/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240322.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, March 22, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 60
Headlines
AETNA HEALTH AND LIFE: Prosser TCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
AKIMA GLOBAL: Yeend Seeks to Stay Class Cert. Deadline
ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY: Faces Sims Securities Suit
AMAZON SERVICES.COM: Bid for Conditional Certification Due July 19
AMAZON.COM INC: Bid to Seal Unredacted Response Partly OK'd
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Beagle Suit Over Privacy Violations
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Gianne et al. Suit Over Deceptive Conduct
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit in NY Court
ASHIRWARD HOSPITALITY: Court Junks Mullen Class Suit
BARILLA AMERICA: Long Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
BEN BRIDGE-JEWELER: Fernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BLUE DIAMOND: Court Dismisses Wood Class Action
BLUETRITON BRANDS: Faces Deceptive Water Bottle Label Class Suit
BOEHNKE WASTE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Beukes Alleges
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Allen Alleges
CONTINENTAL STOCK: Faces Jones Suit Over Management-Led Buyout
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Class Suit Settlement Requires Inspection
DICKINSON COLLEGE: Jurek Seeks Prorated Refund of Tuition and Fees
FISKER INC: Karamian Seeks Damages for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
FURIA ESPORTS: Faces Garrison Suit Over Illegal Crypto Scheme
FUTURE RESTAURANTS: Reese Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
GEICO CASUALTY: Won't Face Suit Over Overcharged Policyholders
GEORGE LITTLE: Bid to Certify Class in Harris Tossed
GERDAU AMERISTEEL: Juarez Sues Over Discrimination of Birth Fathers
GOODFELLOWS OF PASCO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carraballo Says
GREATFACES INC: Fernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HC CONCRETE: Avelar Suit Seeks FLSA Class Certification
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Class Cert Hearing Rescheduled to May 2
HEATHER RIDGE: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Tri-City Suit
HN & SONS: Pajano Seeks Leave to File Class Cert. Bid
INDEPENDENCE CITY, MO: Class Conditionally Certified in Shook Suit
ITG COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fakhurtdinov Says
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Acne Drug Contains Benzene, Montenegro Alleges
KEN'S FOODS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Austin Alleges
LULO ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Vazquez & Rodriguez Say
MOUNTAINEER GAS: West Side Residents Seek Damages From Outage
NAVY FEDERAL: Faces Class Suit Over Mortgage Discrimination Claims
NESTLE USA: Faces Class Suit Over Perrier Mineral Water Ads
NEW YORK LIFE: Must File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal
NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Court Certifies Data Breach Class Suit
NISSAN NORTH: Anderson Sues Over Defective Motor Vehicles
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Motion to Dismiss Train Derailment Suit Denied
PHYSICIANS TO WOMEN: Hall Seeks Damages for Data Breach
PINNACLE TOO: Seeks to Decertify Conditionally Certified Collective
PLASTIC COMPONENTS: Niemczyk Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
PPL CORP: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Retirement Funds Class Suit
PRO SHINE DETAILING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fuentes Alleges
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Maddaloni Sues Over Mislabeled Hygiene Products
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Waden Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Bid to Seal Exhibits in Watson OK'd
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Court Stays Grady Suit
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Turner Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
PROPAK LOGISTICS: Bifurcated Discovery Bid Tossed in Roberts
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Matthews Sues Over Breach of Contract
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery in Theodore to Close July 2024
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Theodore Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
RB HEALTH: Acne Treatment Drugs Contain Benzene, Montenegro Claims
RIOT GAMES: Garrison Seeks Damages Over Alleged FTX Fraud
RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Allowed Leave to File Partially Sealed Exhibits
RODAN + FIELDS COMPANY: Dann Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
RP ILLUSIONS CORP: Valcarcel Files Suit in S.D. New York
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Settles Repossession Issue Suit for $14MM
SECOND ROUND: Court Dismisses Fords' Third Amended Complaint
SOUTHEASTERN GROCERS: Faces Sex & Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
STRATFS LLC: Bishop Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice
SUNNOVA ENERGY: Faces Class Suit Over $3 Billion Biden Loan
SUSAN MUELLER: "Allen" Protective Order Applicable in Jacobs Case
SUSAN MUELLER: "Allen" Protective Order Applicable in Ortiz Case
SUSAN MUELLER: "Allen" Protective Order Applicable in Perez Case
SUSAN MUELLER: "Allen" Protective Order Applicable in Reyes Case
SUSAN MUELLER: "Allen" Protective Order Applicable in Rivera Case
TARGET CORP: Navarro Sues Over Acne Treatment Products' False Ads
TGI FRIDAYS: McCollum Class Certification Bid Partly Granted
UNIBARNS TRADING: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to May 6
UNITED ELECTRIC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Agnew Alleges
UNITED STATES: Faces $50M Class Suit Over Unpaid Salaries
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Employee Retirement Plan Suit Heads to Trial
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Plaintiffs Bid to Consolidate Data Breach Suits
UP FINTECH HOLDING: Burns Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
VGW HOLDINGS: Kennedy Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct.
WELLS FARGO BANK: Bishop Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Ohio
WELLS FARGO: Curry Sues Over Improper Mortgage Modifications
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Lamanna Suit Over Undisclosed Fridge Defect
WIDENER UNIVERSITY: Sparacino Seeks COVID-19 Tuition Fee Refunds
YOUR HOMETOWN: Plaintiffs Can File Conditional Class Cert. Bid
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Faces 3,606 PI Claims as of Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: APi Group Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Defends Personal Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cincinnati Financial Has $98MM A&E Loss Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Energy Estimates $131MM Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Receives 1,500 New Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dayforce Defends Asbestos Related Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EFH Has 28,000 Claims Filed as of Feb. 20
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enviri Corp. Has 17,000 Pending PI Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Group Records $209MM Net Loss Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corp. Has 10,976 Pending Claims as of Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Inc. Faces 1,065 PI Lawsuits as of Jan 31.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Horace Mann Insurance Defends Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IPALCO Still Defends Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Co-Defends 1,387 Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ODP Corp. Estimates $25MM Possible Losses
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paramount Global Reports 2,790 New Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Perrigo Co. Faces 115 Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Estimates $61.5MM in Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp Has 459 PI Cases Pending at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Fire Group Has $0.8MM A&E Loss Reserves
*********
AETNA HEALTH AND LIFE: Prosser TCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Christopher Prosser, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Aetna Health and Life Insurance
Company, John and Jane Does 1 through 18, Case No. 24JE-CC00098 was
removed from the Circuit Court, Jefferson County State of Missouri,
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on
March 4, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-00328 to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Aetna -- https://www.aetna.com/ -- offers health insurance, as well
as dental, vision and other plans.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Edwin V. Butler, II, Esq.
BUTLER LAW GROUP LLC
1650 Des Peres Road, Suite 220
Des Peres, MO 63131
Phone: (314) 504-0001
Email: edbutler@butlerlawstl.com
The Defendant is represented by:
David Krueger, Esq.
BENESCH FRIEDLANDER LLP - Cleveland
127 Public Square, Suite 4900
Cleveland, OH 44114
Phone: (440) 313-2974
Fax: (440) 363-4588
Email: dkrueger@beneschlaw.com
AKIMA GLOBAL: Yeend Seeks to Stay Class Cert. Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yeend et al., v. Akima
Global Services, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01281-TJM-CFH (N.D.N.Y.),
the Plaintiffs request that the Court stay the deadline for the
Plaintiffs' class certification motion pending the Court's
determination of the Defendant's motion to dismiss and for summary
judgment.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs request that the Court stay the
Plaintiffs' deadline to move for class certification until 30 days
after its determination of Defendant's motion to dismiss and for
summary judgment.
The Defendant opposes this request—a surprising position, given
their assertion, on the first page of the Memorandum of Law in
support of their dispositive motion, that the issues it raises
"must be addressed" "before this Court is required to consider
class certification."
We agree that deciding the dispositive questions in the Defendant's
motion before the parties brief class certification serves the
interests of judicial efficiency and preserves judicial and party
resources.
Akima delivers protective services and detention management
operations for the military, federal buildings, and more.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 7, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yPNRMh at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alison Frick, Esq.
KAUFMAN LIEB LEBOWITZ & FRICK
18 E. 48th St., Suite 802
New York, NY10017
Telephone: (212) 660-2332
ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY: Faces Sims Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 21, 2024, that the company is
defending a putative class action captioned "Sims, et al. v.
Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, et al." (W.D. Tex.
filed June 2022) that raise challenges to the company's
depreciation practices in homeowner property claims where
plaintiffs generally allege that, when calculating actual cash
value, the costs of "non-materials" such as labor, general
contractor's overhead and profit, and sales tax should not be
subject to depreciation.
The Allstate Corporation is an insurance company, headquartered in
Glenview, Illinois.
AMAZON SERVICES.COM: Bid for Conditional Certification Due July 19
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTIAN LEITCH, et al.,
v. AMAZON SERVICES.COM LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-06121-MMG-BCM
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered a case management
schedule order as follows:
1. Fact Discovery. Depositions shall be completed no later than
April 19, 2024. All fact discovery shall be completed no
later
than May 3, 2024.
2. Expert Discovery. All expert discovery shall be completed no
later than June 28, 2024.
3. Plaintiffs' Motion to Conditionally Certify an FLSA
Collective or Rule 23 Class. The Plaintiffs shall file any
motion for conditional collective or class certification no
later than July 19, 2024.
4. Status Conference. Judge Moses will conduct a status
conference
on May 14, 2024, at 11:00 a.m. No later than May 7, 2024, the
parties shall submit a joint status letter outlining the
progress of discovery to date, as well as any settlement
efforts. If no discovery controversies exist at that time,
the
parties may request that the conference be held
telephonically.
5. Summary Judgment. No later than May 17, 2024 (14 days after
the
close of fact discovery), any party seeking to move for
summary
judgment shall submit a letter to the Hon. Margaret M.
Garnett,
United States District Judge, as outlined in Rule II.B.9 of
Judge Garnett's Individual Rules and Practices.
Amazon offers many of the Web service platforms that are Amazon
offers.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LRsiLU at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM INC: Bid to Seal Unredacted Response Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YASMINE MAHONE and BRANDON
TOLE, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00594-MJP (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge Marsha J. Pechman entered an order granting
in part and denying in part the motion to seal.
-- The Court agrees that Defendants' unredacted Response and the
unredacted Poole Declaration should remain under seal.
-- The Court also agrees that portions of the Estevez Report
should be kept under seal, but only those portions which
disclose
specific employee ratings.
-- The references to aggregate data in the Estevez Report must be
made public.
The Defendants have filed a motion to seal in order to obtain
permission to file unredacted copies of their Response to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, as well as portions of
the Declaration of Brian Poole and the Report of Valentine
Estevez.
Amazon.com is an American multinational corporation and technology
company focusing on e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QPID3G at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Beagle Suit Over Privacy Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
MEREDITH BEAGLE; and JORDAN GUERRERO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC.; and
AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00316 (W.D.
Wash., March 8, 2024) alleges violation of the Video Privacy
Protection Act and the Washington Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint, that Amazon Services
discloses personally identifiable information ("PII") to its parent
company, Amazon Inc., on a regular basis in violation of the VPPA,
and the WCPA. Amazon Services discloses consumers' PII to Amazon
for audience measurement purposes, marketing purposes, market
research purposes, advertising purposes, and other data collection
and analysis purposes. None of these services are in the ordinary
course of business as defined by the VPPA. Upon information and
belief, Amazon Services discloses PII to other Amazon affiliates as
well.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' violations of
the VPPA, and the WCPA, the Plaintiffs and Class Members have
suffered damages, including damages to their property right to
protected privacy, says the suit.
AMAZON.COM, INC. is an online retailer that offers a wide range of
products. The Company products include books, music, computers,
electronics, and numerous other products. Amazon offers
personalized shopping services, Web-based credit card payment, and
direct shipping to customers. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shaquelle M. Duncan, Esq.
DUNCAN LAW, PLLC
410 SW 10 th Street, Suite 215
Renton, WA 98057
Telephone: (206) 237-7714
Facsimile: (206) 238-1324
Email: duncans@duncanlawpllc.com
- and -
Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
580 California Street, Suite 1200
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 568-2124
Facsimile: (212) 304-0506
Email: fortunato@bespc.com
- and -
Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq.
Casey C. DeReus, Esq.
BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 308-5858
Facsimile: (212) 486-0462
Email: eagel@bespc.com
dereus@bespc.com
- and -
Amanda K. Klevorn, Esq.
Korey A. Nelson, Esq.
Laura S. Seggerman, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
365 Canal Street, Suite 1170
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 799-2845
Facsimile: (504) 881-1765
Email: aklevorn@burnscharest.com
knelson@burnscharest.com
lseggerman@burnscharest.com
- and -
Cristina Delise, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
757 Third Avenue, 20 th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (469) 663-5940
Facsimile: (469) 444-5002
Email: cdelise@burnscharest.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Gianne et al. Suit Over Deceptive Conduct
---------------------------------------------------------------
NATALIE GIANNE, NIKKI SANDERS, CHARLES BAUBLITZ, and JEFF WISEMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
AMAZON.COM INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00309 (W.D. Wash., March 7, 2024)
accuses the Defendant of breach of contract, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the
Washington Consumer Protection Act.
This action stems from Defendant's decision to change the terms of
its contract with subscribers regarding its subscription service
called Amazon Prime which offers access to Prime Video, an ad-free
streaming service of movies and television shows. Under the new
changes announced on January 29, 2024, subscribers, including
Plaintiffs, are required to pay another $2.99 per month so they can
continue to enjoy Prime Video's ad-free feature. That's on top of
the $139 annual subscription fee which was already paid upfront by
Plaintiffs on the understanding that they would enjoy Prime Video's
ad-free feature for the entire duration of their annual
subscription, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of all persons who
paid upfront fees for their annual subscription to Amazon Prime
before Amazon announced the changes to its contract terms. The
Plaintiffs further seek all available monetary relief for
Defendant's alleged violations.
Headquartered in Seattle, WA, Amazon is the world’s largest
online retailer. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
Rebecca L. Solomon
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 682-5600
Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
rsolomon@tousley.com
- and –
Rosemary Rivas, Esq.
Amanda M. Karl, Esq.
Rosanne L. Mah
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 350-9700
Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
E-mail: rmr@classlawgroup.com
amk@classlawgroup.com
rlm@classlawgroup.com
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit in NY Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the
Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 21, 2024, that on December 5, 2022,
and December 7, 2022, two private party plaintiffs filed putative
class action antitrust complaints against American and JetBlue in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
alleging that American and JetBlue violated U.S. antitrust law in
connection with the previously disclosed NEA. American, together
with JetBlue, filed a motion to dismiss on September 21, 2023,
which remains pending.
These actions were consolidated on January 10, 2023. The private
party plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on
February 3, 2023. On February 2, 2023, and February 15, 2023,
private party plaintiffs filed two additional putative class action
antitrust complaints against American and JetBlue in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts and the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, respectively.
On May 12, 2023, and May 24, 2023, respectively, the complaint
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York was consolidated with the other actions, and the complaint
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York. On June 23, 2023, the private party plaintiffs filed a
second amended consolidated complaint.
American Airlines Group Inc. is an airline holding company based in
Texas.
ASHIRWARD HOSPITALITY: Court Junks Mullen Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARTLEY MULLEN, v.
ASHIRWARD HOSPITALITY, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01277-MRH (W.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge Mark Hornak entered an order granting the
Defendant's motion to dismiss case.
Because Mullen has not demonstrated that he has suffered an injury
in fact under the intent to return, deterrent effect, and tester
standards, Mullen does not have standing.
Accordingly, because this dismissal is for want of subject matter
jurisdiction, and because the Court cannot conclude that the
deficiencies in Mullen's Amended Complaint could not be cured by
further amendment, granting leave for amendment is the proper
course.
The Court does note that repeated failure to cure deficiencies in
the complaint is a basis for dismissal with prejudice.
The Plaintiff Bartley Mullen brought this suit under the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA), claiming that Defendant's hotel in
Ligonier, Pennsylvania, violates the ADA by not having accessible
beds for double amputees using a specific type of wheelchair,
including him.
The Plaintiff is a double above-knee amputee.
The Defendant operates a hotel in Ligonier, Pennsylvania.
A copy of the Court's opinion dated March 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e8Jl4B at no extra
charge.[CC]
BARILLA AMERICA: Long Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Long v. Barilla America
Inc., Case No. 7:23-cv-07556-KMK (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff requests
a 90-day extension of the deadline to file her motion for class
certification in order to review the Defendant's most recent
production of documents and additional forthcoming production,
ensure there are no outstanding discovery deficiencies, take
depositions, and prepare expert reports for class certification as
appropriate.
