December 04, 2023 [GN]
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Class Settlement in Guy Gets Initial Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEO GUY, et al., v.
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-01558-MJP (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge Marsha J. Pechman entered an order on motion
for preliminary approval of class action settlement:
-- The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied all of the
requirements for approval of the proposed Settlement Class.
-- The Court therefore grants the Motion as to this request and
certifies the following Settlement Class:
"All persons residing in the United States to whom Defendant
Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. sent notification that their
personal
information may have been compromised by unauthorized third
parties as a result of the data security incident discovered by
Convergent on or about June 17, 2022.
-- The Court also appoints Jean S. Martin of Morgan & Morgan; Gary
M.
Klinger of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC; Gary
E.
Mason of Mason LLP; and Cecily C. Jordan of Tousley Brain
Stephens
PLLC as Settlement Class Counsel.
The case concerns a data breach that occurred on June 17, 2022,
when a third-party exfiltrated highly sensitive personally
identifiable information (PII) from Convergent.
The Plaintiffs filed suit individually and on behalf of the 640,906
individuals who were similarly notified by Convergent that their
PII was exposed in the data breach.
The Plaintiffs allege that Convergent failed to protect their PII
and follow minimum industry standards.
The Court granted in part and denied in part Convergent's motion to
dismiss, allowing some of Plaintiffs' state common law and
statutory
claims to proceed.
The Parties settled the claims for $2,450,000 and Plaintiffs
propose the Court certify a settlement class of approximately
640,906
individuals, and enter preliminary approval of the settlement on
behalf the class.
Convergent Outsourcing is a debt collections agency.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RYK6XZ at no extra charge.[CC]
CORPORATE CONSULTING: Faces Randall FDCPA Suit in D. Nevada
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Corporate Consulting
Services, Inc. The case is captioned as Randall v. Corporate
Consulting Services, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00006-RFB-MDC (D. Nev.,
Jan. 3, 2024).
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act and is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard F. Boulware, II.
Corporate Consulting offers businesses with human resource
management and insurance brokerage services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gustavo E. Ponce, Esq.
Mona Amini, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
6787 W. Tropicana Ave., Suite 250
Las Vegas, NV 89103
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
E-mail: gustavo@kazlg.com
mona@kazlg.com
CREATIVE FOODS: Fails to Pay Overtime Compensation and Timely Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DIANA DOLORES MEJIA, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CREATIVE FOODS CORP. and JAY DELLA
MONICA, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00091-ST (E.D.N.Y., January 5,
2024) seeks to recover statutory damages for the Defendants'
failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the New York Labor Law, and the supporting New York State
Department of Labor Regulations.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in a non-exempt,
hourly-paid position at a Burger King franchise in Long Beach, NY
from in or about 2014 to in or about December 2023. Her job duties
included preparing and cooking food and cleaning the kitchen.
Plaintiff's job duties required bending, lifting, carrying,
pushing, pulling and standing for extended periods of time.
However, Defendants paid Plaintiff's wages on a bi-weekly basis
pursuant to its company-wide payroll policy. Allegedly, Defendants
also failed to pay Plaintiff for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week at the rate of one and one-half times her regular
rate of pay. Instead, Defendants only paid her overtime when her
total hours worked in a bi-weekly period exceeded 80 hours, says
the Plaintiff.
Creative Foods Corp. is a foreign business corporation that owns
and operates more than 20 Burger King restaurants in the State of
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
E-mail: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com
DAVID A. HIDALGO: Erkan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against David A. Hidalgo,
M.D., P.C. The case is styled as Nihal Erkan, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. David A. Hidalgo, M.D., P.C.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-09553-LB (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Dr. David Hidalgo -- https://www.drdavidhidalgo.com/ -- specializes
in Cosmetic Plastic Surgery procedures.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
DELTA DENTAL: Lamons and Robertson Sue Over Private Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
KERRY LAMONS and TANEISHA ROBERTSON, individually and on behalf of
her minor children, X.R. and J.R., and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. DELTA DENTAL OF CALIFORNIA and DELTA DENTAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00030-TLT (N.D.
Cal., January 3, 2024) arises from the Defendants' failure to
properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and other similarly
situated Delta Dental members' personally identifiable information
and protected health information and asserts claims for negligence,
breach of contract, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment/quasi-contract, breach of fiduciary duty, declaratory
judgment/injunctive relief, and for violation of the California's
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and the Unfair
Competition Act.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action lawsuit to address Delta
Dental's inadequate safeguarding of Class members' private
information that they collected and maintained, and their failure
to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiffs and Class
members of the types of information that were accessed, and that
such information was subject to unauthorized access by
cybercriminals.
Based in San Francisco, Delta Dental is a dental insurance company
that serves more than 6,928,932 customers throughout the United
States. It offers and administers Delta Dental preferred provider
organization and other fee-for-service dental programs in Alabama,
Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, and
Utah. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kyle McLean, Esq.
Mason Barney, Esq.
Tyler Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
700 S. Flower Street, Ste. 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 376-3739
E-mail: kmclean@sirillp.com
mbarney@sirillp.com
tbean@sirillp.com
DERMATOLOGY LASER: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Dermatology Laser
Group, PLLC. The case is styled as Colette Stroude, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. The Dermatology Laser
Group, PLLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-09538-ARR-SJB (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 28,
2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Dermatology and Laser Group --
https://dermatologyandlasergroup.com/ -- specializes in
non-invasive and minimally invasive cosmetic procedures of the
face, neck, and body.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
EDWARD S. KWAK: Erkan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Edward S. Kwak, MD
Facial Plastic Surgery. P.C. The case is styled as Nihal Erkan, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Edward S.
Kwak, MD Facial Plastic Surgery. P.C., Case No.
1:23-cv-09557-FB-TAM (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Dr. Kwak -- https://www.eskmd.com/ -- offers a wide range of
age-reversing facial procedures.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
14749 71st Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com
ENTRATA INC: Dematties Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------
BERNADETTE DEMATTIES, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENTRATA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-24-000115 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., January 4,
2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act.
On January 29, 2022, Defendant sent an electronic mail
communication to Plaintiff. However, the consumer debt-related
communication was sent by the Defendant to Plaintiff at 3:35:44 AM
in Plaintiff's zone, in violation of FCCPA.
Based in Lehi, UT, Entrata Inc. operates as a property management
software company. It offers a platform to streamline interactions
for property owners, property managers and residents. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi,Esq.
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
gerald@jibraellaw.com
ESO SOLUTIONS: Guiffre Files Suit in W.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ESO Solutions, Inc.
The case is styled as Steven Guiffre, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ESO Solutions, Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-01564 (W.D. Tex., Dec. 27, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
ESO Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.eso.com/-- develops electronic
patient care software. The Company provides reporting, management,
clinical, and operational functions, as well as software
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC - DALLAS
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
Dallas, TX 75219
Phone: (214) 744-3000
Fax: (214) 744-3015
Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
ESTES EXPRESS: Alvarez Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Estes Express Lines.
The case is styled as Mario Alvarez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Estes Express Lines, Case No.
3:24-cv-00001-REP (E.D. Va., Dec. 27, 2023).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Estes Express Lines -- http://www.estes-express.com/-- is a
privately owned American freight transportation provider based in
Richmond, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Michael Langone, Esq.
WISE LAW FIRM, PLC
10640 Page Ave., Suite 320
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: (703) 934-6377
Email: jlangone@wiselaw.pro
EVEREVE INCORPORATED: Smyth Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Diana Smyth, an individual, on behalf of
herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. EVEREVE
INCORPORATED, a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. 23STCV26529 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 27, 2023, and
assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-10828.
The Plaintiff seeks to certify a putative class based on
allegations of unlawful business practices, unpaid minimum wages,
unpaid overtime compensation, meal period violations, rest period
violations, wage statement violations, failure to reimburse
business expenditures, and failure to pay sick pay wages.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Danielle H. Moore, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
4747 Executive Dr., Ste. 1000
San Diego, CA 92121
Phone: (858) 597-9600
Facsimile: (858) 597-9601
Email: dmoore@fisherphillips.com
- and -
Andrew E. Saxon, Esq.
Joshua D. Klein, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
2050 Main Street, Ste. 1000
Irvine, CA 92614
Phone: (949) 851-2424
Facsimile: (949) 851-0152
Email: asaxon@fisherphillips.com
jdklein@fisherphillips.com
EVERGREEN ACRES: Lyon Firm Investigates Labor Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Lyon of The Lyon Firm disclosed that the law firm is
investigating labor violations, wage theft and unpaid overtime
claims on behalf of Evergreen Acres Dairy workers in Minnesota. A
lawsuit has been filed by the state's Attorney General, claiming
immigrant workers are owed millions in lost wages.
The Minnesota Attorney General, Keith Ellison, has filed a wage
theft case against Evergreen Acres Dairy, alleging the dairy farm
shortchanged hundreds of immigrant workers and housed them in poor,
overcrowded conditions. The complaint seeks at least $3 million in
unpaid wages.
Ellison claims the dairy workers were allegedly threatened and
faced violent repercussions for complaining about pay or the living
conditions. Community activists apparently notified state officials
that Evergreen Dairy workers were being underpaid and also had
dubious fees deducted from overdue paychecks.
When the investigations gained traction, some workers came forward
and spoke about the situation. The wage theft violations allegedly
involved routine underpayment and the falsifying and destruction of
payroll documents.