Event Original Proposed
Deadline Deadline
Motion for Class Certification May 2, 2024 July 31,
2024
Disclosure of Class Certification May 2, 2024 July 31,
2024
Experts
Opposition to Class Certification June 17, 2024 Sept. 16,
2024
Disclosure of Rebuttal Class June 17, 2024 Sept. 16,
2024
Certification Experts
Reply in Support of Class Aug. 1, 2024 Oct. 30,
2024
Certification
The Plaintiff has not previously requested an extension of her
deadline to move for class certification. The Defendant did not
consent to the Plaintiff's requested extension, but stated it would
consent to "Possibly 30-45 days." Pursuant to Rule I.C of Your
Honor's Individual Rules of Practice, the Plaintiff asked for the
reasons that the Defendant would not consent to the requested
extension. The Defendant did not provide any reason.
arilla offers pasta, sauces, and bakery products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 6, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wmpTDY at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER P.A.
1330 Avenue of the AMericas
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: jdiamond@bursor.com
BEN BRIDGE-JEWELER: Fernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ben Bridge-Jeweler,
Inc. The case is styled as Jacqueline Fernandez, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Ben Bridge-Jeweler,
Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01597 (S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ben Bridge Jeweler -- https://www.benbridge.com/ -- offers a large
collection of high-quality jewelry from engagement rings and
diamond earrings & necklaces, to bracelets and watches.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
BLUE DIAMOND: Court Dismisses Wood Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENJAMIN WOOD,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS, Case No. 1:23-cv-01363-BAH (D. Md.), the Hon.
Judge Brendan A. Hurson entered an order granting the Defendant's
motion to dismiss case.
The Court finds the Plaintiff has established standing to sue;
however, the Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim for
relief. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
The Court finds that additional litigation of this matter is
futile, based on publicly available filings in other cases and the
extent of the rejection of Plaintiff's counsel's nearly identical
allegations in other courts.
The Plaintiff, a purchaser of Defendant's Smokehouse Almonds, seeks
class certification and asserts that BDG misrepresented that the
Almonds were produced in a smokehouse, when the smokey flavor, in
fact, was the result of natural liquid smoke. The Plaintiff brings
two
claims against BDG.
The Plaintiff Benjamin Wood alleges that the Defendant engaged in
misleading practices by advertising "smokehouse" almonds to
consumers that were, in fact, not produced in a smokehouse.
Blue Diamond is an agricultural cooperative and marketing
organization that specializes in California almonds.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated March 6, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UErNFB
at no extra charge.[CC]
BLUETRITON BRANDS: Faces Deceptive Water Bottle Label Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Styf of Top Class Actions reports that Poland Springs bottled
water parent company BlueTriton Brands is facing a class action
lawsuit claiming that its "100% natural spring water" actually
contains microplastics and a chemical used in plastics.
Microplastics have become a pervasive issue in bottled water, with
particles found in more than 90% of bottled water tested, the
Poland Springs class action says. Consuming microplastics can lead
to health issues including heart problems, endocrine disruption and
chronic inflammation, according to the lawsuit.
The water also contains phthalates, a chemical that gives plastic
more flexibility, transparency, durability and longevity, the
Poland Springs microplastics lawsuit says. Phthalates are linked to
heart problems and hormone disruption while no level of phthalates
is considered safe, the lawsuit says.
Plaintiff Jennifer Moore and class counsel have proposed both a New
York and nationwide class for the class action lawsuit. Moore is
asking for restitution, damages, a corrective advertising campaign
and attorneys’ costs and fees.
Poland Springs natural claims lead customers to pay more, lawsuit
says
The Poland Springs natural spring water claims lead consumers to
pay a price premium above the cost of other bottled water, the
lawsuit says.
"Labeling Poland Spring as '100% Natural Spring Water' is deceptive
and confusing," the Poland Springs microplastics lawsuit says. "A
reasonable consumer purchases Poland Spring believing they are
getting a bottle of nothing but spring water from nature.
Reasonable consumers, however, would not deem Poland Spring to be
100% natural spring water if they knew that the water in each
bottle contains phthalates and microplastics."
The company behind Fiji bottJon Styf of Top Class Actions reports
that Poland Springs bottled water parent company BlueTriton Brands
is facing a class action lawsuit claiming that its "100% natural
spring water" actually contains microplastics and a chemical used
in plastics.
Microplastics have become a pervasive issue in bottled water, with
particles found in more than 90% of bottled water tested, the
Poland Springs class action says. Consuming microplastics can lead
to health issues including heart problems, endocrine disruption and
chronic inflammation, according to the lawsuit.
The water also contains phthalates, a chemical that gives plastic
more flexibility, transparency, durability and longevity, the
Poland Springs microplastics lawsuit says. Phthalates are linked to
heart problems and hormone disruption while no level of phthalates
is considered safe, the lawsuit says.
Plaintiff Jennifer Moore and class counsel have proposed both a New
York and nationwide class for the class action lawsuit. Moore is
asking for restitution, damages, a corrective advertising campaign
and attorneys’ costs and fees.
Poland Springs natural claims lead customers to pay more, lawsuit
says
The Poland Springs natural spring water claims lead consumers to
pay a price premium above the cost of other bottled water, the
lawsuit says.
"Labeling Poland Spring as '100% Natural Spring Water' is deceptive
and confusing," the Poland Springs microplastics lawsuit says. "A
reasonable consumer purchases Poland Spring believing they are
getting a bottle of nothing but spring water from nature.
Reasonable consumers, however, would not deem Poland Spring to be
100% natural spring water if they knew that the water in each
bottle contains phthalates and microplastics."
The company behind Fiji bottled water is also facing a class action
lawsuit saying it falsely advertises its product as natural
artesian water when it actually contains microplastics.
The plaintiff is represented by Tina Wolfson and Bradley K. King of
Ahdoot and Wolfson PC.
The Poland Springs class action lawsuit is Moore v. Bluetriton
Brands Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01640, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York. [GN]
BOEHNKE WASTE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Beukes Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
PETERUS BEUKES; STEPHANUS DE KLERK; and CORNELIUS ENGELBRECHT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. BOEHNKE WASTE HANDLING LLC; and CHAD J. BOEHNKE,
Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-00828 (D. Minn., March 8, 2024)
seeking unpaid minimum and overtime wages, damages, and penalties
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as laborers.
BOEHNKE WASTE HANDLING LLC is a company that pumps, transports and
spreads manure from livestock operations to crop fields, where it
is used as fertilizer. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Peter Murray, Esq.
SOUTHERN MINNESOTA REGIONAL
LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
55 East 5 th St., Suite 400
St. Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (651) 894-6951
Facsimile: (651) 297-9757
Email: Peter.Murray@SMRLS.org
- and -
Elana Gold, Esq.
SOUTHERN MINNESOTA REGIONAL
LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
55 East 5 th St., Suite 400
St. Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (651) 894-6815
Facsimile: (651) 297-9757
Email: Elana.Gold@SMRLS.org
- and -
Griselt Andrade, Esq.
SOUTHERN MINNESOTA REGIONAL
LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
55 East 5 th St., Suite 400
St. Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (701) 232-8872
Facsimile: (651) 297-9757
Email: Griselt.Andrade@SMRLS.org
- and -
Lisa Hollingsworth, Esq.
SOUTHERN MINNESOTA REGIONAL
LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
55 East 5 th St., Suite 400
St. Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (651) 228-9823
Facsimile: (651) 297-9757
Email: Lisa.Hollingsworth@SMRLS.org
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Allen Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JIMMY ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00263 (M.D. Tenn., Mar. 6, 2024) is a class action arising
out of the recent cyberattack and data breach resulting from the
Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and industry standard
data security practices.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Data Breach was a
direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and
reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to
protect patients' Private Information from a foreseeable and
preventable cyber-attack.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk
because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the Private
Information that the Defendant collected and maintained is now in
the hands of data thieves, says the suit.
CHANGE HEALTHCARE, INC. provides healthcare technology solutions.
The Company offers analytical, connectivity, communication,
payment, consumer engagement, and workflow optimization software
solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Michael Iadevaia, Esq.
Emily Schiller, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
miadevaia@stranchlaw.com
eschiller@stranchlaw.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
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq.
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION
FIRM, PLLC
401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 500-1500
Email: billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
CONTINENTAL STOCK: Faces Jones Suit Over Management-Led Buyout
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MARC BELL; DANIEL STATON; JAMES LACHANCE;
THOMAS MANION; RICHARD NEWTON III; TOBI PETROCELLI; DOUGLAS
RAABERG; STRATTON SCLAVOS, and CONTINENTAL STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST
COMPANY, Defendants, and TERRAN ORBITAL CORPORATION, Nominal
Defendant, Case No. 2024-0218 (Del. Ch., March 6, 2024) is an
action challenging the brazen attempt by the members of the Terran
Board to entrench themselves, and potentially favor a
management-led buyout over competing bids, by adopting an
unreasonable and overbroad poison pill (the "Pill").
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, instead of allowing
stockholders to freely assert their will through a normal process
of corporate democracy, the Board took swift action to entrench
itself and stifle stockholder democracy. On March 4, 2024, less
than one business day after Lockheed publicly disclosed its
takeover offer, the Board adopted the Pill, which goes far beyond
prohibiting the accumulation of Terran shares.
Specifically, the Pill aggregates the ownership of those whom the
Board deems to be "Acting in Concert" with one another. The Pill
defines "Acting In Concert" to include benign communications simply
related to influencing the control of the Company and contains an
alarming daisy-chain provision that aggregate the ownership of
persons that may not even know of each other's existence. These
provisions make the Pill overbroad, unworkable, and ripe for
subjective interpretation by the Board, says the suit.
Terran Orbital Corporation provides wireless communication
equipment. The Company offers nano and micro-satellites, as well as
mission solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ned Weinberger, Esq.
Michael C. Wagner, Esq.
LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP
222 Delaware Ave., Suite 1510
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 573-2540
Email: nweinberger@labaton.com
mwagner@labaton.com
- and -
John Vielandi, Esq.
LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
- and -
Joel Fleming, Esq.
Lauren Godles Milgroom, Esq.
EQUITY LITIGATION GROUP LLP
101 Arch Street, 8th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 468-8602
- and -
Jeremy S. Friedman, Esq.
David F.E. Tejtel, Esq.
FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D
Bedford Hills, NY 10507
Tel: (888) 529-1108
- and -
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Tel: (484) 324-6800
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Class Suit Settlement Requires Inspection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Richmond of Ideastream Public Media reports that Cuyahoga
County has reached a settlement with plaintiffs in a 2018 class
action lawsuit over conditions in the county jail.
The settlement does not include a monetary award for plaintiffs,
but instead focuses on conditions in the jail.
"I didn't want money. I just want changes to be made," said Tonya
Clay, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. "And I don't think they're
being made. They just tell you something, they're going to do this,
but it gets worse and worse."
Clay joined her attorneys, Sarah Gelsomino and Terry Gilbert, for a
press conference March 13, 2024, a day after Cuyahoga County
Council approved the terms of the settlement.
Clay was arrested in September 2018 and initially held on a $30,000
bond that was later increased to $100,000. She and a co-defendant
were charged in a shooting and Clay spent eight months in county
jail before posting bail.
Her time in the jail was a nightmare, said Clay, who added she
suffers from bipolar disorder and struggled to receive medical care
while held there.
"It's sad. There's people dying in there. Nobody should lose their
family member because they're not getting their medication or
anything, " Clay said, holding back tears. "That could have been me
that died in there."
After pleading guilty to one of the charges she faced, Clay
received two years of probation, which she successfully completed
in 2020.
During Clay's time in the county jail 11 other detainees died in
less than a year and a report by the U.S. Marshals Service,
released in November 2018, described inhumane, overcrowded
conditions in the jail.
The settlement is one step in the county’s ongoing work to
improve conditions at the jail, said county spokesperson Jennifer
Ciaccia in a statement following council’s approval of the
settlement.
"The parties chose to work cooperatively to address conditions and
practices in the jail with the goal of improving those conditions,"
Ciaccia said.
Part of the process was hiring an outside expert to inspect and
report on conditions in the jail. The report, completed in July
2022, was based on site visits in 2021 and written by Martin Horn,
a professor emeritus at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
The 252-page report covers a wide range of policies, including on
use of force policies, medical care and food services. The version
the county provided to Ideastream includes fully redacted sections
on uses of force by corrections officers.
It's unclear how many of the report's recommendations have been met
already, two years after the report was issued. One issue --
medical screenings of every prisoner upon arrival at the prison --
appears to have been addressed since the report was completed,
according to the report and county council meetings on the topic.
Plaintiffs' attorney Terry Gilbert was involved in a lawsuit
against the county in the 1980s that focused on conditions in Jail
I, one of the two buildings at the Downtown Cleveland Justice
Center. That lawsuit led to the building of Jail II next door, and
according to Gilbert, issues at the jail still need to be addressed
decades later.
"You've got to remember these are people who are presumed to be
innocent, who haven't been convicted of crimes, who can't make bond
and who had to suffer through these difficult conditions in the
jail," Gilbert said. "Hopefully this is a start that we can
actually have some control over how the jail will be reformed."
In addition to the recommendations from Horn’s report, the county
will pay for a jail monitor, Utah-based corrections consultant
Donald Leach, to conduct twice-yearly inspections of the jail and
report on the county’s progress.
The county will also hire two monitors to oversee the county's
medical services contract with MetroHealth and food services
contract with Trinity Services Group.
The inspections will start in 180 days, said Gelsomino, and their
reports will be public.
"We're trying to open up the realities of what's happening in the
jail, and hopefully with that, with some public scrutiny, we will
have a better chance of holding the county accountable to what's
been agreed to here, "Gelsomino said. [GN]
DICKINSON COLLEGE: Jurek Seeks Prorated Refund of Tuition and Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
AVERY JUREK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. DICKINSON COLLEGE, Case No. 1:24-cv-00408-CCC (M.D. Pa., March
7, 2024) accuses the Defendant of breach of implied contract and
unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff was an undergraduate student at Defendant during the
Spring 2020 semester. She availed of Defendant's on-campus,
in-person education program and paid tuition and fees for the
entirety of the semester. The Plaintiff's paid-for experience was
not provided throughout the Spring 2020 semester as Defendant
transitioned to remote online-only education in March 2020 due to
the COVID-19 pandemic.
According to the complaint, the Defendant refused to provide
Plaintiff and others similarly situated a prorated refund of
tuition or fees tied to its on-campus education program and
services. The Plaintiff seeks relief for Defendant's alleged
violations.
Dickinson College is a private liberal arts college offering 46
undergraduate programs. Its principal campus is located in the city
of Carlisle, Cumberland County, PA. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
jamisen@lcllp.com
nickc@lcllp.com
- and –
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
Anthony Alesandro, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com
FISKER INC: Karamian Seeks Damages for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HAMID KARAMIAN, derivatively on behalf of FISKER INC. v. HENRIK
FISKER, GEETA GUPTAFISKER, MARK E. HICKSON, JOHN FINNUCAN, RODERICK
K. RANDALL, WILLIAM R. MCDERMOTT, NADINE L. WATT, WENDY J. GREUEL,
and MITCHELL ZUKLIE, Case No. 2:24-cv-01867 (C.D. Cal., March 7,
2024), accuses the Defendants of breaches of fiduciary duties,
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and other
misconduct.
The Plaintiff, a current shareholder of Fisker (the Company),
brings this shareholder derivative action on behalf of Fisker
against certain officers and the members of Fisker's Board of
Directors. The Plaintiff alleges that between August 3, 2023 and
November 20, 2023, Individual Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and
prospects, resulting in substantial damage to Fisker and its
stockholders. He further seeks to recover monetary damages to
remedy the harm done to the Company and its stockholders arising
from Defendants' misconduct.
Henrik Fisker is the co-founder, Chief Executive Officer, and
Chairman of the Board of Fisker, an American electric vehicle
company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 785-2610
Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
FURIA ESPORTS: Faces Garrison Suit Over Illegal Crypto Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
EDWIN GARRISON; BRANDON ORR; LEANDRO CABO; RYAN HENDERSON; MICHAEL
LIVIERATOS; GREGG PODALSKY; ALEXANDER CHERNYAVSKY; VIJETH SHETTY;
CHUKWUDOZIE EZEOKOLI; MICHAEL NORRIS; SHENGYUN HUANG; VITOR VOZZA;
KYLE RUPPRECHT; and SUNIL KAVURI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FURIA ESPORTS LLC; FURIA
GG CORPORATION; and FURIA EXPERIENCE LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-20895-RS (S.D. Fla., March 7, 2024) alleges that the
Defendants directly perpetrated, conspired to perpetrate, and aided
and abetted the FTX Group's multi-billion-dollar frauds for its own
financial and professional gain.
According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, the FTX Group offered
and sold securities without proper registration, thereby depriving
the Plaintiffs of financial and risk-related disclosures that would
have impacted their calculus as to whether to invest in the FTX
Group. Rather than heed the myriad warnings from the SEC dating as
far back as 2017, the FTX Group chose instead to skirt US
regulation through deception.
The Defendants are responsible for the damages that Class Members
have sustained. Defendants were a necessary player in pushing the
FTX fraud to the unprecedented extent it reached, and made
exorbitant amounts of money in the process of doing so. The
Defendants helped create the false narratives about FTX and used
celebrities to give them instant credibility, says the suit.
FURIA ESPORTS LLC, stylized as FURIA Esports or simply FURIA, is a
Brazilian professional esports organization. Furia competes in
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, Rocket League, League of Legends,
Valorant, Rainbow Six: Siege, Apex Legends and Super Smash Bros.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
Barbara C. Lewis, Esq.
THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 740-1423
Email: adam@moskowitz-law.com
joseph@moskowitz-law.com
barbara@moskowitz-law.com
service@moskowitz-law.com
- and -
Stephen Neal Zack, Esq.
Tyler Ulrich, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
100 SE 2nd St., Suite 2800
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 539-8400
Email: szack@bsfllp.com
tulrich@bsfllp.com
- and -
Jose M. Ferrer, Esq.
MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN
Brickell City Tower
80 SE 8th Street, Suite 1999
Miami, FL 33130
Email: jose@markmigdal.com
FUTURE RESTAURANTS: Reese Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER REESE and others similarly situated v. FUTURE
RESTAURANTS, LLC, d/b/a TACO BELL, Case No. 3:24-cv-00270 (M.D.
Tenn., March 7, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938.
The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant, initially hired as
a crew member on January 5, 2022 and paid on an hourly basis. He
was later promoted to a shift manager and still paid on an hourly
basis with the ability to earn overtime as a non-exempt employee.
The Plaintiff's employment was terminated in January 2024.
The Plaintiff alleges that throughout his employment, he and
similarly situated employees were regularly and repeatedly not
compensated for overtime hours worked, in violation of the FLSA.
Future Restaurants LLC franchises and operates a Taco Bell
restaurant in Fairview, Williamson County, TN. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kerry E. Knox, Esq.
117 South Academy Street
Murfreesboro, TN 37130
Telephone: (615) 896-1000
- and –
Stephen W. Grace, Esq.
1019 16th Avenue, South
Nashville, TN 37212
Telephone: (615) 255-5225
GEICO CASUALTY: Won't Face Suit Over Overcharged Policyholders
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel of SRN News reports that Geico, the car insurer
owned by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway, will not face
class-action claims as it defends against a lawsuit alleging it
overcharged policyholders early in the COVID-19 pandemic, a federal
judge ruled on March 12, 2024.
U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman in Chicago said
policyholders in Illinois could not sue as a group because
questions about calculating damages for individual drivers would
"inevitably overwhelm" questions common to the proposed class.
She also found no "common injury" from Geico's statements that it
created its "Geico Giveback" program because "shelter in place laws
have reduced driving" and it wanted to start "passing these
savings" to customers.
Class actions can let plaintiffs pursue greater recoveries at less
cost than if they sued individually.
The case was brought by Illinois purchasers of Geico car,
motorcycle or RV insurance since March 21, 2020, including those
who visited the "What if I'm driving less?" or "Why are we doing
this? " pages on Geico's website.
Geico in April 2020 offered policyholders $2.5 billion of credits,
including 15% on renewals.
The plaintiffs said Geico should have joined rival insurers such as
State Farm and Allstate by offering refunds as driving accidents
declined.
They said Geico ended up charging "unconscionably excessive"
premiums that violated Illinois consumer protection laws.
The plaintiffs' lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for
comment. Lawyers for Geico did not immediately respond to similar
requests.
Less driving during the pandemic contributed to Geico's "loss
ratio," or percentage of premiums paid to cover claims, falling in
2020 to a 13-year low.
The insurer later suffered six consecutive quarters of underwriting
losses, but has since rebounded by tightening standards and
reducing policies in force. Geico earned $3.64 billion before taxes
from underwriting in 2023.
Berkshire, based in Omaha, Nebraska, has owned all of Geico since
1996. Geico is based in Chevy Chase, Maryland.
The case is Thomas et al v Geico Casualty Co et al, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of Illinois, No. 20-04306. [GN]
GEORGE LITTLE: Bid to Certify Class in Harris Tossed
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID HARRIS, et al., v.
SECRETARY GEORGE LITTLE, et. al., Case No. 2:22-cv-03715-JFL (E.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Leeson, Jr. entered an order denying
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=H3xGYl at no extra
charge.[CC]
GERDAU AMERISTEEL: Juarez Sues Over Discrimination of Birth Fathers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN JUAREZ and WILLIAM PHILLIPS v. GERDAU AMERISTEEL US, INC.
and GERDAU MACSTEEL, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00572-S (N.D. Tex.,
March 7, 2024) is a class action alleging the Defendants of
violating the federal Equal Pay Act.
The Plaintiffs bring this action to challenge Defendants' policy
and practice of discriminating against birth fathers in the
provision of paid parental leave. They allege that during their
employment with Ameristeel within the last three years, Defendants
rejected their request for parental leave after their partners both
gave birth to their children. The Plaintiffs were denied any option
other than to take their regular earned vacation time and paid time
off.
The Defendants, until January 2023, allegedly implemented a policy
that discriminated against male employees by not affording birth
fathers paid parental leave while affording birth mothers six weeks
of paid parental bonding leave. The Plaintiffs claim that
Defendants' policy and practice constituted gender discrimination
in the terms of conditions of employment, in violation of the EPA.
Ameristeel is a steel production company that operates steel
manufacturing facilities in at least 13 states, including, but not
limited to, Texas, Georgia, Iowa, Arkansas, and Indiana. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
Brian W. Denlinger, Esq.
ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
315 S. Beverly Drive, Ste. 504
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 277-0614
Facsimile: (310) 277-0635
E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com
bd@ackermanntilajef.com
- and –
Cheryl B. Legare, Esq.
LEGARE, ATTWOOD & WOLFE, LLC
Two Decatur Town Center
Suite 380, 125 Clairemont Ave.
Decatur, GA 30030
Telephone: (470) 823-4000
E-mail: cble@law-llc.com
- and –
Matthew J. Clark, Esq.
GREGORY, MOORE, BROOKS @ CLARK, P.C.
28 W. Adams Ave., Suite 300
Detroit, MI 48226
Telephone: (313) 964-5600
E-mail: matt@unionlaw.net
GOODFELLOWS OF PASCO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carraballo Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELIQUE CARRABALLO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOODFELLOWS OF PASCO COUNTY, INC.
d/b/a BRASS FLAMINGO; RICHARD D. HILL; and MAUREEN MONREALE,
Defendants, Case No. 8:24-cv-00604 (M.D. Fla., March 7, 2024) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Carraballo was employed by the Defendants as an
entertainer.
GOODFELLOWS OF PASCO COUNTY, INC. operates as a night club in Pasco
County, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony Hall, Esq.
Annie Blanc, Esq.
THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
1560 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 600
Winter Park, FL 32789
Telephone: (407) 574-4999
Facsimile: (833) 813-7512
Email: ahall@theleachfirm.com
ablanc@theleachfirm.com
yhernandez@theleachfirm.com
GREATFACES INC: Fernandez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GreatFaces, Inc. The
case is styled as Jacqueline Fernandez, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. GreatFaces, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-01585 (S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
GreatFaces, Inc. doing business as Eve Pearl --
https://www.evepearl.com/ -- is Makeup with Skincare.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
HC CONCRETE: Avelar Suit Seeks FLSA Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUIS AVELAR and MATEO
GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of all similarly-situated
persons, v. HC CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC, AND JON HARRIS,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00292 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order:
-- certifying case as class action;
-- designating them and their counsel as representatives
of the Class;
-- requiring the Defendants to provide them with the names,
addresses (physical and e-mail), cell phone numbers and/or
telephone numbers of all Class Members within ten days of
entry
of the order granting class certification; and
-- directing the issuance of notice to Class Members pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2) in Spanish and English.
The Plaintiffs initiated this case as collective action pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") on behalf of themselves and
all current and former hourly-paid construction workers who worked
for HC Concrete, and who were classified as "independent
contractors" at any time since April 22, 2019.
The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants improperly classified
Plaintiffs and putative collective class members as "independent
contractors" to avoid paying overtime as legally required under the
FLSA, as well as depriving Plaintiffs and putative collective class
members of other critical benefits and protections to which they
were entitled, such as family and medical leave, employer
contributions to
Social Security and Medicare funds, tax withholdings, and
contributions to state unemployment insurance and workers'
compensation funds.
H&C specializes in foundations, pile caps, foundation walls, slab
on grade, cast in place columns/walls, and elevated cast.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 7, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PaWupq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
M. Reid Estes, Jr., Esq.
Martin D. Holmes, Esq.
Autumn L. Gentry, Esq.
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
Fifth Third Center, Suite 800
424 Church Street
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-6538
Facsimile: (844) 670-6009
E-mail: restes@dickinsonwright.com
mdholmes@dickinsonwright.com
agentry@dickinsonwright.com
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Class Cert Hearing Rescheduled to May 2
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAX STORY, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. HEARTLAND PAYMENT
SYSTEMS, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, Case No.
3:19-cv-00724-TJC-JBT (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Timothy Corrigan
entered an order rescheduling the April 23, 2024, hearing on the
Plaintiff's motion to certify class to May 2, 2024, at 10:00 a.m
-- The Court will also hear arguments on the Daubert motions,
Docs.
221, 222, at the hearing.
-- The hearing will be non-evidentiary.
Heartland is a U.S.-based payment processing and technology
provider.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=swTqth at no extra
charge.[CC]
HEATHER RIDGE: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Tri-City Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tri-City Electric Company
of Iowa v. Heather Ridge II TC, LP et al., Case No.
4:23-cv-04135-SLD-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E.
Hawley entered a standing order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rw5S3U at no extra
charge.[CC]
HN & SONS: Pajano Seeks Leave to File Class Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Benjamin Pagano, et al. v.
HN & Sons LLC d/b/a Bushwick Public House, et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-04897-BMC (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order granting them leave to file their Motion for Fed. R. Civ.
P.
Rule 23 class certification against the Defendants
The Plaintiffs would additionally respectfully request that the
Court hold an inquest to determine a monetary judgment against the
Defaulted Defendants after the Court's ruling on our Rule 23
Motion.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") Article 6 collective class action.
HN & Sons is a coffee shop and bar under one roof.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=M11CyD at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William Li, Esq.
WILLIAM K LI LAW PLLC
535 Fifth Avenue, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 380-8198
E-mail: wli@wlilaw.com
INDEPENDENCE CITY, MO: Class Conditionally Certified in Shook Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNIE SHOOK, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE CITY OF
INDEPENDENCE, MISSOURI, Case No. 4:23-cv-00028-DGK (W.D. Mo.), the
Hon. Judge Greg Kays entered an order conditionally certifying
class.
-- The Defendant shall produce to Plaintiff the names, job titles,
dates of employment, last known addresses, and email addresses
of
potential plaintiffs within 7 days of this Order.
-- The Plaintiff is authorized to send notice and consent forms,
by
mail and email to potential class members.
Each potential plaintiff shall have 60 days from the date the
mailing list is provided to opt-in to the litigation.
This putative collective-action case arises out of the Plaintiff
Donnie Shooks's allegations that Defendant The City of
Independence, Missouri violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. section 201–219, by underpaying overtime
compensation due him and other similarly situated employees.
The Defendant concedes the Plaintiff has met his minimal burden for
purposes of conditional certification. Because Plaintiff has met
his minimal burden of showing he is similarly situated to other
firefighters for purposes of conditional certification, the motion
is
granted.
The Plaintiff was a firefighter for Defendant and subject to a
collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") between Defendant and the
International Association of Firefighters, Local 781.
Accordingly, the Court conditionally certifies the following class:
"All current and former Independence, Missouri firefighters who
worked out-of position at a higher rate of pay and worked more
than
204 hours in the same 27-day period at any time beginning three
years prior to joining this lawsuit."
Independence is the 5th most populous city in Missouri and the
county seat of Jackson County.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4hzUbc at no extra
charge.[CC]
ITG COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fakhurtdinov Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DENIS FAKHURTDINOV, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ITG COMMUNICATIONS, LLC; DOMESTIC
SUPPLY INC., and DANILA BARANNIKOV, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-01696 (E.D.N.Y., March 7, 2024) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Fakhurtdinov was employed by the Defendants as a cable
technician.
ITG COMMUNICATIONS, LLC is a national provider of fulfillment,
construction and project management services to the cable and
telecommunications industries. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein
Jason Mizrahi
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 792-0046
Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Acne Drug Contains Benzene, Montenegro Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALAN MONTENEGRO; and MELISSA MEDINA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER, INC.; and DOES 1 to 50, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-01895 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 8, 2024) sees to redress the damages
caused by the Defendant's sale of benzoyl peroxide acne treatment
drug products ("BPO Products" or "Products") without warning
consumers the BPO Products had unsafe levels of the potent human
carcinogen benzene, and that the BPO Products were at risk of
degrading further into benzene under normal use, handling, and
storage conditions.
According to the complaint, although the BPO Products have been
found to have benzene, the Defendant never listed benzene among its
Products' ingredients, or anywhere on the Products' labels,
containers, advertising or on Defendant's websites. The Defendant
never warned anyone the Products had benzene or were at risk of
benzene contamination.
The Defendant knew or should have known its BPO Products contain
and/or degraded into benzene when exposed to expected consumer use,
handling, and storage conditions. Defendant misled the Plaintiffs,
the putative California members, and the public by representing its
BPO Products only had the ingredients listed on the labels,
packaging, containers, and on its website, says the suit.
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies Inc. engages in the research
and development of products. The Company provides products for
newborns, babies, toddlers, and mothers, including cleansers, skin
care, moisturizers, hair care, diaper care, sun protection, and
nursing products. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
R. Brent Wisner, Esq.
Stephanie B. Sherman, Esq.
WISNER BAUM, L.L.P
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1750
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 207-3233
Facsimile: (310) 820-7444
Email: rbwisner@wisnerbaum.com
ssherman@wisnerbaum.com
KEN'S FOODS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Austin Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
DAVID AUSTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KEN'S FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-10560 (D. Mass., Mach 6, 2024) seeks to recover from the
Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Austin was employed by the Defendant as a staff.
KEN'S FOODS, INC. produces, packages, and retails salad dressings
and sauces. The Company offers balsamic vinaigrette, caesar, blue
cheese, blossom honey, balsamic with honey, creamy caesar, creamy
French, honey mustard, ranch, olive oil, and other dressings and
sauces. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin Knox Steffans, Esq.
Steffans Legal PLLC
10 Wendell Ave. Ext. Ste 208
Pittsfield, MA 01201
Telephone: (413) 418-4176
Email: bsteffans@steffanslegal.com
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
Albert J. Asciutto, Esq.
Sommers Schwartz, P.C.
One Towne Square 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
jyoung@sommerspc.com
aasciutto@sommerspc.com
LULO ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Vazquez & Rodriguez Say
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID VAZQUEZ and JOANNA RODRIGUEZ v. LULO ENTERPRISES, LLC d/b/a
LULO KITCHEN & JUICE BAR and MARIO MONTOYA, Case No. 1:24-cv-00444
(N.D. Ohio, March 7, 2024) is a class action alleging the
Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs have worked for Defendants during the past three
years as servers and occasionally performed other jobs for
Defendants. Throughout their employment with Defendants, Plaintiffs
were non-exempt employees paid on an hourly basis. The Plaintiffs
allege that Defendants had a common policy and practice of not
paying time-and-a-half for hours that they worked more than 40
hours per workweek. Additionally, Defendant illegally withheld tips
from Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees. Such practices
violate the FLSA, say the Plaintiffs.
Lulo Enterprises LLC operates the Latin American restaurant Lulo
Kitchen & Juice Bar in Cuhayoga County, OH. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephan I. Voudris, Esq.
Christopher M. Sams, Esq.
VOUDRIS LAW LLC
8401 Chagrin Road, Suite 8
Chagrin Falls, OH 44023
Telephone: 440-543-0670
Facsimile: 440-543-0721
E-mail: svoudris@voudrislaw.com
csams@voudrislaw.com
MOUNTAINEER GAS: West Side Residents Seek Damages From Outage
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Mead of 13News reports that months ago, roughly 1,000
Mountaineer Gas customers on Charleston's West Side residents spent
weeks without heat in their homes or access to natural gas-based
utilities due to an outage.
Now, many residents are being represented in a class action lawsuit
against West Virginia American Water and Mountaineer Gas, the
companies that serve many homes in the area and that were held
accountable for the outage. The outage began when West Virginia
American Water's system flooded Mountaineer Gas lines, damaging
furnaces and other household appliances in dozens of homes.
Mountaineer Gas Company reveals timeline of start to West Side
natural gas outage
Some residents even reached out to attorneys, like Jesse Forbes
from Charleston, during the week the outage began.
"We brought this because my office was on the West Side of
Charleston. I used to live on the West Side of Charleston," Forbes
said. "We brought this because this is in our neighborhoods, this
was in our backyards. These are our neighbors. These are our
friends. These are people that were affected by this, and they need
compensation."