According to the complaint, the dairy farm shaved hours from
paychecks and did not pay overtime premiums, even with workers
putting in some 12-hour days. Workers claimed they were not paid
for the first two weeks of work and some never received their final
paychecks. Evergreen Acres Dairy did not keep employment records,
which is a clear violation of labor law.
The wage theft was coupled with a horrid housing situation. Workers
lived in garages and infested barns, some without toilets.
Evergreen Acres is a large dairy company, operating 18 facilities
across central Minnesota. Dairy farms, as well as several other
types of agricultural operations, are very dangerous workplaces.
They routinely rely on immigrant labor, and generally face little
oversight from regulators.
The Lyon Firm has filed numerous class action lawsuits against
companies who violate labor law. We have helped clients to recover
compensation in wage theft, tip theft, and unpaid overtime cases.
Undocumented workers and immigrants who are victims of labor rights
violations may be protected from deportation under federal law. Any
worker at Evergreen or another abusive company can seek out a labor
attorney to file a claim for compensation and seek protection under
that law.
In addition to facing large fines and civil claims, the owners of
Evergreen could face criminal charges. The wage theft penalties in
Minnesota are some of the stiffest in the country, and offenders
could potentially face felony charges and prison time. [GN]
FINANCIAL SERVICES: Faces Randall FDCPA Suit in D. Nevada
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Services of
America. The case is captioned as Randall v. Financial Services of
America, Case No. 2:24-cv-00005 (D. Nev., Jan. 3, 2024).
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.
Financial Services is an independent financial planning and
insurance firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gustavo E. Ponce, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
6787 W. Tropicana Ave., Suite 250
Las Vegas, NV 89103
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
E-mail: gustavo@kazlg.com
FIRST AMERICAN: Court Strikes Improper Filing in Kimble Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCIA KIMBLE, v. FIRST
AMERICAN HOME WARRANTY CORP. and FIVESTRATA LLC, Case No.
2:23-cv-10037-DML-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge David M. Lawson
entered an order striking improper filing.
On October 18, 2023, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary
approval of class settlement. The motion included a proposed order,
attached within an exhibit, that counsel evidently intended for the
Court to sign and enter.
The inclusion of the proposed order was improper because such
orders never should be filed by counsel on the electronic docket.
First American provides protection options for your home's systems
and appliances.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H3uSKS at no extra charge.[CC]
FIRST TRANSIT: Settles Wage Class Action for $4.4 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
Bernie Pazanowski, writing for Bloomberg law, reports that a $4.4
million settlement agreement in a class action wage case brought by
a California bus driver against two bus companies was deemed
reasonable and accepted by a federal court.
Of the $4.4 million, the attorneys who represented Frank Cuellar
will get roughly $1.3 million, or about 30%. Though class-action
attorneys in California generally get about 25% of a settlement,
Judge John W. Holcomb of the US District Court for Central District
of California said that the 5% bump here was reasonable, given that
"similar wage-and-hour class actions tend to award 30% fees and
that Class Counsel's low hourly rates.
The case was filed against First Transit, Inc. and First Vehicle
Services, Inc. [GN]
FORO ENERGY: Faces Hernandez Employment Suit in Cal. Super Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FORO ENERGY, INC. The
case is captioned as HERNANDEZ ET AL., vs. FORO ENERGY, INC., Case
No. BCV-24-100029 (Cal. Super., Jan. 3, 2024).
The nature of suit states Other Employment - Civil Unlimited.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Bernard C. Barmann, Jr.
Foro manufactures and commercializes oil field machinery and
equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
Jovahn Malik Wiggins, Esq.
FRANK AND SAL: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frank and Sal, LLC.
The case is styled as Ali Colak, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Frank and Sal, LLC, Case No.
2:23-cv-09542 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Frank and Sal -- https://frankandsal.com/ -- offer catering in
Brooklyn and Staten Island.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com
FULL CIRCLE HOME: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Full Circle Home LLC.
The case is styled as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Full Circle Home LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-11271 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2023).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Full Circle Home -- https://fullcirclehome.com/ -- is a
not-for-profit organization that connects deployed service members
with their loved ones across the country and on bases around the
world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
GRANDE LASH: February 27 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
OpenClassActions.com disclosed that a February 27, 2024, settlement
claims filings deadline has been set.
Claim Form Deadline: February 27, 2024
Payout: $150.00 - $300.00
Proof required: No
What is the Grande Lash Cosmetics Settlement About?
A $6.25 Million Class Action Settlement has been reached with
Grande Cosmetics over allegations that some of its cosmetics
products including certain Grande Cosmetics hair, eyebrow, and
eyelash serums. The cosmetics class action lawsuit alleged that
Grande Cosmetics did not disclose that some of their Enhancement
Serums included Isopropyl Cloprostenate, an ingredient which may
cause adverse reactions for consumers. Grande Cosmetics has agreed
to settle the $6,250,000 Class Action Lawsuit, but has denied any
liability or wrongdoing, stating that their cosmetics and serums
have never been found to contain any dangerous substances, and that
the FDA has not determined that the Grande Cosmetics products are
dangerous or puts any consumers at risk for adverse side effects.
What is Isopropyl Cloprostenate? Is it Harmful?
Isopropyl Cloprostenate is a synthetic analog to prostaglandin, a
hormone-like compound found naturally in the body that plays a role
in many physiological processes. Isopropyl Cloprostenate is known
to promote growth and thickness of eyelashes and eyebrows.
Synthetic prostaglandin analogs like these are sometimes included
in cosmetics such as brow or hair serums for their potential
effects on hair growth. Because some over the counter cosmetics are
not FDA tested, the use of Isopropyl Cloprostenate in cosmetic
products has remained a subject of debate.
Which Grande Cosmetics products are included in the Settlement?
The following Grande Cosmetics products, purchased from January 1,
2018 through December 14, 2023 may qualify for an estimated $150.00
payout from the Class Action Settlement, with a chance to earn up
to $300.00. The cosmetics products may have been purchased for
household use, personal use, for your family, or for professional
purposes:
-- GrandeLASH-MD
-- GrandeBROW
-- GrandeHAIR
How Much Can I Get From the Class Action Settlement?
If you believe that you are a qualifying Grande Cosmetics
Settlement Class member, you can submit a timely and valid claim by
the deadline of February 27, 2024 to receive a cash payment for
qualifying Grande Cosmetics serum products you have purchased.
Depending on whether or not you provide proof of purchase you may
be entitled to the following payouts from the class action:
-- Without Proof of Purchase: Up to $150.00 Per Claim.
-- With Proof of Purchase: Up to $300.00 Per Claim, for 2 or
more qualifying Grande Cosmetics products.
If there are enough funds remaining after payouts are made in the
amount of $150.00 for each valid and timely claim filed, the
remainder will be used to pay out an additional $150.00 cash
benefit for those who claim two or more qualifying products
purchased with proof of purchase.
Please note that in class action settlements such as these, the
payout may be lower than the originally anticipated amount. The
actual payment amount may be reduced if the total amount of valid
and timely claims submitted is more than expected when setting the
estimated payout initially. The estimated payout amount per
settlement claim is anticipated and may be adjusted based on the
number of claims, and is contingent on the class action receiving
final approval.
Do I Need Proof of Purchase to File a Claim?
No, in order to qualify for a payment from the Grande Cosmetics
Class Action Lawsuit you will not need to provide proof of
purchase. However, you may be entitled to an additional cash
benefit of up to $150 on top of the original $150 cash benefit if
you do provide proof of purchase for two or more products via
evidence such as the following:
-- Physical receipts,
-- Online order receipts,
-- Email order confirmation from Grande Cosmetics or a different
retailer,
-- Credit card transaction statements.
How Do I Find Class Action Settlements?
Find all the latest Class Action Settlements you can qualify for by
getting notified of new lawsuits as soon as they are open to
claims:
Email Address
How Do I File a Claim?
If you believe you qualify based on the class action requirements
above and wish to receive a payment from the Grande Cosmetics Class
Action Settlement you must submit a complete, valid, and timely
class action claim Form fully by February 27, 2024 at the very
latest.
Claim Form Website: GC-Settlement.com
Filing Class Action Settlement Claims
Please note that your claim form will be rejected if you submit a
settlement claim for payout with any fraudulent information. By
providing this information and your sworn statement of its
veracity, you agree to do so under the penalty of perjury. You
would also be harming others that actually qualify for the class
action settlement. If you are not sure whether or not you qualify
for this class action settlement, visit the class action
administrator's website below. OpenClassActions.com is only
providing information and is not a class action administrator or a
law firm. OpenClassActions is a participant in the Amazon affiliate
advertising program and this post may contain affiliate links,
which means we may earn a commission or fees if you make a purchase
via those links. [GN]
GUGV 790 BROWARD: Dematties Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
BERNADETTE DEMATTIES, individually and behalf of all those
similarlysituated, Plaintiff v. GUGV 790 BROWARD PROPERTY OWNING
LLC LAUREAT, Defendant, Case No. CACE-24-000112 (Fla. Cir., 17th
Judicial, Broward Cty., January 4, 2024) accuses the Defendant for
violating the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.
On January 29, 2022, Defendant sent an electronic mail
communication to Plaintiff regarding consumer debt payment.
However, the communication was sent to Plaintiff at 03:35:44 AM in
Plaintiff's zone in violation of FCCPA, says the suit.