Their arguments were presented in front of Kanawha County Circuit
Judge Jennifer Bailey on March 12, 2024. Judge Bailey decided to
take on those four filed cases, one that was brought to her by
Forbes and his co-counsels.
"We had people reaching out because people were scared. People were
frightened," Forbes said. They were scared for themselves, scared
for their kids, scared for the elderly. So we had a lot of people
reaching out to the firms about what happened really almost
immediately."
Forbes said this case matters to him given his ties to the West
Side of Charleston.
"They want justice number one, and they want things to change.
We've seen too many times where we have water mains break," Forbes
said. "These are people who are calling and saying 'hey, I can't
just go to a hotel.' Right, 'I can't just say pick up and leave.' I
mean they have their kids there, their parents there."
Those residents said they never want to see something this severe
happen again in their community.
"Charleston residents are resilient," West Side resident Shawn
O'Dell said. She said it was a long process to get everything
repaired in her home after the gas outage, and she spent around a
week without heat.
"The experience was extremely frustrating due to the time of year.
It was just starting to get cold here. It was heat season," O'Dell
said. "I had just turned my furnace on and everything that day
believe it or not. So struggling without having a way to heat, dry
clothes, not having hot water to bathe."
She criticizes Mountaineer Gas' communication during the outage.
"It was a week before the first person showed up at my house. A
week."
It's now up to the West Virginia Supreme Court to decide if the
case will be handled in Kanawha County Circuit Court by Judge
Bailey or if it will be handled by a Mass Litigation Panel.
Both Mountaineer Gas and West Virginia American Water declined to
comment. [GN]
NAVY FEDERAL: Faces Class Suit Over Mortgage Discrimination Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlene Crowell of OurWeekly reports that a mortgage
discrimination case that began with two plaintiffs last December
was consolidated in late February with seven others to form a class
action lawsuit alleging that Navy Federal Credit Union -- the
nation's largest with 13.4 million members and $170.8 billion in
assets -- "systematically and intentionally discriminates against
minority borrowers across the United States."
The lawsuit alleges that Navy Federal, which serves current and
former military members from all service sectors, denied loans for
52 percent of Black borrowers and 44 percent of Latino borrowers,
while denying only 23 percent of white applicants for home mortgage
purchase or refinance loans and Home Equity Lines of Credit.
Affidavits of affected borrowers told stories of the financial and
emotional distress caused by qualified loan applicants having to
find alternative -- and often more costly -- financing after being
denied by their member-owned credit union.
The lawsuit, led by nationally-known attorney Ben Crump and his
associate Adam Levitt, said the lender's own data show that Navy
Federal approved loans for a higher percentage of white borrowers
annually earning less than $62,000 a year than for Black loan
applicants earning $140,000 or more.
And when Navy Federal did approve a loan to a Black or Latino
applicant, they often were offered worse interest rates and loan
terms than those offered to white borrowers with similar financial
profiles. These activities are illegal under federal laws,
including the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act
(ECOA).
"The outright discrimination that occurs when Banking While Black
continues to reveal itself in the lending practices of many of
America's largest financial institutions," said Crump. "It is
shameful that Navy Federal, an organization that prides itself in
helping the families of men and women who served their country,
does not give their Black and Latino customers the same
opportunities as white customers."
"We hope this legal action will stop racial lending discrimination
in its tracks and require Navy Federal to right their wrongs," said
Adam Levitt. "Home ownership is recognized as the cornerstone of
the American Dream. We will not sit by while that dream is denied
to hard-working and deserving Americans based on discriminatory
practices and algorithms."
Navy Federal said in a December 2023 statement that its more than
$3.5 billion in mortgages to Black borrowers in 2022 shows its
"longstanding commitment to expanding credit and economic
opportunity to Black borrowers."
But the number of people calling to hold Navy Federal accountable
is growing, and now includes civil rights activist Rev. Al
Sharpton, 10 U.S. Senators, over 20 Members of Congress, consumer
advocates and others.
Rep. Maxine Waters (CA-43), ranking member of the House Financial
Services Committee called for federal agencies to begin
investigations.
"Credit unions are owned by their members and while this type of
discrimination may be par for the course for a profit-driven
megabank, a member-driven credit union should know better," said
Waters.
"As a private institution that bears the name of an esteemed branch
of the United States military, Navy Federal must explain both to
Congress and their members how such practices took place, what
immediate steps are being taken to correct the harm done, and who
in management will be held responsible," Waters continued. "These
abuses will not be tolerated, and I urge the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, National Credit Union Administration, and other
appropriate agencies to promptly investigate this matter."
Consumers Union, a nonprofit advocacy group, added its support.
"The large racial disparity found between loan approvals for
applicants with roughly the same financial profile raises serious
concerns that Navy Federal may be unfairly discriminating against
Black and Latino applicants," said Jennifer Chien[, CU's senior
policy counsel for financial fairness..
In a joint letter on January 11,2024, 10 U.S. Senators led by
Senate Banking Committee Chair Sherrod Brown urged the CFPB
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Department HUD to
investigate the issue.
"As the regulators with primary responsibility for enforcing ECOA
and the Fair Housing Act, we ask that you thoroughly review Navy
Federal's mortgage lending practices and outcomes for compliance
with all federal fair housing and fair lending laws and
regulations. Navy Federal's members have made countless sacrifices
in their service to our country. We must do all we can to ensure
illegal barriers are not placed on their path to homeownership."
Even more lawmaker support came on February 28 in a joint letter
from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the New Democrat
Coalition that called upon six federal agencies to investigate and
report on their findings.
"[T]he federal financial regulators have a duty to 'affirmatively
further fair housing,' which means they must take meaningful
actions that overcome and do not further entrench patterns of
segregation and systemic disinvestment, such as through redlining,
based on protected classes under the law," wrote the lawmakers.
Charlene Crowell is a senior fellow with the Center for Responsible
Lending. She can be reached at
Charlene.crowell@responsiblelending.org. [GN]
NESTLE USA: Faces Class Suit Over Perrier Mineral Water Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit alleges Nestle USA Inc. has misled consumers about
the purity and quality of its Perrier natural mineral water.
According to the 23-page lawsuit, the packaging of the mineral
water -- including its sparkling and flavored carbonated varieties
-- features a statement that reads, "Water Captured at the Source
in France" next to images of what appear to be naturally occurring
bubbles, presumably from the famous Perrier spring.
However, the suit claims these representations are misleading
because the product does not meet the "standard identity" for
natural mineral water. In fact, the beverage is a blend of mineral
and non-mineral water and has been subjected to treatments and
disinfection processes that are typically unnecessary when mineral
water originates from an underground source protected from
pollution or contamination, the case contends.
A recent French investigation of Perrier mineral water bottling
plants, among other brands, revealed "extensive" use of practices
inconsistent with the country's regulations for the sale of mineral
water, the complaint relays. According to reports, an advocacy
group called foodwatch France filed a complaint last month with a
Paris court over allegations that Perrier and other brands have
illegally treated contaminated mineral water and, thereby,
misrepresented their products.
The lawsuit, which follows on the heels of the ongoing French
investigations into Nestle's "massive fraud," claims Perrier
mineral water is "misbranded" because, for one, its underground
water source in Vergeze, France is "no longer protected."
Per the suit, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
states that a product must come from a "geologically and physically
protected underground water source” to qualify as mineral water.
However, the case shares that Perrier's sources "are or may be
regularly contaminated" by bacteria and chemical pollutants.
To combat this, Nestlé has reportedly treated the water through
disinfection and microfiltration methods that are usually applied
only to lower-quality, non-mineral water, the complaint explains.
As the filing tells it, "buyers of mineral water do not expect it
to undergo similar treatments to tap water, considering its
significantly higher cost."
The lawsuit points out that although the company has purported that
environmental changes around its water source have made it
difficult to maintain the essential characteristics of mineral
water in its product, the FDA has stipulated that "when the natural
mineral water at source becomes polluted and no longer meets the
microbiological criterion for human consumption, all operations
leading to the commercial sale should be suspended."
The suit goes on to claim that, according to findings from the
French investigation, Nestle has also used blends of mineral and
non-mineral water in its product. As such, the beverage is
"misbranded" because it "no longer meet[s] the FDA definition of
mineral water," the case charges.
Per the complaint, the government agency also asserts that
"significant alterations to the source water for mineral water"
must be disclosed on the product's label "because it is no longer
unmodified ground water and differs significantly from the water
that was harvested."
Nestle's "deceptive" practices have allowed it to sell Perrier
mineral water at a premium price, higher than the product would
otherwise be sold for absent the misleading representations, the
filing contends.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in New York who purchased
Perrier natural mineral water within the state during the
applicable statute of limitations period. [GN]
NEW YORK LIFE: Must File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA LINHART, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. NEW YORK LIFE
INSURANCE AND ANNUITY CORPORATION, et al., Case No.
5:21-cv-01640-JWH-kk (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Holcomb
entered an order granting
the Defendant's application to file under seal its opposition to
class
certification and certain supporting documents.
-- 1. The application to file under seal is granted.
-- 2. The following unredacted documents shall be filed under
seal
In accordance with L.R. 79-5:
a. Defendant's Opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for
class
certification;
b. Declaration of Frank Citera in support of the
Defendant's
opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification; and
c. Exhibits 7, 11–15, 18–33, and 35–36 to the
Defendant's
opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
New York Life is a mutual life insurance company.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uuSLSz at no extra
charge.[CC]
NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Court Certifies Data Breach Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Brennan of Hicks Morley reports that the plaintiffs alleged a
breach of privacy based upon the statutory tort of breach of
privacy under the Newfoundland and Labrador Privacy Act, a breach
of privacy based upon the common law tort of "intrusion upon
seclusion," negligence, and breach of contract. The plaintiffs
further pled the doctrine of vicarious liability to support their
claims against the employer defendant (i.e., to hold the employer
liable for the conduct of its employees).
One of the criteria for certification under the Newfoundland and
Labrador Class Actions Act (CLA) is that the pleadings disclose a
cause of action. The Court noted that only one of the four claims
advanced by the plaintiffs needed to disclose an arguable cause of
action in order to meet that criterion, but in this case all four
claims disclosed an arguable cause of action:
The plaintiffs argued that the violation of their privacy and
other members of the proposed class met the Privacy Act's threshold
of conduct that was "wilfull" and "without colour of right," as the
employees of the defendant accessed the plaintiffs' private records
outside the scope of their employment. The Court stated that
whether or not "the action or inaction of the Defendant is
ultimately sufficient to reach the threshold of wilfullness and
thus ground a direct liability claim against the Defendant is
unclear at the present time." This was an issue to be fleshed out
at trial. On the issue of vicarious liability, the Court stated,
"It is clear that it is possible for the principles of vicarious
liability to operate with a statutory tort." It will ultimately be
for the trial judge to determine this issue.
With respect to the claim for a breach of privacy based on the
common law tort of intrusion upon seclusion, the defendant argued
that the common law tort could not coexist with a breach of the
Privacy Act and in any event the pleadings did not specifically
plead willful or intentional conduct on behalf of the defendant
itself. The Court found that a breach of the common law tort of
intrusion upon seclusion and a breach of the Privacy Act may be
able to coexist as the law is unsettled. The pleading here was
sufficient.
The defendant disputed the claim of negligence on the basis of
the damages sought in that the plaintiffs "have to prove that the
damages alleged are suitable under the class action framework
(i.e., are suitable for aggregate damages)." The defendant also
argued that allegations of "mental distress, anguish, anxiety and
stress" did not rise to the level of compensable loss in
negligence. The Court disagreed as the information in question
deals with the plaintiffs' personal and medical information. It was
possible that the plaintiffs could establish serious and prolonged
psychological impacts at trial. The Court held this was an issue to
be determined at trial.
On the issue of breach of contract, the Court stated that while
it may be difficult for the plaintiffs to make a claim on the basis
of an implied or good faith contract between them and the
defendant, it was not impossible. It was not plain and obvious that
an action in contract would be unsuccessful at trial.
The Court then found that the other criteria to certify an action
as a class action in the CLA had been met:
-- There was an identifiable and proper class.
-- There were common issues to support the action.
-- A class action was the preferable procedure.
-- The representative plaintiffs were suitable
representatives.
The class action was therefore certified.
This decision serves as a stark reminder that Canadian courts will
take breaches of privacy (and related causes of action) seriously,
and that Canadian courts remain open to novel claims for
certification of class proceedings. Where those issues intersect,
it is crucially important to have the best possible strategic legal
advice. [GN]
NISSAN NORTH: Anderson Sues Over Defective Motor Vehicles
---------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN ANDERSON; WALID ANTONIOS; FRED BALSAM, and CALVIN WILEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; and NISSAN MOTOR CO.,
LTD., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00257 (M.D. Tenn., March 6,
2024) alleges that the Defendants manufacture and sell defective
2013 through 2017 Nissan Pathfinder or 2014 through 2017 INFINITI
QX60 vehicle in the United States ("Class Vehicles").
According to the complaint, beginning in 2013, if not before, the
Defendants knew that the Class Vehicles contain one or more design
and manufacturing defects that can cause their radiator cooling
fans to malfunction and fail ("Cooling Fan Defect"). The Cooling
Fan Defect causes a loud rattling sound in the front of the engine
and can result in overheating and ultimately engine
failure—leaving the vehicle occupants stranded and creating
unreasonable safety risks Nissan concealed the Cooling Fan Defect
to encourage Plaintiffs and Class Members to purchase the Class
Vehicles. The Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based
thereon allege, that Defendants knew the Class Vehicles were
defective and not fit for their intended purpose of providing
consumers with safe and reliable transportation at the time of sale
and thereafter.
The Defendants have actively concealed the true nature and extent
of the Cooling Fan Defect from Plaintiffs and the other Class
Members, and failed to disclose it to them, at the time of purchase
or lease. Had Plaintiffs and prospective Class Members known about
the Cooling Fan Defect, they would not have purchased the Class
Vehicles or would have paid less for them, says the suit.
Nissan North America Inc. operates in the automotive industry. The
Company designs, develops, and manufactures Nissan vehicles and
distributes them through dealers in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Michael C. Iadevaia, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Mark Greenstone, Esq.
Benjamin Donahue, Esq.
GREENSTONE LAW APC
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9156
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
Email: mgreenstone@greenstonelaw.com
bdonahue@greenstonelaw.com
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Motion to Dismiss Train Derailment Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Harris of Bloomberg Law reports that Norfolk Southern Corp.
lost its bid for dismissal of a massive proposed class action
seeking to hold it liable for damages arising from the February
2023 derailment of 38 rail cars in East Palestine, Ohio, spilling
toxic vinyl chloride which later burned, releasing a toxic plume.
Judge Benita Pearson of the US District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio on March 13, 2024 denied the rail company's motion
to dismiss and strike the consolidated amended class action
complaint said to have been filed on behalf an estimated 500,000
residents, property owners and businesses last year.
Norfolk Southern contended the plaintiffs' state law-based
negligence, nuisance and strict liability claims were preempted by
the Federal Railroad Safety Act, the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act, and other federal law, Pearson said.
"According to Norfolk Southern, Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently
plead a violation of any applicable federal regulations by Norfolk
Southern, and instead seek to impose liability on Norfolk Southern
for various state law claims that go far beyond any obligations or
standard of care required by the federal regulations," she said.
Rejecting those propositions the judge said, "because Plaintiffs'
claims merely seek to enforce duties that are established by
federal regulations, they are not preempted under either the FRSA
or the HMTA."
Even if those regulations do cover aspects of Norfolk Southern's
conduct, claims based on the railway's conduct aren't preempted if
that conduct violated those regulations, Pearson said.
The judge did dismiss a stand-alone claim for medical monitoring on
behalf of Ohio residents, stating it could be imposed as an element
of damages if Norfolk Southern is found liable for the underlying
tort.
Pearson also granted in part, and denied in part motions to dismiss
by GATX Corp., General American Marks Co., Trinity Industries
Leasing Co., and OxyVinyls LP.
The case is In Re: East Palestine Train Derailment, N.D. Ohio,
4:23-cv-00242, 3/13/24.
To contact the reporter on this story: Andrew Harris in Washington
at aharris@bloomberglaw.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Cheryl Saenz at
csaenz@bloombergindustry.com[GN]
PHYSICIANS TO WOMEN: Hall Seeks Damages for Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
JANET HALL, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PHYSICIANS TO WOMEN INC., Case No.
7:24-cv-00172-TTC-CKM (W.D. Va., March 7, 2024) accuses the
Defendant of failing to adequately protect Plaintiff's sensitive
information, resulting in a data breach.
The Plaintiff is a patient of Defendant Physicians to Women (PTW).
She entrusted Defendant with her sensitive information as a
condition of treatment. Defendant collects and maintains patients'
sensitive information in its computer systems. She asserts that
patients' sensitive data have been compromised in a data breach
discovered by Defendant on April 4, 2023. The notorious LockBit 3.0
ransomware gang, one of the world's most active ransomware actors,
later claimed responsibility for the cyberattack on June 7, 2023.
The Defendant only began notifying affected patients about the data
breach on or around January 26, 2024 and received the breach notice
on March 3, 2024, says the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff alleges that the data breach came as a result of
Defendant's inadequate security practices. Plaintiff accuses
Defendant of multiple unlawful practices, including negligence,
breach of an implied contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of
fiduciary duty.
PTW provides comprehensive care and medical services to women of
all ages. Its principal place of business is located at 21 Highland
Ave SE Ste 200, Roanoke, VA. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lee A. Floyd, Esq.
Sarah G. Sauble, Esq.
BREIT BINIAZAN, PC
2100 E. Cary Street, Suite 310
Richmond, VA 23223
Telephone: (804) 351-9040
Facsimile: (757) 670-3939
E-mail: Lee@bbtrial.com
Sarah@bbtria.com
- and –
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina Borrelli, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com
raina@turkestrauss.com
PINNACLE TOO: Seeks to Decertify Conditionally Certified Collective
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEXLON CHARLES, on behalf
of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. PINNACLE
TOO, LLC, d/b/a PINNACLE ELECTRIC, AGIR ELECTRICAL, LTD., d/b/a
PINNACLE ELECTRIC, FRANKCRUM 6, INC. d/b/a FRANKCRUM, FRANK CRUM
JR., and ANTONY GIRONTA, Case No. 1:22-cv-04232-DEH-JW (S.D.N.Y.),
the Defendants move the Court for an order granting decertification
of the conditionally certified collective action currently
conditionally certified pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), and granting the Defendant costs, fees, and disbursements
together with such other and further relief as the Court deems just
and proper.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Mar. 8, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=30cA4P at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Simi Bhutani, Esq.
Dong Phuong V. Nguyen, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
77 Water Street, Suite 2100
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 232-1300
E-mail: Simi.Bhutani@lewisbrisbois.com
Phuong.Nguyen@lewisbrisbois.com
- and -
Robert M. Tucker, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK &
STEWART, P.C.
599 Lexington Avenue, 17th Fl.
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 492-2068
E-mail: robert.tucker@ogletree.com
PLASTIC COMPONENTS: Niemczyk Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Niemczyk, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PLASTIC COMPONENTS, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00291-SCD
(E.D. Wis., March 5, 2024), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, as amended, ("FLSA"), and Wisconsin's Wage
Payment and Collection Laws ("WWPCL") for unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid straight time (regular) and/or agreed upon
wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory
and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court
may deem appropriate.
The Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system that
deprived and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other current
and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked
and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of
pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by:
shaving time (via electronic timeclock rounding) from Plaintiff's
and all other hourly paid, non-exempt employees' weekly timesheets
for pre-shift and post shift hours worked and/or work performed, to
the detriment of said employees and to the benefit of Defendant, in
violation of the FLSA and WWPCL; and failing to include all forms
of non-discretionary compensation, such as monetary bonuses,
incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and payments, in said
employees' regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes,
in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee in the position of Shipping & Receiving Manager
working primarily at Defendant's Germantown, Wisconsin location.
The Defendant is a plastics manufacturer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Phone: (262) 780-1953
Fax: (262) 565-6469
Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
- and -
Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
4400 N. High Street, Suite 310
Columbus, OH 43214
Phone: (614) 704-0546
Fax: (614) 573-9826
Email: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com
PPL CORP: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Retirement Funds Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille of Bloomberg Law reports that PPL Corp. lost its bid
to dismiss a class action challenging the Northern Trust target
date funds held by four retirement plans covering thousands of the
publicly traded utility company's workers.
PPL said the workers didn't identify a "meaningful benchmark" that
would allow the court to assess how the Northern Trust funds
performed. But that's not necessary to survive a motion to dismiss
within the Third Circuit, Judge Mia Roberts Perez of the US
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania said in an
opinion docketed on March 13, 2024.
The workers' complaint includes "substantial circumstantial
evidence" of PPL's alleged missteps, Perez. [GN]
PRO SHINE DETAILING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fuentes Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN GARCIA FUENTES, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRO SHINE DETAILING INC.; THOMAS
SANT; and DAVID SANT, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01713 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 7, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages
and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Fuentes was employed by the Defendants as an automotive
detail technician.
PRO SHINE DETAILING INC. offer a full range of cleaning, valeting
and detailing services
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq.
ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Tel. (631) 257-5588
Email: mfarnworth@romerolawny.com
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Maddaloni Sues Over Mislabeled Hygiene Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FORTUNATA MADDALONI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No.
1:24-cv-01719-FB-CLP (E.D.N.Y., March 7, 2024) accuses the
Defendant of violating of the New York General Business Law and
unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff purchased Defendant's women's hygiene products
represented as "Pure Cotton" under the Tampax brand (the Product)
between January 2021 and January 2024. Defendant allegedly makes
false representations and omissions regarding the Product, and as a
result, it is sold at a premium price, higher than it would be sold
for absent the misleading representations and omissions. The
Plaintiff seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other
relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, Hamilton County, the Procter &
Gamble Company is an American multinational consumer goods
corporation with a principal place of business in . [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sue J. Nam, Esq.
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
Kate J. Stoia, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 W 93rd St, 16th Fl
New York NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
E-mail: snam@reesellp.com
mreese@reesellp.com
- and –
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
- and –
James Chung, Esq.
CHUNG LAW FIRM P.C.
43-22 216th St
Bayside NY 11361
Telephone: (718) 461-8808
E-mail: jchung_77@msn.com
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Waden Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Dodie Waden, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Progressive Casualty Insurance
Company, Case No. 3:24-cv-00260 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on March 5, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00422-PAG to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Progressive Preferred Insurance Company --
https://www.progressive.com/ -- provides insurances services. The
Company offers homeowners insurance, workmen's compensation
coverage, automotive insurance, and property and casualty
re-insurance services to individuals and businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake Garrett Abbott, Esq.
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (843) 834-4712
Email: blake@akimlawfirm.com
pauld@akimlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Beattie B. Ashmore, Esq.
BEATTIE B. ASHMORE LAW OFFICE
650 E Washington Street
Greenville, SC 29601
Phone: (864) 467-1001
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Bid to Seal Exhibits in Watson OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA WATSON,
individually and purportedly on behalf of others similarly
situated, V. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
5:22-cv-00203-DCR-MAS (E.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Danny Reeves
entered an order granting the third party subpoena respondents'
motion to seal Exhibits 1, 5, 7, 8, and 10.
The Court said, "The Third Party Subpoena Respondents attest that
they "worked cooperatively with the Plaintiff and Progressive to
narrowly tailor their confidentiality designations" and "limit
designations and redactions to only those portions of the
documents, reports, and
transcripts that contain commercially sensitive and proprietary
trade secret business information." This satisfies the third prong
necessary to show good cause to seal."
The Plaintiff Watson filed a motion for class certification on
February 2, 2024. She subsequently moved to seal excerpts of the
motion and certain exhibits based on their confidentiality
labeling. However, the Protective Order only provides ten days for
a designating party to address a motion to seal, a shorter
timeframe than offered by the Local Rules. The Third Party Subpoena
Respondents claim that the parties "misunderstood the interplay
between the Protective Order and the Local Rules governing motion
practice." As a result, the Court denied Watson's motion to seal
based on the terms of the Protective Order, noting that "the party
designating the documents as protected
documents has failed to explain within the time provided by the
Protective Order . . . and in compliance with the Local Rules why
such [documents] should remain under seal." The Third Party
Subpoena Respondents have filed the instant motion to seal Exhibits
1, 5, 7, 8, and 10 on the merits.
Progressive underwrites auto, fire, marine, and casualty
insurance.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TwVq4e at no extra
charge.[CC]
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Court Stays Grady Suit
------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHONACIE GRADY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio corporation, Case No.
0:22-cv-00866-NEB-DLM (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge Nancy Brasel
entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to stay case and
abate class certification proceedings as follows:
1. The case is stayed pending completion of arbitration under
Minn.
Stat. section 65B.525;
2. The pretrial scheduling order is vacated; and
3. The Clerk of Court shall administratively close this action
pending completion of arbitration.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OlzM5e at no extra
charge.[CC]
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Turner Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ronzell Turner, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons v. Progressive Specialty
Insurance Company, Case No. 240200245 was removed from the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 4, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00939 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract.
Progressive Specialty Insurance Company --
https://www.progressive.com/ -- operates as an insurance firm. The
Company offers property, casualty, life, and health insurance
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James C. Haggerty, Esq.
HGSK
1801 Market Street, Suite 100
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (267) 350-6633
Email: jhaggerty@hgsklawyers.com
- and -
John P. Goodrich, Esq.
429 Fourth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: (412) 261-4663
- and -
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
134 Kings Highway, Second Floor
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Phone: (856) 772-7200
Email: ecf@shublawyers.com
- and -
Scott B. Cooper, Esq.
SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER P.C.
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Phone: (717) 232-6300
Email: scooper@schmidtkramer.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kymberly Kochis, Esq.
EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
1114 Ave. of the Americas 38th Fl.
New York, NY 10036-7703
Phone: (212) 389-5000
Email: kymberlykochis@eversheds-sutherland.com
PROPAK LOGISTICS: Bifurcated Discovery Bid Tossed in Roberts
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Roberts v. Propak
Logistics, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00008 (E.D. Cal., Filed Jan. 2,
2024), the Hon. Judge Daniel J. Calabretta entered an order that
directing bifurcated discovery in this putative wage and hour class
action is not appropriate at this time.
The Court's finding regarding the bifurcation of discovery is made
without prejudice to Defendant seeking appropriate relief by way of
a properly noticed motion.
Further, the parties shall confer and file with the Court, within
14 days, an updated Joint Status Report that contains proposed
dates for the following: fact discovery cut-off date, expert
discovery cut-off date, date by which a motion for class
certification will be filed, and a final dispositive motion filing
date.
The nature of suit states labor management litigation.
Propak is a proactive provider of leading-edge logistics,
transportation and supply chain management solutions.[CC]
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Matthews Sues Over Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------
KIM MATTHEWS, as an individual and as Administrator of the Estate
of Hedwig Nosek, Deceased, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 8:24-cv-00497-DDP-JDE (C.D. Cal.,
March 7, 2024) seeks damages for multiple allegations of misconduct
against Defendant, including breach of contract, fraudulent
inducement, and unfair business practices.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent all individuals who purchased
Prudential long-term care insurance policies (LTC policies) in the
State of California whose lifetime benefits were arbitrarily
reduced by Defendants after initiating long term care benefits.
This action covers the four years prior to the filing of this suit
through the date of judgment.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants carried out a practice of
unilaterally changing and knowingly misrepresenting the terms of
LTC policies by arbitrarily reducing the maximum lifetime benefit
after a claim was made by the policy holder initiating long term
care benefits, which was not in line with the contracted terms of
the policies.
Prudential Insurance Company of America is an insurance company
that provides life and group insurance, investment, and retirement
services. Its principal place of business is located in New Jersey.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq.
George Singer, Esq.
MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (562) 590-5550
Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net
gsinger@mahoney-law.net
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery in Theodore to Close July 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------
PureCycle Technologies, Inc.disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal period ending December 31, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2024, that the
discovery in Theodore class suit is set to close in July 2024.
Beginning on or about May 11, 2021, two putative class action
complaints were filed against PCT, certain senior members of
management and others, asserting violations of federal securities
laws under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The complaints generally allege that the applicable defendants made
false and/or misleading statements in press releases and public
filings regarding the Technology, PCT's business and PCT's
prospects.
The first putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida by William C.
Theodore against PCT and certain senior members of management (the
"Theodore Lawsuit").
The second putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida by David
Tennenbaum against PCT, certain senior members of management and
others (the "Tennenbaum Lawsuit").
On July 14, 2021, the court granted a motion to consolidate the
Theodore and Tennenbaum Lawsuits (consolidated as the “Theodore
Lawsuit”) and on July 27, 2021, Tennenbaum filed a motion to
voluntarily dismiss his complaint without prejudice.
On August 5, 2021, the Court entered an order appointing Mariusz
Ciecko and Robert Ciecko as Co-Lead Plaintiffs ("Lead Plaintiffs")
and Pomerantz LLP as Lead Counsel.
On September 27, 2021, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint.
The consolidated amended complaint seeks to represent a class of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired PCT's securities
between November 16, 2020, and May 5, 2021, certification of the
alleged class, as well as compensatory and punitive damages.
The consolidated amended complaint relies on information included
in a research report published by Hindenburg Research LLC.
On November 12, 2021, PCT and the individual defendants affiliated
with PCT ("PCT Defendants") and Byron Roth each filed separate
motions to dismiss Lead Plaintiffs' amended complaint.
Additional submissions by the parties were filed in December 2021
and January 2022.
On August 4, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida dismissed the Theodore Lawsuit, without prejudice.
Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on August 18, 2022
in which they seek to represent a class of investors who purchased
or otherwise acquired PCT's securities between November 16, 2020,
and November 10, 2021, and alleged violations of Section 10(b) and
Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act.
On September 15, 2022, the PCT Defendants and Byron Roth each filed
a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, and the parties
filed additional responsive pleadings in October 2022.
On June 15, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida granted the PCT Defendants' motion solely with regard to
named defendant Tamsin Ettefagh, but denied the motion as to all
other defendants.
On June 30, 2023, the PCT Defendants filed a Motion for
Reconsideration. Further, on July 14, 2023, each of the PCT and
Roth Defendants filed their respective Answers and Counterclaims.
The Motion for Reconsideration remains pending.
On November 30, 2023 Lead Plaintiffs filed their motion to certify
two classes: a Section 14(a) class and a Section 10(b) class.
On January 17, 2024, Lease Plaintiffs amended their motion for
class certification to seek certification of only the Section 10(b)
class.
On January 23, 2024, PCT, the Individual Defendants and Bryon Roth
submitted a join opposition to Lead Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
Plaintiffs’ reply in support of their motion for class
certification is due on February 21, 2024.
The parties are engaged in discovery, which is currently scheduled
to close in July 2024.
PureCycle Technologies, Inc. is a Florida-based corporation
focused
on commercializing a patented purification recycling technology
for
restoring waste polypropylene into resin.
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Theodore Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purecycle
Technologies, Inc., et al. The case is styled as William C.
Theodore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Purecycle Technologies, Inc., Michael Otworth, Michael
E. Dee, David Brenner, Byron Roth, Case No. 2:24-mc-00011-JFM (E.D.
Pa., March 1, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Miscellaneous.
PureCycle Technologies, Inc. -- https://www.purecycle.com/ --
provides recycling services..[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Arla Graff, Esq.
DECHERT LLP
2929 Arch St
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Phone: (215) 994-2513
Email: carla.graff@dechert.com
RB HEALTH: Acne Treatment Drugs Contain Benzene, Montenegro Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALAN MONTENEGRO, JAMES MAYFIELD, CHATHAM MULLINS, and MICHAEL
MONTGOMERY on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly
situated, and the general public v. RB Health (US) LLC and DOES 1
to 50, Inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-01878 (C.D. Cal., March 7, 2024)
accuses the Defendants of consumer fraud, breach of express and
implied warranties, and unjust enrichment.
The class action arises from Defendants' sale of benzoyl peroxide
acne treatment drug products (BPO products) without warning
consumers that they contained unsafe levels of the potent human
carcinogen benzene, and that the BPO products were at risk of
degrading further into benzene under normal use, handling, and
storage conditions. The Plaintiffs purchased Defendants' BPO
products, including those under the Clearasil brand which is one of
the world's most widely recognized acne treatment brands. Due to
Defendants' unlawful, deceptive, and misleading advertising and
labeling of the Products, Plaintiffs and others similarly situated
were unreasonably placed at risk of exposure to benzene without
their knowledge and consent, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs also claim that they were economically harmed
because of Defendants' misconduct and consumer deception.
RB Health is a manufacturer of drugs and pharmaceuticals with its
principal place of business in Parsippany, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
R. Brent Wisner, Esq.
Stephanie B. Sherman, Esq.
WISNER BAUM, L.L.P
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1750
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 207-3233
Facsimile: (310) 820-7444
E-mail: rbwisner@wisnerbaum.com
ssherman@wisnerbaum.com
RIOT GAMES: Garrison Seeks Damages Over Alleged FTX Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------
EDWIN GARRISON, BRANDON ORR, LEANDRO CABO, RYAN HENDERSON, MICHAEL
LIVIERATOS, ALEXANDER CHERNYAVSKY, GREGG PODALSKY, VIJETH SHETTY,
CHUKWUDOZIE EZEOKOLI, MICHAEL NORRIS, SHENGYUN HUANG, VITOR VOZZA,
KYLE RUPPRECHT, & SUNIL KAVURI, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. RIOT GAMES, INC., & NORTH AMERICA
LEAGUE OF LEGENDS CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-01841
(C.D. Cal., March 7, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violations of
securities laws, violations of unfair competition and deceptive
trade practices laws, civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting fraud,
aiding and abetting conversion, and unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendants for their
alleged unlawful actions which contributed to the collapse of FTX
Trading LTD, West Realm Shires Services Inc. d/b/a FTX US, and
Alameda Research LLC (FTX Group). The Plaintiffs accuse Defendants
of aiding and abetting and/or actively participating in the FTX
Group's multibillion dollar global fraud and promoting, offering,
or selling unregistered securities via FTX's cryptocurrency
investment service that placed orders on users' behalf. Plaintiffs
allegedly sustained damages due to Defendants' actions.