Based in Charleston, SC, GUGV 790 Broward Property Owning LLC is
engaged the real estate business. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
Gerald D. Lane, Jr. Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 907-1136
Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
jen@jibraellaw.com
gerald@jibraellaw.com
HEALTH CARE: Sanchez Class Suit Moved from N.D. Ill. to D. Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Health Care Services
Corporation et al. The class action lawsuit captioned as Sanchez v.
Health Care Services Corporation et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-15857
(Filed Nov. 10, 2023), was transferred from the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Jan. 3,
2024.
The Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:24-cv-10026 to the proceeding.
Health Care is a customer owned health insurance company. It
provides a range of health and life insurance products and related
service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J Herman, Esq.
Peter J. Flowers, Esq.
MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
3 North Second Street, Suite 300
St. Charles, IL 60134
Telephone: (630) 232-6333
Facsimile: (630) 845-8982
E-mail: mh@meyers-flowers.com
pjf@meyers-flowers.com
- and -
Alan M Mansfield, Esq.
Edith M. Kallas, Esq.
Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
16870 W. Bernardo Drive, Ste 400
San Diego, CA 92127
Telephone: (619) 308-5034
Facsimile: (855) 274-1888
E-mail: amansfield@whatleykallas.com
ekallas@whatleykallas.com
jwhatley@whatleykallas.com
psheehan@whatleykallas.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Edward P Boyle, Esq.
Erin McCloskey Maus, Esq.
Michael Anthony Guerra, Esq.
Reyzel Farkish, Esq.
VENABLE, LLP
405 Lexington Avenue, 56th Floor
New York, NY 10174
Telephone: (212) 307-5500
Facsimile: (212) 307-5598
E-mail: epboyle@venable.com
EMMaus@Venable.com
maguerra@venable.com
rfarkish@venable.com
- and -
Michael Allen Olsen, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
71 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 782-0600
E-mail: courtnotification@mayerbrown.com
HEALTHEC LLC: Fails to Implement Data Security Measures, Leeb Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY LEEB, on behalf of himself individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTHEC, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00036-JKS-ESK (D.N.J., January 4, 2024)
arises out of the recent cyberattack and data breach resulting from
HealthEC’s failure to implement reasonable and industry standard
data security practices.
In breaching their duties to properly safeguard its clients'
patients' private information and give patients timely, adequate
notice of the data breach's occurrence, Defendant's conduct amounts
to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state
statutes, says the suit.
The Defendant's investigation on the data breach concluded--on an
undisclosed date--that "certain systems" were accessed by an
unknown actor between July 14, 2023, and July 23, 2023, and during
this time certain files were copied. The results indicated that the
private information compromised in the data breach included
Plaintiff's and approximately 112,000 other individuals'
information.
Headquartered in Edison, NJ, HealthEC, LLC is a limited liability
company that provides fully integrated analytics and insights and
other services to its healthcare provider clients. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
E-mail: vmaniatis@milberg.com
- and -
Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile:(202) 973-0950
E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
HEALTHEC LLC: Lempinen Sues Over Unsecured Private Information
--------------------------------------------------------------
VICTORIA LEMPINEN, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTHEC, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00026-JKS-ESK (D.N.J., January 3, 2024)
arises out of the recent cyberattack and data breach resulting from
HealthEC's failure to implement reasonable and industry standard
data security practices and asserts claims against the Defendant
for negligence, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, breach
of confidence, and invasion of privacy.
On or about December 22, 2023, Defendant began sending data breach
notice letter to Plaintiff and other victims, informing them that
its certain systems were accessed by an unknown actor between July
14, 2023, and July 23, 2023, and during this time certain files
were copied. However, the notice letter failed to provide the date
that Defendant detected the data breach, the dates of Defendant's
investigation, the details of the root cause of the data breach,
the vulnerabilities exploited, and the remedial measures undertaken
to ensure such a breach does not occur again, says the suit.
Headquartered in Edison, NJ, HealthEC is a limited liability
company that provides fully integrated analytics and insights and
other services to its healthcare provider clients. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
E-mail: vmaniatis@milberg.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
HSNI LLC: LoBello Seeks Proper Wages for Customer Service Reps
--------------------------------------------------------------
THERESA LOBELLO, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HSNi, LLC, a limited liability corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-00026 (M.D. Fla., January 3, 2024)
arises from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and common law.
Plaintiff LoBello worked for Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt
remote customer service representative (CSR) from approximately
September 2018 through June 2023. Throughout her employment with
Defendant as a CSR, Plaintiff performed all of the work required by
Defendant, including the off-the-clock pre-shift activities.
However, Defendant repeatedly and systematically breached the
agreement by not paying Plaintiff her regular hourly rate of pay
for the pre-shift activities. In addition, Defendant failed to take
into consideration the hourly shift differential and other
non-discretionary remuneration when calculating its hourly
employees' regular rates of pay and the resulting overtime rate
premium, says the Plaintiff.
Headquartered in St. Petersburg, FL, HSNi, LLC. is a Delaware
limited liability company that provides multichannel retailing
services on television, online, mobile, catalogs, and brick and
mortar stores. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradley W. Butcher, Esq.
BUTCHER & ASSOCIATES, P.L.
6830 Porto Fino Circle, Suite 2
Fort Myers, FL 33912
Telephone: (239) 322-1650
E-mail: bwb@b-a-law.com
- and -
Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
Kathryn E. Milz, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: 248-355-0300
E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
kmilz@sommerspc.com
INTEGRIS HEALTH: Faces DiCenso Class Action Lawsuit in W.D. Okla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Integris Health Inc.
The case is captioned as DiCenso et al v. Integris Health Inc.,
Case No. 5:24-cv-00011-HE (W.D. Okla, Jan. 3, 2024).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Joe Heaton.
Integris is an American 501 not-for-profit organization which
manages health care facilities in the state of Oklahoma.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerard A Dever, Esq.
Roberta D Liebenberg, Esq.
FINE KAPLAN & BLACK RPC
One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 567-6565
Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
E-mail: gdever@finekaplan.com
rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
- and -
Larry D Lahman, Esq.
Roger L. Ediger, Esq.
MITCHELL & DECLERCK
202 W Broadway Ave
Enid, OK 73701
Telephone: (580) 747-3114
E-mail: ldl@mdpllc.com
rle@mdpllc.com
JEWISH VOICES: Attorney Mulls Class Action Over Pro-Hamas Protests
------------------------------------------------------------------
According to choeshow, Attorney Ted Frank is targeting FAR-LEFT
activists and pro-Hamas protesters in a potential class action
lawsuit.
Frank says drivers caught up in the Jan. 6 highway takeover in
Seattle have a serious case.
He is specifically calling out Jewish Voices for Peace and claims
JVP helped orchestrate the brazen protest which put hundreds of
people in danger and even delayed an ambulance en route to an
emergency.
Bottom line, numerous laws were broken and so far no one has been
held accountable.
Just to be clear, he is not going after the state, county, or city
at this time. This first round will be focused on the demonstrators
who disrupted people's lives.
If you were caught up in this nightmare commute, hit him up.
DM:
@tedfrank, @hamlinclaw
email: Ted.frank@hlli.org [GN]
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bryan Suit Moved From D. Neb. to E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Johnson & Johnson
Consumer, Inc. The class action lawsuit captioned as Bryan et al v.
Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-00543
(Filed Dec. 10, 2023) was transferred from the United States
District Court for the District of Nebraska to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Jan. 3,
2024.
The Eastern New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:24-cv-00040-BMC to the proceeding.
The nature of suit states Fraud or Truth-In-Lending demanding
$75,000.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Brian M. Cogan.
Johnson & Johnson researches, develops, manufactures, and sells
pharmaceutical products, medical devices, and consumer
products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Benjamin I. Siminou, Esq.
SINGLETON, SCHREIBER LAW FIRM
591 Camino De La Reina, Suite 1025
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 704-3288
E-mail: bsiminou@singletonschreiber.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Jergins Suit Moved From D. Utah to E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Johnson & Johnson
Consumer, Inc. et al. The class action lawsuit captioned as Jergins
et al. v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. et al., Case No.
4:23-cv-00115 (Filed Dec. 13, 2023), was transferred from the
United States District Court for the District of Utah to the United
States District Court of Eastern District of New York on Jan. 3,
2024.
The Eastern New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:24-cv-00043-BMC to the proceeding.
The nature of suit states Fraud or Truth-In-Lending demanding
$75,000 in damages.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Brian M. Cogan.
Johnson & Johnson researches, develops, manufactures, and sells
pharmaceutical products, medical devices, and consumer
products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Richard Ternieden, Esq.
SINGLETON SCHREIBER LLP
1414 K St Ste 470
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 248-8478
E-mail: jternieden@singletonschreiber.com
KIMCO STAFFING: Faces Guerrero Class Action Suit in C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kimco Staffing
Services, Inc. The case is captioned as Guerrero v. Kimco Staffing
Services, Inc., Case No. 8:24-cv-00018 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 3, 2024).
The suit alleges contract-related violations demanding $5B in
damages.
Kimco provides recruitment and staffing services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jill Jessica Parker, Esq.