Riot Games, Inc. is an American video game developer, publisher,
and esports tournament organizer headquartered in Los Angeles, CA.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Reed Forbush, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
44 Montgomery Street, 41st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 293-6800
Facsimile: (415) 293-6899 86
E-mail: rforbush@bsfllp.com
- and –
Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 740-1423
E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com
joseph@moskowitz-law.com
service@moskowitz-law.com
RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Allowed Leave to File Partially Sealed Exhibits
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES LARRY CREWS, JR.,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE, INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01524-JLS-E (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine Staton entered an order granting
Rivian Defendants' application for leave to file partially under
seal certain exhibits to the declaration of Eunice Leong in support
of Rivian Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for
class
Certification.
Rivian is an American electric vehicle manufacturer and automotive
technology and outdoor recreation company.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 7, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8S5UG8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
RODAN + FIELDS COMPANY: Dann Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Rodan + Fields
Company, et al. The case is styled as Lauren Dann, individually and
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. The
Rodan + Fields Company, Janine Weber, Laura Beitler, Tim Eng, Dr.
Kathy Fields, Dimitri Haloulos, Jessica Raefield, Dr. Katie Rodan,
Dalia Stoddard, Does 1-100, Case No. CGC24612800 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
San Francisco Cty., March 1, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints (failure to
pay minimum wage and liquidated damages; failure to provide meal
periods or meal premium wages)."
Rodan & Fields, LLC -- https://www.rodanandfields.com/en-us/ --
known as Rodan + Fields or R+F, is an American multi-level
marketing company specializing in skincare products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristen Simplicio, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
10880 Wilshire Blvd. – Suite 1101
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: (510) 254–6808
RP ILLUSIONS CORP: Valcarcel Files Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RP Illusions Corp.
The case is styled as Barbara Valcarcel, Pinchus Perlmutter,
Michele Acerra, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RP Illusions Corp. d/b/a Museum of Illusions New York,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01672-PKC (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
RP Illusions Corp. is a U.S.-based corporation that develops and
franchises museums across the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Phone: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
Email: ek@zlk.com
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Settles Repossession Issue Suit for $14MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Banco Santander, S.A. disclosed in its Form 20-F report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 21, 2024, that the parties agreed
to settle a putative class action for $14M.
The court granted final approval of the settlement on 17 October
2023 and entered a final approval order of the class action
settlement on December 15, 2023.
On March 18, 2021, said case was filed alleging that SC violated
the Uniform Commercial Code and related Pennsylvania state law, and
that the repossessions were not commercially reasonable and done in
good faith and that SC failed to inform the consumer of a
redemption and/or personal property fee that would have been
required to have been paid in order to retrieve their personal
affects.
Banco Santander S.A. doing business as Santander Group, is a
Spanish multinational financial services company based in Madrid
and Santander in Spain.
SECOND ROUND: Court Dismisses Fords' Third Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STACY FORD and STEPHEN
FORD, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. SECOND ROUND SUB LLC and QUANTUM3 GROUP LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-00513-WSH (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge W. Scott Hardy entered
an order granting the motions for judgment on the pleadings filed
by Second Round and Quantum3, and dismissing with prejudice the
Plaintiffs' claims asserted against the Defendants in the Amended
Complaint.
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a
plausible claim against the Defendants for a violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
Accordingly, to the extent the Plaintiffs' FDCPA claims are based
on the Defendants' alleged failure to itemize the debt in the
proofs of claim (POCs) in the Plaintiffs' Bankruptcy, Defendants'
Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings are granted, and Plaintiffs'
claims are dismissed.
The putative class action was filed by Plaintiffs Stacy Ford and
Stephen Ford against the Defendants and alleges violations of the
FDCPA, arising from the Defendants' conduct in Plaintiffs'
Bankruptcy Court action.
Second Round is debt collection company that is also referred to as
a junk debt buyer.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated March 6, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oRWoh3
at no extra charge.[CC]
SOUTHEASTERN GROCERS: Faces Sex & Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ILIANA MORALES and other similarly situated individuals v.
SOUTHEASTERN GROCERS, INC. d/b/a FRESCO Y MAS, Case No.
1:24-cv-20900 (S.D. Fla., March 7, 2024) seeks damages for
Defendant's alleged violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, the
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended.
The Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant, performing work in
Miami-Dade County, Florida, from about February 24, 2022, until her
wrongful termination on May 26, 2023. The Plaintiff suffered
serious head injuries due to an accident at work in which iron pots
fell on her head while she was placing a container in the sink. She
was given orders by the hospital not to return to work for 3 to 4
days as she needed to get a CT scan. Her husband provided the
medical records to Defendant and she was granted a worker's
compensation package. She was also requested to take a drug test.
The injuries rendered Plaintiff disabled and her return-to-work
date was extended until further notice as per orders by the
worker's compensation physician. On or about May 25, 2023,
Plaintiff finally received a medical clearance from the physician,
authorizing her to return to work but with restrictions. However,
on or about May 26, 2023, Plaintiff's Supervisor called her and
terminated her employment with no proper explanation. Plaintiff
alleges that she has been subject to discrimination because of her
sex and was terminated because of her disability, says the suit.
Headquartered in Duval County, Florida, Southeastern Grocers, Inc.
owns and operates a chain of supermarkets, including the Fresco y
Mas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tanesha W. Blye, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF T. WALLS BLYE, PLLC
66 West Flagler Street, Ste. 900
Miami, FL 33130
Main Telephone: (305) 482-1475
Assistant Phone: (305) 209-5779
Secondary Phone: (786) 796-1814
E-mail: tanesha@legalopinionusa.com
- and –
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, PA
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Main Phone: (305) 482-1475
Assistant Direct Line: (305) 209-5779
E-mail: martin@legalopinionusa.com
STRATFS LLC: Bishop Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice
--------------------------------------------------------------
IAN BISHOP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STRATFS, LLC (f/k/a STRATEGIC FINANCIAL
SOLUTIONS, LLC); STRATEGIC CLIENT SUPPORT, LLC (f/k/a PIONEER
CLIENT SERVICES, LLC); STRATEGIC CS, LLC; STRATEGIC FS BUFFALO,
LLC; STRATEGIC NYC, LLC; BCF CAPITAL, LLC; T FIN, LLC; STRATEGIC
CONSULTING, LLC d/b/a STRATEGIC FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS NY; VERSARA
LENDING, LLC; STRATEGIC FAMILY, INC.; ANCHOR CLIENT SERVICES, LLC
(NOW KNOWN AS CS 1 PAAS SERVICES, LLC); BEDROCK CLIENT SERVICES,
LLC; BOULDER CLIENT SERVICES, LLC; CANYON CLIENT SERVICES, LLC;
CAROLINA CLIENT SERVICES, LLC; GREAT LAKES CLIENT SERVICES, LLC;
GUIDESTONE CLIENT SERVICES, LLC; HARBOR CLIENT SERVICES, LLC;
HEARTLAND CLIENT SERVICES, LLC; MONARCH CLIENT SERVICES, LLC (NOW
KNOWN AS CS 2 PAAS SERVICES, LLC); NEWPORT CLIENT SERVICES, LLC;
NORTHSTAR CLIENT SERVICES, LLC; OPTION 1 CLIENT SERVICES, LLC;
PIONEER CLIENT SERVICING, LLC; ROCKWELL CLIENT SERVICES, LLC; ROYAL
CLIENT SERVICES, LLC; STONEPOINT CLIENT SERVICES, LLC; SUMMIT
CLIENT SERVICES, LLC (NOW KNOWN AS CS 3 PAAS SERVICES, LLC); and
WHITESTONE CLIENT SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01796
(S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2024) alleges violation of the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("Warn Act") wherein the
Plaintiff seeks to recover from the Defendant up to 60 days wages
and benefits pursuant to the law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide 60
days' notice prior to terminating 500 or more employees without
cause in a mass layoff, or before terminating 50 or more employees
in a plant closing. The Plaintiff and the Class that were
terminated constituted mass layoffs and a plant closing without the
60 days' notice in direct violation of the Warn Act, says the
suit.
STRATFS, LLC (f/k/a STRATEGIC FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC) tailors
debt relief options that include debt consolidation loans, and debt
resolution and credit card modification programs. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP
270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 221-1747
Facsimile: (212) 221-1747
Email: rsr@raisnerroupinian.com
jar@raisnerroupinian.com
SUNNOVA ENERGY: Faces Class Suit Over $3 Billion Biden Loan
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alana Goodman of The Washington Free Beacon reports that a solar
company that was approved for a $3 billion loan from the Biden
administration last year is facing a class action lawsuit from
investors who claim the company withheld troubling information
about its business practices.
The lawsuit claims that Sunnova Energy "made materially false and
misleading statements about its operations," including its
allegedly "predatory business practices against disadvantaged
homeowners and communities."
The news could raise new questions for the Department of Energy's
Loan Programs Office and Sunnova. The DOE has been facing scrutiny
over the $3 billion loan since November, when the Washington Free
Beacon reported on consumer complaints that accused Sunnova of
ripping off elderly dementia patients.
Republican lawmakers on the Senate and House energy committees
raised concerns with the DOE about the consumer complaints in
December, noting that the loan is intended to help Sunnova expand
its customer base to "disadvantaged homeowners and communities."
The lawsuit says the inquiries led to a "precipitous decline" in
Sunnova's stock price, which tumbled 16 percent the day after
Congress sent a letter to the DOE questioning the loan. The suit
claims that Sunnova "failed to disclose material adverse facts"
about its sales practices, which "subjected the company to a
heightened risk of regulatory and/or governmental scrutiny, as well
as significant reputational and/or financial harm."
The lead plaintiff in the case, Ricardo Trindade, is an investor
who reportedly purchased around 1,800 shares in Sunnova last July.
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas.
Sunnova's stock price plunged again in late February, after it
announced a $100 million stock offering plan that spooked investors
and raised concerns that the company was short on funds. Sunnova
also reported a net loss of around $500 million last year, over
twice as high as the year prior.
The DOE did not respond to a request for comment. Sunnova did not
respond to a request for comment.
The Free Beacon reviewed at least 50 consumer complaints filed
against Sunnova in Texas since 2022. Multiple complaints alleged
that Sunnova sales representatives persuaded elderly dementia
patients, some on their deathbeds, to sign multi-decade solar panel
leases.
Terry Blythe, a Texas resident, told the Free Beacon that her
father was 86 years old and had been diagnosed with dementia when a
door-to-door Sunnova salesman persuaded him to sign a 25-year solar
panel lease in 2020. When her father passed away earlier this year,
Blythe said she was left saddled with the $34,000 contract.
Another Texas resident, Mary Loller, told the Free Beacon that her
elderly father was senile and had been given months to live when a
door-to-door Sunnova salesman sold him a $60,000 solar system for
his mobile home last year.
"My dad told [the salesman] at that time he was on hospice and
dying. And basically, he wasn't in his right mind," said Loller.
In the wake of the report, Sen. John Barrasso (Wyo.) and Rep. Cathy
McMorris Rodgers (Wash.), the top Republicans on the Senate and
House energy committees, asked the DOE to turn over records
regarding the loan to Sunnova.
The inquiry into the Sunnova loan—the largest federal loan ever
approved for a solar company—is part of a broader congressional
probe into potential conflicts of interest at the DOE's Loan
Programs Office. The DOE office, which controls a $400 billion
funding spigot authorized by Biden-backed spending bills, is run by
former green energy executive Jigar Shah.
Before joining the Biden administration, Shah founded and ran a
nonprofit trade association called Cleantech Leaders Roundtable,
which has continued to set up meetings between him and loan-seeking
companies. Cleantech Leaders' former board chair, Anne Slaughter
Andrew, also sits on the board of Sunnova. [GN]
SUSAN MUELLER: "Allen" Protective Order Applicable in Jacobs Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jacobs v. Mueller et al.,
Case No. 23-cv-3606 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Loretta A. Preska
entered discovery orders as follows:
-- The Court finds that the substance of the Stipulation of
Confidentiality and Protective Order, so-ordered in Allen suit
(Case No. 19-cv-8173) on August 12, 2021, as clarified by the
order dated Dec. 13, 2021, remains largely applicable to the
Tranche I Cases.
-- The Court also finds that the substance of the HIPAA Qualified
Protective Order for Materials Produced by Defendants or NYS
DOCCS, so-ordered by the Court in Allen suit on Nov. 2, 2021,
is
also largely applicable to the Tranche I Cases.
However, as Defendants have noted, the Court entered the Allen
Discovery Orders when the parties were engaging in discovery in
anticipation of the Court's ruling on the Plaintiffs' motions
for
class certification in Allen.
-- The Court takes Defendants' point that the Tranche I Cases are
individual damages cases whose procedural postures are distinct
from when the Court entered the Allen Discovery Orders, in that
there is presently no anticipation of a ruling on class
certification.
Accordingly, the parties shall confer and propose in the
above-captioned case and the other Tranche I Cases a protective
order that includes the relevant terms from and effects of the
Allen Discovery Orders.
However, such proposed protective order shall include language
updated both to reflect the current procedural posture of the
above-captioned case and the other Tranche I Cases and accommodate
appropriately all factual and legal developments that have occurred
in the Tranche I Cases since the Court entered the Allen Discovery
Orders.
The Court separately holds that the Protective Order Regarding
Derrick Williams, filed under seal in Allen (the "Williams
Protective Order").
A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qoPqft at no extra
charge.[CC]
SUSAN MUELLER: "Allen" Protective Order Applicable in Ortiz Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ortiz, v. Dinello et al.,
Case No. 23-cv-3547 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Loretta A. Preska
entered discovery orders as follows:
-- The Court finds that the substance of the Stipulation of
Confidentiality and Protective Order, so-ordered in Allen suit
(Case No. 19-cv-8173) on August 12, 2021, as clarified by the
order dated Dec. 13, 2021, remains largely applicable to the
Tranche I Cases.
-- The Court also finds that the substance of the HIPAA Qualified
Protective Order for Materials Produced by Defendants or NYS
DOCCS, so-ordered by the Court in Allen suit on Nov. 2, 2021,
is
also largely applicable to the Tranche I Cases.
However, as Defendants have noted, the Court entered the Allen
Discovery Orders when the parties were engaging in discovery in
anticipation of the Court's ruling on the Plaintiffs' motions
for
class certification in Allen.
-- The Court takes Defendants' point that the Tranche I Cases are
individual damages cases whose procedural postures are distinct
from when the Court entered the Allen Discovery Orders, in that
there is presently no anticipation of a ruling on class
certification.
Accordingly, the parties shall confer and propose in the
above-captioned case and the other Tranche I Cases a protective
order that includes the relevant terms from and effects of the
Allen Discovery Orders.
However, such proposed protective order shall include language
updated both to reflect the current procedural posture of the
above-captioned case and the other Tranche I Cases and accommodate
appropriately all factual and legal developments that have occurred
in the Tranche I Cases since the Court entered the Allen Discovery
Orders.
The Court separately holds that the Protective Order Regarding
Derrick Williams, filed under seal in Allen (the "Williams
Protective Order"), remains applicable to the Tranche I Case
Williams v. Dinello, Case No. 23-cv-3608. Accordingly, the Court
will so-order the Williams Protective Order under seal in Williams
Suit.
As requested by the Plaintiffs' counsel, the Court will hold in
abeyance Plaintiffs' request to conduct de bene esse depositions.
The Plaintiffs shall inform the Court when they wish to renew their
request.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZTpsp2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
SUSAN MUELLER: "Allen" Protective Order Applicable in Perez Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Perez v. Dinello et al.,
Case No. 23-cv-3300 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Loretta A. Preska
entered discovery orders as follows:
-- The Court finds that the substance of the Stipulation of
Confidentiality and Protective Order, so-ordered in Allen suit
(Case No. 19-cv-8173) on August 12, 2021, as clarified by the
order dated Dec. 13, 2021, remains largely applicable to the
Tranche I Cases.
-- The Court also finds that the substance of the HIPAA Qualified
Protective Order for Materials Produced by Defendants or NYS
DOCCS, so-ordered by the Court in Allen suit on Nov. 2, 2021,
is
also largely applicable to the Tranche I Cases.
However, as Defendants have noted, the Court entered the Allen
Discovery Orders when the parties were engaging in discovery in
anticipation of the Court's ruling on the Plaintiffs' motions
for
class certification in Allen.
-- The Court takes Defendants' point that the Tranche I Cases are
individual damages cases whose procedural postures are distinct
from when the Court entered the Allen Discovery Orders, in that
there is presently no anticipation of a ruling on class
certification.