PARKER AND MINNE, LLP
700 South Flower Street Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (310) 882-6833
E-mail: jill@parkerminne.com
LANDSCAPE FORMS: Jones Sues Over Miscalculation of Hourly Wage
--------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. LANDSCAPE FORMS, INC., a Michigan
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00010 (E.D. Mich., January
3, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately October
21, 2021 through April 3, 2022 as a non-exempt, hourly employee.
Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Plaintiff
received various non-discretionary production bonuses. However,
Defendant failed to incorporate any bonuses into its hourly
employees' regular hourly rate calculation, says the suit.
Based in Kalamazoo, MI, Landscape Forms, Inc. is a Michigan
corporation that operates an online store offering outdoor
furniture, LED lighting and accessories. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
Kalamazoo, MI 49007
Telephone: (269) 250-7500
E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Town Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
- and -
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
Laura Supanich, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C.
1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 824-3828
E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com
lms@melmedlaw.com
LIPPERT COMPONENTS: Gates & Bramley Sue Over Fiduciary Duty Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
DASHON J. GATES and YVETTE BRAMLEY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LIPPERT COMPONENTS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00006 (N.D. Ind., January 4,
2024) alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
The Plaintiffs were allegedly required to pay the illegal nicotine
surcharge to maintain health insurance coverage. Moreover, the
Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant violated its fiduciary duties
to the plan participants and beneficiaries. Thus, the Plaintiffs
seek to recover unlawful fees and a plan-wide relief.
Headquartered in Elkhart, IN, Lippert manufactures different
components for recreational vehicles, employing more than 14,000
employees in the United States, including in Indiana. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert P. Kondras, Jr.
HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP
100 Cherry Street
Terre Haute, IN 47807
Telephone: (877) 656-7602
Facsimile: (812) 234-2881
E-mail: kondras@hkmlawfirm.com
- and -
Paul M. Secunda, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Dr., Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (414) 828-2372
E-mail: psecunda@walcheskeluzi.com
MALICHITA: Faces Third Class Action Over Cantaloupes
----------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a third proposed class-action
lawsuit has been filed over salmonella-tainted cantaloupes that
have sickened people across Canada.
Law firm Slater Vecchio says it has filed the lawsuit in British
Columbia against Mexican company Malichita, which grew the
cantaloupes, and two U.S. food companies.
The law firm filed a similar suit last month in Quebec on behalf of
a Montreal man who was hospitalized with salmonella, and says the
latest proposed class action is on behalf of all people outside of
that province who were affected by the outbreak.
Ontario-based law firm Siskinds has also filed a proposed class
action lawsuit in Manitoba, alleging that a Sarnia, Ont., woman
became sick after eating cantaloupe that she believes was tainted
with salmonella.
The claims have not been tested in court and the proposed class
actions must be certified by the courts to move ahead.
The Public Health Agency of Canada said in its latest update last
month that seven people have died from cantaloupe-linked salmonella
and there have been 164 lab-confirmed cases in eight provinces --
111 of them in Quebec.
The agency said the majority of people who became sick were aged
five and younger and 65 and older.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency first issued recall warnings on
Nov. 1, which were later expanded to include both Malichita and
Rudy brand cantaloupes, as well as various types of pre-cut
cantaloupes and fruit trays sold in stores.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Jan. 8, 2024.
[GN]
MEAD JOHNSON: Harden Sues Over Unsafe Nutramigen Powder Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
DION HARDEN, individually and on behalf of M.H., a minor, and
JESSICA TAN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. MEAD JOHNSON & COMPANY, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00108 (N.D. Ill., January 4, 2024) arises from the
Defendant's business practices designed to mislead the public in
connection with Defendant's promotion, marketing, advertising,
packaging, labeling, distribution, and/or sale of Nutramigen Powder
products.
On December 30, 2023, Defendant issued a recall of Nutramigen
Powder products sold in the United States due to possible
contamination with "Cronobacter sakazakii." The Food and Drug
Administration published Defendant's recall announcement. The
Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf, and on behalf of
all other purchasers of Nutramigen Powder products to seek damages
and injunctive relief for their injuries and pursue claims against
Mead Johnson for negligence, breach of warranties, consumer fraud,
fraudulent concealment, and unjust enrichment.
Headquartered in Chicago, IL, Mead Johnson & Company, LLC is one of
the nation's leading producers of infant formulas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
Sharon A. Harris, Esq.
Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 440-0020
Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
sharon@attorneyzim.com
matt@attorneyzim.com
jeff@attorneyzim.com
METLIFE LEGAL: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Garcia Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA GARCIA, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. METLIFE LEGAL PLANS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-00023 (N.D. Ohio, January 4, 2024) challenges the policies
and practices of Defendant that violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act, as well as the Ohio overtime compensation statute.
The Plaintiff is a resident of Ohio who was employed by Defendant
from approximately July 2020 to July 2022. During her employment
with Defendant, Plaintiff held the position of customer service
representative. Allegedly, Defendant did not compensate her and
other customer service representatives for the time they spent
booting up and logging into Defendant's computer system, software
applications, and phone system. As a result of Plaintiff and other
customer service representatives not being paid for all hours
worked, Plaintiff and other customer service representatives were
not paid overtime compensation for all of the hours they worked
over 40 each workweek, says the suit.
Headquartered in Cleveland, OH, Metlife Legal Plans, Inc. provides
access to legal advice and representation from a network of
vetted attorneys. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
1360 E. 9th Street, Suite 808
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 230-2955
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com
NATIONSTAR: McCartney Suit Moved From N.D. Oh. to N.D. Tex.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationstar. The class
action lawsuit captioned as McCartney v. Nationstar, Case No.
1:23-cv-02157 (Filed Nov. 4, 2023), was transferred from the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on
Jan. 3, 2024.
The Northern Texas District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:24-cv-00021-X to the proceeding.
The nature of suit states Contract related violations.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Brantley Starr.
Nationstar is the consumer-facing mortgage lender and
servicer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D Flick, Esq.
Andrew M Engel, Esq.
Marc E Dann, Esq.
DANN LAW
15000 Madison Ave.
Lakewood, OH 44107
Telephone: (216) 373-0539
Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
The Defendant is represented by:
James W. Sandy, Esq.
MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD
Ste. 200, 3401 Tuttle Road
Cleveland, OH 44122
Telephone: (216) 378-9911
Facsimile: (216) 378-9910
E-mail: jsandy@mcglinchey.com
NECTAR BRAND: Longoria Suit Removed From State Ct. to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nectar Brand LLC. The
class action lawsuit captioned as Longoria v. Nectar Brand LLC,
Case No. 23CV426060 was removed from the California Superior Court,
County of Santa Clara to the United States District Court for the
California Northern District on Jan. 3, 2024.
The California Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:24-cv-00051 to the proceeding.
The suit is brought over Defendant's alleged violations on real
property.
Nectar Brand sells mattresses, bedding, and other products
connected to sleep.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Tyler Griffin Newby, Esq.
FENWICK & WEST LLP
555 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 875-2300
Facsimile: (415) 875-2391
E-mail: tnewby@fenwick.com
OHANA MILITARY: Camp Suit Removed from State Ct. to D. Hawaii
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ohana Military
Communities, LLC et al. The class action lawsuit captioned as Camp
et al. v. Ohana Military Communities, LLC et al., Case No.
1CCV-23-0001493, was removed from the Circuit Court of the First
Circuit State of Hawaii to the United States District Court for the
District of Hawaii on Jan. 3, 2024.
The District of Hawaii Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:24-cv-00003-LEK-KJM to the proceeding.
The nature of suit states Breach of Contract.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi.
Ohana Military provides real estate services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bridget G. Morgan-Bickerton, Esq.
James J. Bickerton, Esq.
BICKERTON LAW GROUP LLLP
745 Fort St Ste 801
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: (808) 599-3811
Facsimile: (808) 694-6030
E-mail: morgan@bsds.com
bickerton@bsds.com
- and -
Wayne D. Parsons, Esq.
WAYNE PARSONS LAW OFFICES
1406 Colburn St Ste 201C
Honolulu, HI 96817
Telephone: 845-2211
Facsimile: 843-0100
E-mail: wparsons@Alohano.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Joachim P. Cox, Esq.
Kamala S. Haake, Esq.
Randall C. Whattoff, Esq.
COX FRICKE A LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP LLP
800 Bethel Street, Suite 600
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: 585-9440
E-mail: jcox@cfhawaii.com
khaake@cfhawaii.com
rwhattoff@cfhawaii.com
OREGON: Foster Care Class Action Against DHS Heads to Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------
Allison Frost, writing for OPB, reports that the case representing
foster children seeks policy changes instead of monetary damages
from Oregon's Department of Human Services
Oregon's child welfare agency has been in and out of court since
2019, defending against a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of
every child in foster care in the state. The suit was filed by
Disability Rights Oregon and the national advocacy group A Better
Childhood.
Marcia Robinson Lowry is the lead attorney in the class action
lawsuit and the director of A Better Childhood. On Jan. 8, she
announced that her organization was rejecting a settlement offer
from Oregon's Department of Human Services. The case is now
expected to go to trial on May 13.
Child advocacy groups have brought similar class actions in other
states including in Tennessee, where a settlement led to reforms
that improved outcomes for children and youth in foster care.
Oregon's Department of Human Services told us they cannot provide
comment on this ongoing litigation. Robinson Lowry recently spoke
with "Think Out Loud" to talk about the lawsuit and what's at
stake.
The following excerpts have been edited for clarity and brevity:
Why the class action lawsuit was filed against the state
"The more we looked at data, the more we heard heartbreaking
children's stories, the more convinced we were that we needed to
organize a lawsuit in this state. In Oregon, the maltreatment rate
for children in the foster care system is almost twice the national
average. The average length of time that children spend in the
foster care system in Oregon is 21 months as compared to the
average in the country nationally, which is about 17 [months]. The
placement stability rate -- the number of times a kid moves from
one place to another -- is 5.3, compared to the national average,
which is only 4.1.
And also very significantly, children are not supposed to stay in
the system too long. But when children are returned home by the
state of Oregon, they are much more likely to reenter the foster
care system because the state has not done a good job of deciding
whether it's now safe for children to return home. And so the
reentry rate into foster care in Oregon is 14.4%, as compared to a
national average of 8.3%.
So when you look both at the national data and see how other
systems are doing, and you see how poorly Oregon compares to that,
it was clear that a class action lawsuit was necessary."
Why the state's settlement offer was rejected
"The settlement offer that we received was totally unsatisfactory.
It will not protect the children that we represent and will not
give the state the opportunity to be responsible for making things
better.
We've said this from the beginning, we think that the state gets
better by doing better for the kids it serves. And the way you
measure whether the state is doing better for the kids that it
serves is by having better outcomes: by getting children back home
or into another permanent living situation as soon as possible, by
not having children harmed or abused while they're in state
custody, and by not having kids move from one place to another.
That's just devastating for a kid."
The kinds of reforms Lowry is seeking for foster care children and
youth
"The way you do it is not by just changing your policies, but it's
by changing your practice. It's by having enough case workers so
that caseworkers can spend time on individual children's individual
cases. It's by having enough places for children to go when they
need to be housed outside their homes. It's by having the special
services. The kids need therapeutic foster homes of specially
supported services for kids. And looking for placements for
children of all of those kinds of things and not making decisions
just based on a policy but making decisions about whether to return
a kid home or not based on the individual circumstances of the
individual child and the family. We all certainly believe that
children are best raised by families, not by institutions."
Improving the system is not just about money, Lowry says
"Look at Oklahoma, which is also doing an incredibly strong job in
providing additional placements for children. And Oklahoma provides
additional services for kids in both foster homes and in kinship
homes. But the services that the kids need are what the state is
providing. And Oklahoma is not a wealthy state at all. It's not a
matter of money. It's a matter of making a commitment to doing
better and really looking and seeing what you're doing.
Oregon, for example, does not get children assessed in a timely
manner. You can't provide services for a child if you don't
understand what the child needs. That's not something we say. It's
in fact a matter of federal law and the state is supposed to do it,
but they're not." [GN]
OREGON: Prisoners Win Bid to Depose Ex-Governor in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alanna Mayham, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
Ninth Circuit panel on Jan. 9 ruled in favor of a class of
prisoners, upholding an order compelling former Oregon Governor
Kate Brown to be deposed in their case in which they claim the
state unnecessarily exposed them to a high risk of contracting
Covid-19.
The lawsuit, filed in April 2020, was brought by six inmates at
Oregon Department of Corrections facilities and the representative
of a deceased prisoner's estate. It seeks damages for Eighth
Amendment violations incurred due to the policies of Brown and
other state officials, whom the plaintiffs claim failed to protect
prisoners from the spread of Covid-19.
"During the pendency of the lawsuit, thousands of people housed at
ODOC facilities have been infected with Covid-19," the inmates
wrote in their sixth amended complaint, adding that at least 44
inmates had died.
The suit seeks relief for two classes: one comprised of prisoners
who contracted Covid-19 and another made up of those who died from
the virus or Covid-related complications.
In July 2023, attorneys from Oregon's Department of Justice
petitioned for a writ of mandamus seeking to quash U.S. Magistrate
Judge Stacie F. Beckerman order requiring Brown to be deposed.
"In so ordering, the district court contravened binding precedent
and flouted constitutional principles," the defendants wrote in the
petition. "No court in this circuit had ever ordered the deposition
of a governor over official state decisions."
But Beckerman reasoned in her order that "a brief deposition is
less burdensome and will not distract from any official duties" now
that Brown has left office.
"In addition, this is not a case of one [adult in custody] seeking
to depose the governor about an individual claim, nor is there any
evidence that plaintiffs seek to depose former governor Brown for
any improper purpose," Beckerman wrote.
The judge ultimately ordered Brown's deposition based on three
requirements the Ninth Circuit established with In re U.S.
Department of Education, in which the appeals court held that held
that the lower court improperly ordered the deposition of former
U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. In that ruling, the court
found that DeVos' deposition required a showing of agency bad faith
and that the information sought was essential and unobtainable by
any other means.
While arguing for the petition in November 2023, the state postured
the plaintiffs' request as one that supplements an "inapt" Eighth
Amendment claim on whether Brown inflicted cruel and unusual
punishment for not releasing more prisoners than she did in the
early pandemic and by closing two state prisons to save money in
July 2021.
Assistant State Attorney General Robert Koch, representing Brown,
also argued that the plaintiffs hadn't exhausted their discovery
with more specific questions and that Beckerman's decision lacked
any finding of bad faith. Koch added that public records and
previous depositions already indicated Brown's reasoning for
clemency and prison closures, stating, "As best as we can tell,
plaintiffs just don't like the answer."
On Jan. 9, however, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Margaret M. McKeown
and U.S. Circuit Judge Ronald M. Gould disagreed with the state's
arguments, ruling that Beckerman adhered to the standards set in In
re U.S. Department of Education and that the plaintiffs' failure to
pursue certain information was not a legal error but a challenge to
"the factual findings of the district court during discovery, which
are entitled to deference."
"Justifying a writ of mandamus is 'especially difficult in the
discovery context,' to the extent that we have described it as
generally 'unavailable,'" the ruling continued. "Defendants have
not pointed to any egregious error by the district court that would
overcome the exceedingly high bar for a writ of mandamus in the
discovery context."
Attorneys from both sides did not immediately return requests for
comment.
Sitting by designation from the U.S. Court of International Trade,
Judge Maurice Miller Baker wrote a dissenting opinion, saying that
the majority's reading of Department of Education "unfortunately
neuters" the prerequisite of bad faith "by allowing it to be
satisfied by a mere allegation."
The Trump appointee also said that serving as a state governor,
especially during a time of crisis like the pandemic, is a "grave
responsibility," adding that top-ranking officials should not be
unnecessarily burdened by depositions on their official decisions.
"In performing their official duties, federal cabinet officers and
state governors must make innumerable decisions that inevitably
give rise to civil lawsuits," Baker wrote, noting that Brown has
been sued 115 times while in office.
Baker added that, outside of extraordinary circumstances, such
government leaders should be able to make such decisions without
fear of having to later explain their thinking in a deposition.
A pending appeal seeks immunity for Brown and former Oregon Health
Authority director and codefendant Patrick Allen. A week before the
appeal hearing in November 2023, the plaintiffs filed a seventh
amended complaint, and the defendants have since filed motions for
summary judgment. A hearing on those motions will occur on Feb. 28,
while a jury trial is still scheduled for July. [GN]
PARKWEST BICYLE: Kusak Sues Over Discriminatory Harassment
----------------------------------------------------------
BRETT MITCHELL KUSAK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PARKWEST BICYCLE CASINO, LLC.; and
DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 24NWCV00057 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles Cty., January 4, 2023) alleges violations of the Fair
Employment and Housing Act and the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately March
14, 2023, until his wrongful termination on August 21, 2023. He was
subjected to a hostile work environment, retaliation for reporting
harassment, failure by Defendant to prevent discrimination or
harassment, and rest break violations. During Plaintiff's
employment, he was subjected to unwelcome and discriminatory
harassment by his co-workers, which included but was not limited to
racial slurs, physical threats, and other forms of intimidation,
says the suit.
Parkwest Bicycle Casino, LLC. conducts business in Los Angeles
County, California. It offers accommodations and recreational
facilities. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manny Starr, Esq.
Joseph Gross, Esq.
FRONTIER LAW CENTER
23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 1084
Calabasas, CA 91302
Telephone: (818) 914-3433
Facsimile: (818) 914-3433
E-mail: manny@frontierlawcenter.com
Joseph@frontierlawcenter.com
PHILIP MORRIS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Securities Class Action Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Stearling LLP disclosed that on December 26, 2023, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a
district court's dismissal of a putative class action asserting
claims against a tobacco company (the "Company") under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"). In re Philip Morris Int'l Inc. Sec. Litig., No.
21-2546 (2d Cir. Dec. 26, 2023). Plaintiffs alleged that the
Company made false or misleading statements regarding both the
scientific studies it conducted in support of an application to the
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") and the outlook for the
Company's sales growth in Japanese markets. The district court held
that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead falsity or scienter, in
a decision previously covered here. The Second Circuit affirmed the
dismissal, holding that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead
falsity. In its decision, the Court decided two questions of first
impression in the Second Circuit. First, it held a securities fraud
defendant's statement that its scientific studies comply with a
methodological standard that is published and internationally
recognized, but stated in general and inherently subjective terms,
is properly analyzed as a statement of opinion, rather than a
statement of fact. Second, the Court held that, where a securities
fraud defendant's statement expresses an interpretation of
scientific data that is ultimately endorsed by the FDA, such a
statement is per se "[]reasonable" (i.e., supported by "meaningful
inquiry") as a matter of law.