Accordingly, the parties shall confer and propose in the
above-captioned case and the other Tranche I Cases a protective
order that includes the relevant terms from and effects of the
Allen Discovery Orders.
However, such proposed protective order shall include language
updated both to reflect the current procedural posture of the
above-captioned case and the other Tranche I Cases and accommodate
appropriately all factual and legal developments that have occurred
in the Tranche I Cases since the Court entered the Allen Discovery
Orders.
The Court separately holds that the Protective Order Regarding
Derrick Williams, filed under seal in Allen (the "Williams
Protective Order").
A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aXlSJ7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
SUSAN MUELLER: "Allen" Protective Order Applicable in Reyes Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reyes. v. Dinello et al.,
Case No. 23-cv-3315 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Loretta A. Preska
entered discovery orders as follows:
-- The Court finds that the substance of the Stipulation of
Confidentiality and Protective Order, so-ordered in Allen suit
(Case No. 19-cv-8173) on August 12, 2021, as clarified by the
order dated Dec. 13, 2021, remains largely applicable to the
Tranche I Cases.
-- The Court also finds that the substance of the HIPAA Qualified
Protective Order for Materials Produced by Defendants or NYS
DOCCS, so-ordered by the Court in Allen suit on Nov. 2, 2021,
is
also largely applicable to the Tranche I Cases.
However, as Defendants have noted, the Court entered the Allen
Discovery Orders when the parties were engaging in discovery in
anticipation of the Court's ruling on the Plaintiffs' motions
for
class certification in Allen.
-- The Court takes Defendants' point that the Tranche I Cases are
individual damages cases whose procedural postures are distinct
from when the Court entered the Allen Discovery Orders, in that
there is presently no anticipation of a ruling on class
certification.
Accordingly, the parties shall confer and propose in the
above-captioned case and the other Tranche I Cases a protective
order that includes the relevant terms from and effects of the
Allen Discovery Orders.
However, such proposed protective order shall include language
updated both to reflect the current procedural posture of the
above-captioned case and the other Tranche I Cases and accommodate
appropriately all factual and legal developments that have occurred
in the Tranche I Cases since the Court entered the Allen Discovery
Orders.
The Court separately holds that the Protective Order Regarding
Derrick Williams, filed under seal in Allen (the "Williams
Protective Order"),
A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HkIf6J at no extra
charge.[CC]
SUSAN MUELLER: "Allen" Protective Order Applicable in Rivera Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rivera v. Hammer et al.,
Case No. 23-cv-3700 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Loretta A. Preska
entered discovery orders as follows:
-- The Court finds that the substance of the Stipulation of
Confidentiality and Protective Order, so-ordered in Allen suit
(Case No. 19-cv-8173) on August 12, 2021, as clarified by the
order dated Dec. 13, 2021, remains largely applicable to the
Tranche I Cases.
-- The Court also finds that the substance of the HIPAA Qualified
Protective Order for Materials Produced by Defendants or NYS
DOCCS, so-ordered by the Court in Allen suit on Nov. 2, 2021,
is
also largely applicable to the Tranche I Cases.
However, as Defendants have noted, the Court entered the Allen
Discovery Orders when the parties were engaging in discovery in
anticipation of the Court's ruling on the Plaintiffs' motions
for
class certification in Allen.
-- The Court takes Defendants' point that the Tranche I Cases are
individual damages cases whose procedural postures are distinct
from when the Court entered the Allen Discovery Orders, in that
there is presently no anticipation of a ruling on class
certification.
Accordingly, the parties shall confer and propose in the
above-captioned case and the other Tranche I Cases a protective
order that includes the relevant terms from and effects of the
Allen Discovery Orders.
However, such proposed protective order shall include language
updated both to reflect the current procedural posture of the
above-captioned case and the other Tranche I Cases and accommodate
appropriately all factual and legal developments that have occurred
in the Tranche I Cases since the Court entered the Allen Discovery
Orders.
The Court separately holds that the Protective Order Regarding
Derrick Williams, filed under seal in Allen (the "Williams
Protective Order").
A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i43jg8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
TARGET CORP: Navarro Sues Over Acne Treatment Products' False Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GRACE NAVARRO on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated, and the general public, v. TARGET CORPORATION and DOES 1
to 50, Inclusive, Case No. 1:24-cv-00280-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal., March
7, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violations of the California
Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
false advertising under various state statutes, deceptive trade
practices, breach of express and implied express warranty, and
unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff brings this consumer fraud Class Action to redress
the economic harms caused by Defendant Target's sale of benzoyl
peroxide acne treatment drug products ("BPO Products" or
"Products") without warning consumers that the BPO Products
contained unsafe levels of the potent human carcinogen benzene, and
that the BPO Products were at risk of degrading further into
benzene under normal use, handling, and storage conditions.
The Plaintiff, who purchased Target's BPO Products, including those
under the brand name Up & Up, alleges that she suffered economic
damages due to Defendant's misleading and deceptive advertising and
omissions of material health and safety information. The Defendant
also exposed Plaintiff and Class members to benzene without their
knowledge. The Plaintiff seeks damages for Defendant's alleged
violations.
Target Corporation is an American retail company with its principal
place of business located in Minneapolis, MN. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Brent Wisner, Esq.
Stephanie B. Sherman, Esq.
WISNER BAUM LLP
11111 Santa Monica Blvd, #1750
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 207-3233
Facsimile: (310) 820-7444
E-mail: rbwisner@wisnerbaum.com
ssherman@wisnerbaum.com
TGI FRIDAYS: McCollum Class Certification Bid Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE MCCOLLUM et al.,
v. TGI FRIDAYS INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-00392-FWS-JDE (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Fred Slaughter entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the motion for class Certification.
The court certifies the following classes:
Main Class: All non-exempt employees of Defendant TGI Fridays
Inc. in California during the period of Feb. 1, 2020[,]
through
the date of class certification.
Meal Break Subclass: All non-exempt employees of the Defendant
TGI Fridays Inc. in California who worked one or more shifts
over
five hours during the Class Period.
Meal Break Waiver Subclass: All non-exempt employees of the
Defendant TGI Fridays Inc. in California who worked one or
more
shifts over five hours but not more than six hours, signed the
Meal Break Waiver, and did not receive a meal break or premium
pay for a missed meal break during the Class Period.
The court appoints Plaintiff as the class representative and
Matthew J. Matern, Mikael H. Stahle, and Kayvon Sabourian of Matern
Law Group, PC and Kashif Haque, and Fawn F. Bekam of Aegis Law
Firm, PC as class counsel.
The court also orders the parties to promptly meet and confer
regarding the submission of a joint stipulated class notice and
distribution plan and file either a stipulated class notice and
distribution plan or a notice that no stipulation can be agreed to
within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant violated the California Labor
Code and Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Order No.
5-2001 section 11 by failing to authorize and provide meal periods
and rest
breaks, pay minimum and overtime wages, provide accurate itemized
statements, maintain required records, and compensate the
Plaintiffs and the Class Members for necessary expenditures.
The Plaintiffs also assert a claim under California's Unfair
Competition Law based on the same wage and hour law violations, and
a
representative action under the California Private Attorney General
Act of 2002 ("PAGA").
The Plaintiff Gragnano was employed as a server at the Defendant's
restaurant in Corona, California from January 2020 to July 2021.
The Defendant is a restaurant chain that owned and operated
eighteen restaurant locations in California.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Qv5BxO at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNIBARNS TRADING: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to May 6
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ORLANDO JONES, v. UNIBARNS
TRADING, INC. d/b/a UNICE HAIR, Case No. 1:23-cv-00594-CCE-JEP
(M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Joi Elizabeth Peake entered an order
granting in part the motion for extension of time, and extending
the deadline to file a motion for class certification to May 6,
2024, with responses due May 28, 2024, and replies due June 11,
2024.
Unibarns provides various hair products.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3MoQhE at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNITED ELECTRIC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Agnew Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
ALAN AGNEW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED ELECTRIC HOUSTON, LLC; and JEFFERSON
WRIGHT, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-00838 (S.D. Tex., Mar. 6,
2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Agnew was employed by the Defendants as an electrician.
UNITED ELECTRIC HOUSTON, LLC offers electrical services in Houston,
Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas H. Padgett, Jr., Esq.
Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 10099
Houston, TX 77206
Telephone: (713) 868-3388
Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
Email: tpadgett@buenkerlaw.com
jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
UNITED STATES: Faces $50M Class Suit Over Unpaid Salaries
---------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Metzger of Yahoo! News reports that you may have heard that
some lawmakers think the $174,000 annual salary for rank-and-file
House and Senate members is too low.
According to a new class-action lawsuit, it's gotten to that point
in part because lawmakers' wages have been "unconstitutionally
suppressed" -- and current and former lawmakers may be collectively
entitled to $50 million in damages as a result.
"This is a vindication of the Constitution and the principles the
founders were trying to achieve," Ken Cuccinelli, the lawyer and
former Trump White House official leading the suit, told Business
Insider in an interview.
Cuccinelli's lawsuit, first reported by POLITICO, was filed last
week on behalf of Republican Rep. Rick Crawford of Arkansas and a
trio of ex-lawmakers from both parties -- and it hinges primarily
on the 27th Amendment to the US Constitution:
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the
Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election
of Representatives shall have intervened.
The amendment was first submitted to the states for ratification
along with the amendments that later became the Bill of Rights --
but it wasn't ratified until 1992, over 200 years later.
The suit argues that Congress has violated the US Constitution by
routinely denying lawmakers an annual cost of living adjustment in
their salaries.
Since 2009, rank-and-file lawmakers' salaries have remained flat at
$174,000 because government funding bills have included a provision
explicitly blocking a modest pay increase that would otherwise
happen. Almost every year, Congress votes on those bills -- and
they take effect -- without an election happening in between.
Because lawmakers' salaries are not keeping pace with inflation and
increasing under the cost of living adjustment that would otherwise
take place, the suit argues that their wages are being "varied" by
being effectively suppressed, thus violating the 27th Amendment.
"You've got a situation now where you either have to be rich to go
into Congress, or you have to sacrifice your family," said
Cuccinelli, noting that lawmakers are typically expecting to
maintain two separate residences -- one in DC, and one in their
home state.
The suit calculates the amount of additional wages that the
ex-lawmakers are owed, including:
$753,300 for Democratic Ed Perlmutter of Colorado
$563,800 for Republican Rodney Davis of Illinois
$268,839 for Republican Tom Davis of Virginia
Estimating that roughly 1800 current and former lawmakers have been
affected by the routine denial of cost of living adjustments, the
plaintiffs are seeking roughly $50 million in damages from the
government.
It goes without saying that this is unpopular with the public --
despite the potential good-government benefits of raising
lawmakers' salaries, polling has consistently shown that Americans
hate the idea of giving Congress a raise.
But Cuccinelli -- who previously served as the Republican Attorney
General of Virginia, the acting Deputy Secretary of Homeland
Security under President Donald Trump, and at one point, the head
of a pro-Ron DeSantis super PAC -- says he doesn't care in the
least.
"If you know anything about my history, obviously I'm a
conservative and a constitutionalist. I suffer from severe
idealism," he said. "I don't think the Constitution was written to
restrain government actions in ways that would always be popular."
"People who don't like it should take it up with James Madison,"
Cuccinelli added, referring to the fourth US president and the
original proponent of the 27th Amendment. "I'm not embarrassed to
be on the side of James Madison."
Cuccinelli said he was first inspired to pursue this case when he
helped a trio of Republican congressmen with a lawsuit over the
fines that former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi imposed on them for
skirting the magnetometers that used to stand at each entrance to
the House chamber. That suit also alleged a violation of the 27th
Amendment, though a judge later dismissed the case.
He also lauded the bravery of Crawford -- who faces reelection in
November, unlike the other plaintiffs -- as taking a "courageous
step" by joining the lawsuit. [GN]
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Employee Retirement Plan Suit Heads to Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Snowbeck of Star Tribune reports that a class-action
lawsuit alleging UnitedHealth Group retained Wells Fargo investment
funds as a key option in its employee retirement plan despite poor
performance is headed to trial.
UnitedHealth, the plaintiffs claim, did this in part to protect its
"balance of trade" with the big bank.
Judge John Tunheim of the U.S. District Court of Minnesota on March
12, 2024 denied most of UnitedHealth Group's motion for summary
judgment in the case, which names the company and former chief
executive officer David Wichmann as defendants.
The lawsuit was amended in August 2022 to add as a defendant chief
financial officer John Rex, who plaintiffs allege was motivated by
his company's significant business relationship with Wells Fargo
when he pushed to retain the bank's low-performing investment funds
in the employee 401(k) plan.
In his ruling, Tunheim said the case would be scheduled for court
at the next available trial date.
"Because a reasonable trier of fact could easily find that
plaintiff Kim Snyder caught defendant UnitedHealth Group, Inc.,
with its hand in the cookie jar, the court will substantially deny
United's motion for summary judgment," the judge wrote.
"There are genuine disputes of material fact as to whether United
breached its duties of prudence and loyalty [...] by investing its
employees' 401(k) savings in underperforming Wells Fargo funds for
more than a decade and allowing United's business relationship with
Wells to influence that allegedly imprudent retention," Tunheim
ruled. "There is also a genuine dispute as to whether Wells's fees
were reasonable, and thus whether United engaged in a prohibited
transaction."
In a March 13, 2024 statement to the Star Tribune, UnitedHealth
group said: "These claims are without merit. We look forward to
presenting our case at trial."
Wells Fargo did not comment. In 2021, the bank sold its asset
management business, which ran these retirement funds.
Tunheim noted how evidence shows Rex requested "balance of trade"
ledgers be produced, to show how much business UnitedHealth Group
conducted with Wells Fargo and various investment firms that could
be selected as retirement fund options.
On one side of the ledger, UnitedHealth generated between $50
million and $60 million in revenue over four years as health
insurance provider for Wells Fargo. On the other side, Wells
provided substantial banking services to UnitedHealth, which was
the bank's "largest client and lifeline" in the market for
target-date funds, the judge wrote.
These comparisons showed that, among the firms, UnitedHealth's most
profitable relationship was with Wells Fargo.
The judge also cited a January 2018 email from a Wells Fargo
employee that documented how Rex complained UnitedHealth was losing
its bid to keep a health insurance contract with the bank. Rex told
the bank employee that he had "stepped in front of a freight train"
the previous summer to preserve the investment business for Wells
Fargo.
"Rex's request for balance of trade ledgers and his statement to
Wells Fargo about jumping in front of a freight train, to name two
instances, show the injection of business interests into the plan
selection process," Tunheim wrote, while noting that the parties
debate whether the statement recorded in the email is hearsay, and
therefore not admissible. "The loyalty issue is not a particularly
close call, and the court would deny summary judgment even absent
the email."
UnitedHealth added the Wells Fargo target fund suite as an option
in the employee retirement savings plan in 2010. These funds, which
are popular with investors, are tailored for different groups based
on retirement date. Assets are rebalanced over time to focus less
on growth as investors near retirement age.
The Wells Fargo funds were the default option when employees did
not make investment elections, the lawsuit says, and the only
target date funds available within the plan from 2010 to 2021.
UnitedHealth Group's 401(k) includes more than 200,000 current and
former employees with about $15 billion under management.
The company argues that the Wells Fargo funds outperformed peers
when accounting for their lower-risk, lower-reward investment
approach. Plaintiffs counter other funds would have generated
hundreds of millions of dollars in additional investment profits,
making the funds from Wells Fargo inferior.
In October 2014, an outside consultant recommended that
UnitedHealth evaluate other options. In 2016, an internal
investment committee heard and considered proposals from six
candidates, Tunheim wrote, and ranked Wells Fargo at the bottom "by
a significant margin."
As a non-finalist, Wells Fargo was "ostensibly out of the running,"
the ruling stated. Yet, UnitedHealth ultimately decided in June
2017 to retain the funds from Wells Fargo.
UnitedHealth says Wells Fargo changed leadership in its asset
management business in late 2016, so the bank was given the chance
to try again as a professional courtesy. The company, in turn, says
it was impressed by the new personnel, believed it had a strong
negotiating position for a lower price from Wells Fargo, and found
problems with bids from other investment firms.
Plaintiffs say a prudent fiduciary would have moved much faster to
change providers, rather than embark on a nearly three-year
process. Plus, they argue UnitedHealth brought its business ties
with Wells Fargo to the fore, noting how Rex was appointed to the
investment committee evaluating options and later named the
"executive sponsor" of UnitedHealth's relationship with the bank.
"Consideration of United's relationship with Wells did not end with
Rex," the judge wrote. "Rather, the committee received word that
United executives, including its president David Wichmann, needed
to be preemptively informed which companies would be selected as
finalists. A committee member later warned of escalation to
executives, including Wichmann, if Wells was not selected."
Tunheim noted how Rex instructed the company's consultant be out of
the room for committee discussions for more than two months leading
up to the decision. UnitedHealth did not keep contemporaneous
minutes of certain selection meetings, Tunheim wrote, and abandoned
scorecards that reflected poorly on Wells Fargo earlier in the
process.