The Company is one of the largest tobacco companies in the world.
It directly sells its products outside the United States, while
domestic sales and marketing are handled by the Company's former
parent company. The Company has recently shifted its focus from
cigarettes to smoke-free alternatives, including one vapor-based
product ("IQOS") in particular. Plaintiffs alleged that the Company
made misrepresentations in securities filings and public statements
about clinical studies it conducted in support of an application to
the FDA in which it sought to sell IQOS in the United States and to
market IQOS as safer than traditional tobacco products. Plaintiffs
also alleged that the Company made misleading statements about its
growth projections in Japan regarding IQOS.
The district court found that none of the challenged statements
were false or misleading because all the challenged statements were
true, inactionable puffery, or inactionable statements of opinion.
Furthermore, the district court found that plaintiffs failed to
establish the required strong inference of scienter, either by
alleging facts showing motive and opportunity to commit fraud or
strong circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior or
recklessness. Accordingly, the district court granted defendants'
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' first amended complaint and denied
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. After the district court
dismissed plaintiffs' second amended complaint, this time with
prejudice, plaintiffs appealed.
The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decision for
failure to plead falsity and declined to reach the merits of the
district court's alternative holding on scienter. First, the Court
evaluated plaintiffs' allegations concerning the Company's
statements about the methodology of its IQOS studies. With respect
to general statements about the rigor and extensiveness of their
studies, the Court affirmed the district court's holding that these
were inactionable puffery. With respect to more specific Company
statements that their studies were conducted in accordance with
Good Clinical Practice ("GCP"), the Court affirmed the district
court's holding that these were inactionable statements of opinion.
In doing so, the Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that
compliance with GCP is a "verifiable fact that can be relied upon,"
emphasizing the "general and often inherently subjective nature" of
GCP standards.
The Court then evaluated plaintiffs' allegations concerning the
Company's statements about the results of its studies. One set of
challenged statements concerned the long-term health benefits
inferable from the Company's clinical trials and non-clinical
toxicology studies. The Court rejected plaintiffs' claim that these
statements were subsequently revealed to be false when the Tobacco
Products Scientific Advisory Committee concluded that the studies
did not support the statements about benefits. The Court emphasized
that a mere "dispute about the proper interpretation of data"
cannot form "a basis for liability" under Section 10(b). The Court
also found that the FDA's eventual acceptance of the challenged
interpretation, embodied in its order granting the Company's
application to sell and market IQOS, "conclusively establishe[d]
that Defendants' statements were reasonable, and therefore not
actionable" under the Second Circuit's decision Tongue v. Sanofi
and the Supreme Court's decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers
District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund. A separate set
of statements concerned unfavorable findings from the Company's
non-clinical toxicology studies. The Court found that these
statements were inactionable because they were either "verifiably
true as a matter of objective fact" or reasonable as a matter of
law.
Next, the Court evaluated plaintiffs' allegations concerning the
Company's statements concerning sales projections in Japan.
Plaintiffs alleged that the Company's then-CEO affirmatively
misrepresented the Company's internal projections during a 2018
earnings call with investors. The district court dismissed
plaintiff's claim based on these allegations because they fell
under the PSLRA's safe harbor for "forward-looking statements." The
Second Circuit affirmed, but for a different reason. Specifically,
the Court held that the CEO's statements, when read in context,
were not false at all—thus mooting the question of whether the
safe harbor applies.
Finally, plaintiffs alleged that the Company materially omitted
disclosures regarding unfavorable consumer trends it was required
to make under Items 303 and 105 of SEC Regulation S-K. The Court
affirmed the district court's conclusion that the relevant trends
were adequately disclosed in the Company's SEC filings. The Court
also rejected as "an apparent afterthought" plaintiffs' argument on
appeal that other growth projections were rendered false and
misleading by the Company's failure to disclose a known slowdown in
product shipments to Japan, reasoning that plaintiffs "abandoned
their argument that such statements were actionable" by "merely
mentioning" such statements without "some effort at developed
argumentation." [GN]
REVOLUT USA: Faces Class Action Over Biometric Data Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kieran O'connor, writing for UK neobank Revolut faces a US lawsuit
in Illinois over alleged "unlawful" biometric data collection.
Cook County Record first reported the court documents that accuses
Revolut of failing to disclose how applicants' biometric data is
collected, stored, and destroyed or secured, under written consent
through Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).
The plaintiff, Tina Haralampopoulos, also claims that Revolut does
not disclose any third party participation in the biometric
identity verification process.
Founded in 2015, Revolut is a prepaid card and app that offers a
range of digital banking services. Customers of the fintech company
submit photographs of their ID and a selfie, ensuring that the two
images are the same person, on its app.
Haralampopoulos is represented by attorney Matthew T. Peterson, a
Consumer Law Advocate PLLC, of Chicago and seeks an order declaring
that Revolut's conduct violates BIPA, requiring them to cease these
activities,as well as award damages to her and other proposed class
members.
Plaintiffs can reportedly demand up to $5k in damages per alleged
violation if Revolut is found guilty of violating BIPA. Social
media network Facebook is one of several companies to have been
found guilty under the act and were ordered to pay $650m.
Other technology companies that have also agreed class action
settlements are TikTok ($92m), Google ($100m) and Snapchat ($35m).
Large settlements are due to Illinois Supreme Courts decisions
which have interpreted the BIPA law to define individual violations
of the law as each time a business scans someone's so-called
biometric identifiers, such as their fingerprints or facial
geometry.
The case was filed in Cook County Circuit Court on 11 December,
months after it was reported that Revolut was set to smash its 2022
revenue in financial results. [GN]
ROMAN CATHOLIC: Abuse Claims to Undergo Verification Process
------------------------------------------------------------
Archdiocese of Halifax-Yarmouth disclosed that on December 14,
2023, the Claims Period for the class action filed against the
Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Halifax, the Roman Catholic
Episcopal Corporation of the Yarmouth has concluded.
Between December 14, 2022 and December 14, 2023 a call went out
across the Archdiocese for victims of abuse to file a claim and
receive compensation as a part of the class action suit. With this
phase completed, claims will go through a process of verification
and compensation as appropriate. [GN]
ROSCOE'S CHICKEN: Former Employee Files Labor Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Patch reports that a former Roscoe's Chicken and Waffles employee
is suing the restaurant chain, alleging unpaid overtime,
non-compensation for missed meal and rest breaks and other labor
issues.
Plaintiff Jaime Alejandro Carbajal-Torres worked for Roscoe's from
November 2001 until last March. His proposed Los Angeles Superior
Court lawsuit seeks to represent himself and other employees who
have done cleaning work, prepared and served beverages and
transferred meals to servers.
The suit seeks unspecified damages as well as injunctions
prohibiting Roscoe's from committing further alleged Labor Code
violations and requiring the establishment of "appropriate and
effective means" to prevent future alleged violations.
A Roscoe's representative did not immediately reply to a request
for comment on the suit brought on Jan. 5.
For at least four years prior to the filing of the suit and
continuing to the present, Roscoe's has failed to pay overtime
wages to the plaintiff and the other proposed class members who
have worked more than eight hours a day or 40 hours weekly, and
sometimes seven consecutive days.
Roscoe's also has neglected to pay the plaintiff and others the
full wages owed upon termination or resignation, the suit further
alleges.
Roscoe's has six locations in Los Angeles County and one in Orange
County in Anaheim. [GN]
S&MA CONTRACTING: Jimenez Sues Over Unlawful Pay Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE JIMENEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. S&MA CONTRACTING INC., WARIS ALI,
Individually, and ASAAD ALI a/k/a NASSIR ALI, Individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00065 (S.D.N.Y., January 4, 2024)
arises out of the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff commenced work for Defendants as a truck driver from
on or about April, 2017 through approximately December 5, 2022,
when he was unlawfully terminated.Due to Defendants' systemic and
unlawful policies, the Plaintiff worked six days a week, and more
than 40 hours per week. Nonetheless, Defendants failed to pay him
overtime wages at the mandatory statutory rate of
one-and-one-half-times his regular rate for all hours over 40 in a
workweek. Additionally, Defendants paid Plaintiff in cash and never
provided him with lawful wage notices or statements. When Plaintiff
complained about Defendants' unlawful pay practices, he was
summarily terminated, says the suit.
Headquartered in Yonkers, NY, S&MA is a contracting company that
installs sidewalks, walkways, and driveways for private homes and
commercial properties. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chaya M. Gourarie, Esq.
BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
116 Jackson Avenue
Syosset, NY 11791
Telephone: (516) 280-3008
E-mail: cg@belllg.com
SHUTTERFLY INC: February 5 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marie Rossiter, writing for KSBY, reports that have you used
Shutterfly to create and purchase photo gifts during the past five
years? If so, you may qualify for up to a $25 voucher from
Shutterfly as part of a class action lawsuit. But you must act
before Feb. 5 to get on the settlement list.
In a recent settlement statement in a class-action suit against
Shutterfly, the court ruled that anyone who purchased one or more
items using an advertised discount price from Shutterfly.com
between April 1, 2018, and Aug. 25, 2023, can claim a $25 voucher
good toward any online purchase towards future orders at
Shutterfly.
Eligible Shutterfly customers should have received an email to file
their claim form. A claimant identification number can be found in
this message and should be used when filing the claim online.
However, you can still apply for a voucher if you believe you are
an affected customer and didn't receive this notification or
claimant number.
To get your name on the list, visit the official Shutterfly
settlement claim website before Feb. 5, enter your claimant
identification number and PIN, or type in your email address to
start your claim.
If you did not have a claim number, enter your name, address, email
address (including the one you used when ordering on Shutterfly)
and telephone number.
Eligible customers who do not file a formal claim will receive a
$25 voucher for a future Shutterfly purchase.
According to the settlement agreement, plaintiff Rosemarie Rivali
filed a class-action lawsuit against Shutterfly on April 1, 2022.
She claimed Shutterfly engaged in "false and/or deceptive
advertising" regarding discounts on the website's merchandise.
Rivali alleged Shutterfly deliberately and improperly led consumers
to believe they were receiving a discount on their purchases.
The two parties worked with an arbitrator after the court refused
the company's motion to dismiss the case. They agreed to the class
action settlement, and Shutterfly continues to deny any wrongdoing.
[GN]
SOLOSUIT: Class Action to Remain in Federal Court
-------------------------------------------------
Isabel Gottlieb, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a proposed
class action against SoloSuit, a company that offers pro se
defendants assistance in defending debt collection lawsuits, clears
the amount-in-controversy threshold to remain in federal court, a
US judge said.
Judge Steven C. Seeger of the US District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on Jan. 8 denied plaintiff Deborah Palanti's
motion to remand her case, siding with the company he described as
"like TurboTax for lawsuits."
Palanti told the court she'd paid for SoloSuit's services when she
was sued by a debt collector. The San Francisco-based company
promised to file an answer to the complaint. [GN]
SPECTRUM BRANDS: Faces Garza Fraud Suit in E.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spectrum Brands Pet
LLC. The case is captioned as Garza v. Spectrum Brands Pet LLC,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00012-JLT-CDB (E.D. Cal., Jan. 3, 2024).
The suit alleges fraud related violations and is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Thurston.
Spectrum Brands provides pet foods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lisa Tamiko Omoto, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1060
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (424) 365-3225
E-mail: lomoto@faruqilaw.com
STITCH INDS: Faces Class Action Over False Reference Pricing
------------------------------------------------------------
Bobby Dalheim, writing for Furniture Today, reports that Stitch
Inds., which does business as Joybird, has been sued in Los Angeles
court for false reference pricing, or fabricating the original
price of an item before selling it at a substantial discount.
In the proposed class-action suit, plaintiff Christina Thiele-Yancy
alleges false advertising and intentional and negligent
representation, accusing Stitch of offering discounts that are
"pervasive" and creating the false impression that its regular
prices are higher than they actually are.
According to the suit, Thiele-Yancy spent thousands of dollars in
September 2021 on an ottoman, sectional and sofa through Joybird's
website, believing she was getting a steep discount and that she
only had a short amount of time to make a decision.
"Defendant advertises steep discounts on its products," the suit
reads. "These discounts routinely offer "X%" off the listed regular
prices defendant advertises. Defendant represents that these
discounts will only be available for a limited time, but in
reality, they continue indefinitely.
"For example, Defendant represents that its sales expire on a
particular date, for example: "Save 35% . . . now through 9/5." To
reasonable consumers, this means that after the specified date,
Defendant's products will no longer be on sale and will retail at
their purported regular price. But immediately after each
purportedly time-limited sale ends, Defendant generates another
similar discount, with a new expiration date.
Thiele-Yancy seeks unspecified compensatory damages, restitution
and punitive damages.
Representatives from Joybird and La-Z-Boy, which owns Joybird, did
not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Stitch Inds. represents the third major furniture retailer in a
year to be hit with accusations of false reference pricing. Last
February, Top 100 retailer American Freight was sued in California.
Just last month, Ashley Furniture agreed to settle a class action
suit alleging it misled customers to believe certain products were
worth more than they actually were. Per the settlement, Ashley gave
class members a $30 voucher that may be used on any of the
company's products. [GN]
STUBHUB INC: Kaiser Class Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kaiser v. StubHub,
Inc. The class action lawsuit captioned as Kaiser v. StubHub, Inc.,
Case No. 161449/2023 was removed from the Supreme Court of The
State of New York to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on Jan. 3, 2024.
The Southern New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:24-cv-00043 to the proceeding.
The suit alleges violation of Racketeering Act.
StubHub is an American ticket exchange and resale company.[BN]
TIMESHARE EXIT: Urges Washington Judge to Toss Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Hanson, writing for Law360, reports that Timeshare Exit Team,
a marketing firm connected with financial planning celebrity Dave
Ramsey, has urged a Washington federal judge to free it from a
proposed class action accusing it of falsely promoting a
timeshare-exit company, saying a decision in another suit prohibits
any judgment against it. [GN]
TOM'S OF MAINE: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Natural Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin reports that a New York federal judge has dismissed a
class action alleging that Tom's of Maine and its parent company
Colgate-Palmolive Co. marketed their toothpaste and deodorant as
"natural" when in fact they contained "synthetic and/or highly
chemically processed ingredients."
In a Jan. 3 order, Judge Kimba M. Wood of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York said plaintiffs failed to
produce evidence that a reasonable consumer interprets "natural" as
being devoid of all artificial ingredients. [GN]
TOYOTA AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over "Flex Commissions"
------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Zachariah, writing for Drive, reports that Toyota's financial
division is facing a class-action lawsuit in Australia over
allegations it breached financial regulations.
According to website Lawyerly, Toyota allegedly allowed its dealers
to set a higher interest rate on car loans above a base interest
rate set by Toyota Finance, with the difference reportedly paid
back to the dealers as 'flex commissions'.
It's alleged customers were not told the interest rate or loan term
had been set by the dealers.
Lead plaintiff Belinda Jenner, represented by Echo Law, claims the
financial commission "provided an incentive" and created
"self-interest," which the lawsuit claims created "unfairness" for
consumers, court documents reveal.
It's understood the Australian Securities and Investment Commission
(ASIC) formally banned flex commissions in the car finance market
in 2017.
"Toyota Finance Australia Limited has not been served with a
statement of claim, so we are unable to comment," a spokesperson
for Toyota Finance Australia told Drive.
"As always, if customers have any questions about their finance
contract, we encourage them to contact the Toyota Finance Customer
Service team on 137 200 from 8:30am to 5.30pm AEDT Monday to Friday
(excluding public holidays)."
Court documents reportedly show the plaintiff is seeking to allow
members of the class action to be able to nullify their car loans.
[GN]
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Renewed Bid for Class Certification Due Jan. 25
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LD, et al., v. United
Behavioral Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-02254-YGR (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order
setting the following schedule:
Event Deadline
Parties Exchange Expert Designation Jan. 18, 2024
for Class Certification (including
Plaintiffs' rebuttal experts, if
any)
Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Jan. 25, 2024
Class Certification and Expert Reports
Deadline for Depositions of Plaintiffs' Feb. 22, 2024
Experts
Defendants' Response to Renewed Motion March 14, 20241
for Class Certification and Expert
Reports
Deadline for Depositions of April 4, 2024
Defendants' Experts
Deadline for Plaintiffs' Reply in April 25, 2024
Support of Renewed Motion for Class
Certification
Deadline for Depositions of Plaintiffs' May 9, 2024
Rebuttal Experts, if any
Hearing on Renewed Motion for Class May 22, 2024
Certification
United was founded in 1996. The Company's line of business includes
providing management services on a contract and fee basis.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 18, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tDdYQi at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew M. Lavin, Esq.
ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY LLP
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 350S
Washington, DC 20037
Telephone: (202) 677-4030
Facsimile: (202) 677-4031
E-mail: matt.lavin@agg.com
- and -
David M. Lilienstein, Esq.
Katie J. Spielman, Esq.
DL LAW GROUP
345 Franklin Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 678-5050
Facsimile: (415) 358-8484
E-mail: david@dllawgroup.com
katie@dllawgroup.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Lauren M. Blas, Esq.
Geoffrey Sigler, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 229-7000
Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
E-mail: LBlas@gibsondunn.com
GSigler@gibsondunn.com
UNITED COAL: Final Nod to Class Settlement Sought in Chapman
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAUN CHAPMAN, on Behalf
of Himself and All Others Similarly-Situated, v. UNITED COAL
COMPANY, LLC, WELLMORE COAL COMPANY, LLC, and WELLMORE ENERGY
COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00137-CEA-CRW (E.D. Tenn.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting final approval to
Rule 23 class action settlement pursuant to Rule of Civil Procedure
23 and the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act in this wage and hour
action.
The Parties request that, after the Fairness Hearing scheduled for
January 9, 2024, the Court issue an Order finally certifying the
requested settlement class and approving the Settlement.
United Coal is a coal mining company.
A copy of the Parties motion dated Dec. 19, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41Fn63o at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark N. Foster, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC
Madisonville, KY 42431
Telephone: (270) 213-1303
E-mail: MFoster@MarkNFoster.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Joseph U. Leonoro, Esq.
Jonathan R. Ellis, Esq.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC
Charleston, WV 25326-1588
E-mail: Jonathan.Ellis@steptoe-johnson.com
Joseph.Leonoro@steptoe-johnson.com
UNITED SERVICES: Insurance Lawsuit Gets Class Action Status
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mika Pangilinan, writing for Insurance Business, reports that a
lawsuit accusing USAA of differential treatment towards military
officers and enlistees has been granted class-action status by a
federal judge in San Diego, California.
The lawsuit was filed in 2021 by enlisted service members
Eileen-Gayle Coleman and Robert Castro, who alleged that USAA
directed them towards insurance policies with higher premiums
compared to those offered to military officers.
Coleman, a Marine Corps radio operator, and Castro, an Army
culinary specialist, contended that USAA's pricing of automobile
insurance policies and deceptive business practices favor officers
over enlisted personnel.
The suit also questioned whether USAA intentionally guided
customers toward policies that potentially denied them the lowest
premiums available under "good driver" discounts.
"[USAA] claims to 'respect and honor the men and women in our
nation's military and their families who support them.' But as
shown by its pricing of automobile insurance policies and its
deceptive business practices, USAA respects and honors current and
former military officers more than it does current and former
enlisted personnel," the initial complaint stated.
Lawyers representing the insurer argued in court that the
California Department of Insurance should handle the dispute and
opposed the certification of the case as a class-action.
However, the recent ruling by Judge Robert S. Huie has granted
class-action status to the lawsuit, allowing the case to proceed.
With the lawsuit now proceeding as a class-action case, the court
will determine whether USAA consistently applied "good driver"
discounts to both enlisted personnel and officers.
A spokesperson for the company told the San Diego Union Tribune
that their practices align with California law, emphasizing that
regulatory approval is obtained for their rates.
"We remain committed to providing competitive products and
exceptional service to the military community," the spokesperson
added.
USAA has approximately 200,000 policyholders in California who
could be part of the represented class. [GN]
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: March 22 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
NEXSTAR reports that Verizon customers have started to receive
notifications they are eligible to receive a payment of up to $100
following a $100 million class action settlement with the wireless
company.
The lawsuit alleged Verizon customers were unfairly hit with an
administrative charge as part of a "deceptive scheme." Verizon had
denied any wrongdoing, but has agreed to pay affected users up to
$100 each.
Who qualifies for a Verizon settlement payment?
The settlement class is large, and includes both former and current
Verizon customers. If you had a postpaid phone plan with Verizon
between Jan. 1, 2016, and Nov. 8, 2023, and you paid an
"Administrative Charge" or a "Administrative and Telco Recovery
Charge" on your phone bill, you likely qualify.
Not sure if you had a "postpaid" phone plan? It's the opposite of a
prepaid plan. With postpaid plans, you sign a contract with a phone
provider, and then you're billed monthly based on your usage.
People who qualify will receive a notice, according to the
settlement administrator.
How do I file a claim?
The notices, which are being sent by mail and email, contain
information you'll need to make your claim, like an ID number and a
confirmation code.
You'll need to file a claim by April 15 to get paid.
How big will my payout be?
As is common with class action lawsuits, exactly how much each
person will receive isn't yet known. It depends, in part, on how
many people file a claim and get approved.
The minimum payment for eligible members is expected to start at
$15, according to the settlement administrator, and grow by
increments of $1 depending on how long you were a Verizon customer.
The longer you had one of the postpaid phone plans described in the
settlement, the bigger your payment will be.
At this point, the maximum payment is expected to be $100 per
customer.
Once the settlement is approved and final, payments will be sent by
check or electronic payment.
When will payments be sent?
The settlement needs to receive final court approval before any
money goes out to claimants. A hearing is scheduled for March 22 in
New Jersey, in which a judge will decide whether to approve the
settlement, the size of attorneys' fees, and other details of the
settlement.
After the hearing, there's a window in which objectors can file
appeals.
Only after settlement is granted final approval and any appeals are
resolved will the payments be issued. [GN]
WORLEY LTD: Faces Class Action Threats Over Corruption Allegations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Derwin and Laurel Henning, writing for Capital Brief, reports
that engineering giant Worley faces criminal prosecution and civil
lawsuits, an anti-corruption legal expert has warned, as an
Ecuadorian bribery scandal envelops the ASX-listed company.
An international tribunal in late December denied the company's
arbitration claim of nearly US$500 million ($700 million) from
state-owned companies on the basis it had been involved in "conduct
amounting to corruption".
The ruling, first reported by The Australian newspaper and obtained
by Capital Brief, found Worley illegally bribed Ecuadorian
government officials with gifts in a bid to win oil and gas
contracts as part of a "widespread pattern of illegality and bad
faith".
Worley denies any wrongdoing and says it "did not breach
anti-bribery and corruption laws".
In a new statement on Jan. 10, the company said it ceased
connections with a subcontractor in 2016 after the principal was
found guilty of corruption by an Ecuadorian court.
The company said it is considering further legal action but that
won't stop investigators probing the allegations.
Regulatory sources confirmed the corporate watchdog ASIC is
monitoring the situation closely but that may just be the start of
Worley's headache. [GN]
ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES: Jeffries Sues Over Private Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
BARRY JEFFRIES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:24-cv-00013-SPC-NPM (M.D. Fla., January 4, 2024) arises from
the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard its
customers' employees' sensitive personally identifiable information
(PII) and alleges claims for negligence, negligence per se, and
declaratory judgment arising from the data breach.
Despite Zeroed-In's duty to safeguard the PII of its customers'
current and previous employees, Plaintiff and Class Members' PII
was compromised in a data breach that Defendant became aware of on
or about August 8, 2023, during which a threat actor gained access
to Zeroed-In's computer systems. Despite learning about the breach
in August of 2023, Zeroed-In waited until almost four months later
-- on or about November 27, 2023 -- to begin notifying impacted
individuals of the unauthorized access, says the suit.
Zeroed-In is an American company specializing in cloud-based human
resources and workforce data analytics. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Ave, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
nickc@lcllp.com
[*] Duane Morris LLP Releases 2024 Class Action Review
------------------------------------------------------
Duane Morris LLP has released its Class Action Review 2024, an
analysis of more than 1,300 class action decisions in the past
year, examining all categories of class action litigation. This
publication provides a comprehensive analysis of class action
litigation trends and significant rulings and settlements from 2023
that will enable readers to make informed decisions when dealing
with complex litigation risks in 2024.
"This flagship firm publication analyzes class action trends,
decisions and settlements in all areas impacting corporate America
and provides insights as to what companies and corporate counsel
can expect in 2024, in terms of filings by the plaintiffs' class
action bar and court decisions on key Rule 23 issues," said Duane
Morris Chairman and CEO Matthew A. Taylor.
"Looking at the class action settlement numbers from the past year,
it's clear that last year's unprecedented level of settlements was
not a one-off phenomenon," said Duane Morris partner Gerald L.
Maatman Jr., co-author of the review and chair of the firm's
workplace class action division. "We have entered a period of
increased risk and heightened stakes in the valuation of class
actions. The massive numbers will only work to further motivate the
plaintiff's bar in 2024 to increase filings and assert even more
aggressive settlement positions."
Among the 10 overarching trends in the class action area in 2023,
the Duane Morris Class Action Review highlights four key takeaways
for companies in 2024, including:
1. Class Action Settlement Numbers Continue To Spike At
Unprecedented Levels -- In 2023, settlement numbers exceeded
expectations for the second year in a row. Reminiscent of the Big
Tobacco settlements nearly two decades ago, 2022 and 2023 marked
the most extensive set of billion-dollar class action settlements
in the history of the American court system. On an aggregate basis,
class actions and government enforcement lawsuits garnered more
than $50 billion in settlements in 2023, bringing the combined
total for 2022 and 2023 to $113 billion. Corporations should expect
such numbers to incentivize the plaintiffs' class action bar to be
equally if not more aggressive with their case filings and
settlement positions in 2024.
2. Data Breach Class Actions Continued Their Growth And
Inconsistent Outcomes -- The volume of data breach class actions
exploded in 2023 and their unique challenges, including issues of
standing and uninjured class members, continued to vex the courts,
leading to inconsistent outcomes. Plaintiffs bringing data breach
class actions, however, continued to face hurdles associated with
their ability to demonstrate an injury from the alleged data breach
and, if they survived dismissal, with convincing courts to grant
class certification. Indeed, less than 25% of the class
certification decisions issued in data breach cases in 2023 came
out in favor of plaintiffs.
3. Generative AI Began Transforming Class Action Litigation
-- In 2023, Duane Morris LLP saw the tip of the iceberg relative to
the ways that generative AI is poised to transform class action
litigation. While the debate continues as to their effectiveness,
generative AI is potentially enabling the plaintiffs' class action
bar to do "more with less" like never before, which inevitably will
lead to more lawsuits that can be handled by fewer lawyers in less
time and a potential surge of class action lawsuits on the
horizon.
4. Government Enforcement Lawsuit Filings Reflected A Resurgence --
In 2023, the EEOC's litigation enforcement activity showed that its
previous slowdown in filing activity is well in the rearview
mirror, as the total number of lawsuits filed by the EEOC increased
from 97 in 2022 to a whopping total of 144 in FY 2023. Overall, the
2023 lawsuit filing data confirms that aggressive EEOC enforcement
activity is back on the menu and the litigation filing machine is
back in full throttle, with no signs of slowing down. Now that the
EEOC has a majority of Democratic-appointed commissioners firmly in
place, along with a significantly increased proposed budget,
corporate America can expect to see a resurgence of enforcement
activity in 2024. [GN]
*********
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 ***