In March 2017, one month before the committee held finalist
presentations, Rex learned UnitedHealth would have to bid to retain
health insurance business from Wells Fargo.
UnitedHealth finalized its decision to retain retirement funds from
Wells Fargo in June 2017, three days before the bank opened bidding
for the insurance contract.
UnitedHealth argued that the fact it was not ultimately awarded the
health insurance contract the following winter "shows there was no
quid pro quo," Tunheim wrote. But this does not resolve the
company's pre-bidding motivation, the judge ruled.
"Rex may have still been motivated by the potential contract and
simply miscalculated," Tunheim wrote. "The law often punishes
attempted misfeasance the same as completed misfeasance. A failed
bid to use the plan as a bargaining chip would still violate the
duty of loyalty."
Tunheim found UnitedHealth's board of directors should not be a
defendant. The judge also ruled that the company did not breach any
enforceable provision of its investment policy statement. [GN]
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Plaintiffs Bid to Consolidate Data Breach Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson of Reuters reports that UnitedHealth Group (UNH.N)
has already been hit with at least six class action lawsuits
accusing it of failing to protect millions of people's personal
data from last month's hack of Change Healthcare, its payment
processing unit, with more lawsuits likely to come.
In a motion filed late on March 12, 2024 in Washington, D.C.,
plaintiffs' lawyers asked a federal judicial panel to consolidate
the six cases in federal court in Nashville, Tennessee, where
Change is headquartered, and said they expected more cases to be
filed.
It is not known how large the litigation could become because it is
not clear how much or what kind of information was compromised in
the attack, which was carried out by the ransomware hacker group
BlackCat.
UnitedHealth, which disclosed the attack on Feb. 21 without
specifying how many people were affected, said in a statement March
13, 2024 that it was focused restoring Change's operations.
UnitedHealth hasn't said if BlackCat demanded ransom, but a post on
an online forum used by hackers claimed the company paid $22
million to the hackers for regaining access to its locked systems.
Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
(HIPAA), a U.S. health privacy law, companies have 60 days after
discovering a data breach to notify affected individuals that their
personal information has been compromised.
For breaches affecting more than 500 people, the company must
notify federal regulators and prominent media. UnitedHealth has so
far not given such a notice.
Change processes about 50% of the medical claims in the United
States for around 900,000 physicians, 33,000 pharmacies, 5,500
hospitals and 600 laboratories.
The attack has halted Change's operations, leaving providers,
including major hospital systems, small medical practices and
pharmacies unable to collect payments. According to UnitedHealth's
website, Change is expected to resume processing payments by March
15.
All of the lawsuits claim that Change failed to safeguard patients'
personal information, putting them at risk of identity theft and
privacy violations. Some also allege that patients have been unable
to fill prescriptions because their insurance claims cannot be
processed, putting their health at risk.
Plaintiffs say that information stored by Change, and now
potentially at risk, includes medical records, payment information,
names and Social Security numbers. One of the lawsuits says that
"information from the data breach is on the dark web and already
being offered for sale," though it does not provide any details
supporting that claim.
The lawsuits accuse the company of negligence and of violating the
privacy requirements in HIPAA and various state laws.
Four of the lawsuits are filed against Change in Nashville, and two
are filed against UnitedHealth in the parent company's home state
of Minnesota.
March 12, 2024's motion was filed by the lawyers in the Nashville
cases. Lawyers in the Minnesota cases could file a competing motion
to have the cases moved to their court, in which case the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation would decide where to
send them. [GN]
UP FINTECH HOLDING: Burns Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lavale Burns, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. UP FINTECH HOLDING LIMITED, TIANHUA
WU, and JOHN FEI ZENG, Case No. 2:23-cv-04842 was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
March 4, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-01632-JGLC-RFT
to the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities for
Securities Exchange Act.
UP Fintech Holding Limited -- https://ir.itigerup.com/ -- is a
leading online brokerage firm focusing on global Chinese
investors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
ROSEN LAW FIRM PA
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 785-2610
Fax: (213) 226-4684
The Defendants are represented by:
Neal Alan Potischman, Esq.
DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP (NYC)
450 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 450-4000
Fax: (212) 450-3270
Email: Neal.Potischman@dpw.com
- and -
Vincent Barredo, Esq.
DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
1600 El Camino Real
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Phone: (650) 752-2099
Email: vincent.barredo@davispolk.com
VGW HOLDINGS: Kennedy Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atlanta Women's
Health Group, P.C., et al. The case is styled as Destiny Kennedy,
and other georgia citizens similarly situated v. VGW Holdings
Limited, VGW Malta Limited, VGW Luckyland Inc., VGW GP Limited,
Case No. 24CV002780 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cty., March 5, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Tort/Negligence."
VGW Holdings Ltd. -- https://www.vgw.co/ -- is a global technology
company specialising in the creation of cutting-edge online social
games.[BN]
WELLS FARGO BANK: Bishop Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo Bank, et
al. The case is styled as Terry Bishop, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:24-cv-00435-PAB (N.D. Ohio, March 6, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Wells Fargo & Company -- http://www.wellsfargo.com/-- is an
American multinational financial services company with a
significant global presence.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Flick, Esq.
Marc E. Dann, Esq.
DANNLAW
15000 Madison Avenue
Lakewood, OH 44107
Phone: (513) 645-3488
Fax: (216) 373-0536
Email: bflick@dannlaw.com
notices@dannlaw.com
WELLS FARGO: Curry Sues Over Improper Mortgage Modifications
------------------------------------------------------------
MYRON CURRY; DARRELL FORNEY; and CHESTER NELSON, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WELLS
FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01358-MMC (N.D.
Cal., March 7, 2024) alleges that the Plaintiffs suffered damages
as a result of the Defendant's "calculation errors," which stemmed
from a common cause, and resulted in the Defendant wrongfully
denying permanent loan modifications for borrowers.
According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, between 2010 and
2018, the Defendant failed to detect or ignored multiple systematic
errors in its automated decision-making software. This software
determined customers' eligibility for a government-mandated
mortgage modification during a time of extreme financial distress.
Its importance to these customers' lives cannot be overstated.
Yet, the Defendant failed to adequately test, audit, and verify
that its software was correctly calculating whether customers met
threshold requirements for a mortgage modification. Defendant
further failed to regularly and properly audit the software for
compliance with government requirements, allowing life-changing
errors to remain uncorrected for years, says the suit.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. operates as a bank. The Bank offers online
and mobile banking, home mortgage, loans and credit, investment and
retirement, wealth management, and insurance services. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alisa Rose Adams, Esq.
THE DANNLAW FIRM
26100 Towne Center Drive
Foothill Ranch, CA 92610-3442
Telephone: (949) 200-8755
Facsimile: (866) 843-8308
Email: notices@dannlaw.com
aadams@dannlaw.com
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Lamanna Suit Over Undisclosed Fridge Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LESLIE LAMANNA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-00310-UNA (D.
Del., March 7, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating multiple
state laws, including the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False
Advertising Law, and the Song-Beverly Warranty Act.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of those who purchased
certain side-by-side refrigerators manufactured by Defendant which
suffer from a defect affecting the components in the door,
including the ice maker and dispenser. The defective refrigerators
include, but are not limited to, model number WRS571CIHZ. The
Plaintiff alleges that the said defect was present at the time of
sale and was not disclosed by Defendant to the purchasers.
The Plaintiff further claims that the issue has been occurring for
years with Defendants receiving multiple complaints and service
requests regarding the defect. However, Defendant failed to provide
effective and lasting remedy to the defect, pursuant to the express
or implied warranties. Defendant is accused of misrepresenting,
concealing, and omitting material information concerning the
defect, says the Plaintiff.
Headquartered in Benton Harbor, MI, Whirlpool Corporation is an
American multinational manufacturer and marketer of home
appliances. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
DELEEUW LAW LLC
1301 Walnut Green Road
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 274-2180
Facsimile: (302) 351-6905
E-mail: brad@deleeulaw.com
- and –
Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
Nicholas J. Elia, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com
dmagagna@lfsblaw.com
nelia@lfsblaw.com
- and –
D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
Sara Watkins, Esq.
ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES
707 Grant Street, Suite 125
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (844) 383-0565
E-mail: arihn@piercelaw.com
swatkins@piercelaw.com
- and –
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H Street N.E., Suite 302
Washington, D.C. 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
jrathod@classlawdc.com
WIDENER UNIVERSITY: Sparacino Seeks COVID-19 Tuition Fee Refunds
----------------------------------------------------------------
GIANNA SPARACINO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. WIDENER UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:24-cv-01001-KBH (E.D.
Pa., March 7, 2024) accuses the Defendant of breach of implied
contract and unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff was an undergraduate student enrolled at Defendant
for the Spring 2020 semester which was scheduled to run from
approximately January 13, 2020 to May 8, 2020. The Plaintiff paid
tuition and fees for an in-person educational experience and access
to campus for the entirety of the Spring 2020 semester. In or
around March 15, 2020, Defendant closed its campus and suspended
access to on-campus services and facilities in response to the
COVID-19 pandemic.
The Defendant refused to provide a prorated refund of tuition or
fees tied to its on-campus education services that were not
available to students for a significant part of the Spring 2020
semester. By doing so, Defendant breached its contracts with
students and was otherwise unjustly enriched, Plaintiff alleges.
Widener University is a private university that offers over 60
undergraduate, master's and doctoral programs. Its principal campus
is located in Chester, PA. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
jamisen@lcllp.com
nickc@lcllp.com
- and –
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
Anthony Alesandro, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com
YOUR HOMETOWN: Plaintiffs Can File Conditional Class Cert. Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Raymond Clardy and Imari
Armstrong v. Your Hometown Movers LLC et. al., Case No.
7:23-cv-11172-NSR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Nelson Roman entered
an order waiving the pre-motion conference requirement and granting
Plaintiffs leave to file a motion for conditional class
certification in accordance with the following briefing schedule:
(1) The Plaintiffs' moving papers are to be served (not filed)
on
April 22, 2024.
(2) The Defendants' opposition papers are to be served (not
filed)
on May 22, 2024.
(3) The Plaintiffs' reply papers are to be served on June
12,2024.
All motion papers are to be filed by the parties on the reply date,
June 12, 2024. The parties are directed to provide Chambers with
two physical courtesy copies of their motion papers on the same
date they are served on opposing counsel.
The parties are further directed to provide the Court with an
electronic courtesy copy of the motion papers as they are served
per this Court’s local emergency civil rules.
The Second Circuit has held that pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act ("FLSA"), the Plaintiffs seeking certification of a
collective
action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) must survive a
two-stage process.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate a similarly even
between themselves. The Plaintiff Imari Armstrong cannot arguably
establish a violation under the FLSA because he never worked in
excess of 40 hours in any given workweek."
Your Hometown Mover offers full-service household and commercial
moving services in the Hudson Valley region.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 6, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g7uF97 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Ian E. Smith, Esq.
SPIRE LAW, LLC
2572 W State Rd 426, Suite 2088
Oviedo, FL 32765
Telephone: (407) 494-0135
E-mail: ian@spirelawfirm.com
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Faces 3,606 PI Claims as of Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. is a defendant in suits brought in
various courts in the United States by plaintiffs who allege that
they have suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing paper machine clothing synthetic dryer fabrics
marketed during the period from 1967 to 1976 and used in certain
paper mills, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We were defending 3,606 claims as of December
31, 2023.
"We anticipate that additional claims will be filed against the
Company and related companies in the future, but are unable to
predict the number and timing of such future claims. Due to the
fact that information sufficient to meaningfully estimate a range
of possible loss of a particular claim is typically not available
until late in the discovery process, we do not believe a meaningful
estimate can be made regarding the range of possible loss with
respect to pending or future claims and therefore are unable to
estimate a range of reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts
already accrued for pending or future claims.
"While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we
have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable
given the facts and circumstances of each case. Our insurance
carrier has defended each case and funded settlements under a
standard reservation of rights. As of December 31, 2023 we had
resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 38,043 claims. The
total cost of resolving all claims was $10.7 million. Of this
amount, almost 100 percent was paid by our insurance carrier, who
has confirmed that we have approximately $140 million of remaining
coverage under primary and excess policies that should be available
with respect to current and future asbestos claims.
"We currently do not anticipate, based on currently available
information, that the ultimate resolution of the aforementioned
proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows of the Company.
Although we cannot predict the number and timing of future claims,
based on the foregoing factors, the trends in claims filed against
us, and available insurance, we also do not currently anticipate
that potential future claims will have a material adverse effect on
our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EiJwOz
ASBESTOS UPDATE: APi Group Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
Certain of APi Group Corporation's businesses, along with numerous
other third parties, are named as defendants in personal injury
lawsuits based on alleged exposure to various hazardous materials,
including asbestos and PFAS, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Hazardous materials that are the subject of
these lawsuits could in the future include, among others, asbestos,
PFAS, silica or solvents that may be or may have been previously
used in the course of our work. These cases typically involve
product liability claims based primarily on allegations of sale,
distribution, installation or use of industrial products that
either contained hazardous materials or were used with hazardous
material containing components. Allegations of the presence of or
exposure to these types of hazardous materials could be the basis
of additional third-party claims and lawsuits. It is uncertain
whether we will be successful in litigating or otherwise resolving
these types of claims and lawsuits in the future and we continue to
evaluate different strategies related to claims filed against us.
Unfavorable rulings, judgments or settlement terms in future cases
could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition,
results of operations, and cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=02V0NE
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Defends Personal Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC (BNSF) is party to asbestos
claims by employees and non-employees who may have been exposed to
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
BNSF's personal injury liability includes the cost of claims for
employee work-related injuries, third-party claims, and asbestos
claims. BNSF records a liability for asserted and unasserted claims
when the expected loss is both probable and reasonably estimable.
Because of the uncertainty of the timing of future payments, the
liability is undiscounted. Defense and processing costs, which are
recorded on an as-reported basis, are not included in the recorded
liability. Expense accruals and adjustments are classified as
materials and other in the Consolidated Statements of Income.
Personal injury claims by BNSF Railway employees are subject to the
provisions of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) rather
than state workers' compensation laws. Resolution of these cases
under FELA's fault-based system requires either a finding of fault
by a jury or an out-of-court settlement. Third-party claims include
claims by non-employees for compensatory damages and may, from time
to time, include requests for punitive damages or treatment of the
claim as a class action.
BNSF estimates its personal injury liability claims and expense
using standard actuarial methodologies based on the covered
population, activity levels and trends in frequency, and the costs
of covered injuries. The Company monitors actual experience against
the forecasted number of claims to be received, the forecasted
number of claims closing with payment, and expected claim payments
and records adjustments as new events or changes in estimates
develop.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S58svh
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cincinnati Financial Has $98MM A&E Loss Reserves
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cincinnati Financial Corporation carried $98 million of loss
expense reserves for asbestos and environmental claims at year-end
2023, compared with $92 million at year-end 2022, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "The asbestos and environmental claims amounts
for each respective year constituted less than 2.0% of total net
loss and loss expense reserves at these year-end dates. We believe
our exposure to asbestos and environmental claims is limited,
largely because our reinsurance retention was $500,000 or below
prior to 1987. We also were predominantly a personal lines company
in the 1960s and 1970s. During the 1980s and early 1990s,
commercial lines grew as a percentage of our overall business and
our exposure to asbestos and environmental claims grew accordingly.
Over that period, we included an asbestos and environmental
exclusion in almost all policies or endorsed the exclusion to the
policies. We have no exposure to asbestos and environmental claims
related to our acquisition of Cincinnati Global. We continue to
monitor our claims for evidence of material exposure to other mass
tort classes but have found no such credible evidence to date."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KNAR5J
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Energy Estimates $131MM Liabilities
------------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Energy Generation, LLC, maintains a reserve for
claims associated with asbestos-related personal injury actions at
certain facilities that are currently owned by them or were
previously owned by former related entities Commonwealth Edison
Company (ComEd), PECO Energy Company, or Baltimore Gas and Electric
Company (BGE), according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "At December 31, 2023 and 2022, we recorded
estimated liabilities of approximately $131 million and $95
million, respectively, in total for asbestos-related bodily injury
claims. As of December 31, 2023, approximately $20 million of this
amount related to 235 open claims presented to us, while the
remaining $111 million is for estimated future asbestos-related
bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through 2055, based on
actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are updated on an annual
basis. On a quarterly basis, we monitor actual experience against
the number of forecasted claims to be received and expected claim
payments and evaluate whether adjustments to the estimated
liabilities are necessary."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QPq3WA
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Receives 1,500 New Exposure Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Crown
Holdings, Inc., is one of many defendants in a substantial number
of lawsuits filed throughout the United States by persons alleging
bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "During the year ended December 31, 2023, Crown
Cork received approximately 1,500 new claims, settled or dismissed
approximately 500 claims, and had approximately 58,500 claims
outstanding at the end of the period. Of the Company's outstanding
claims, approximately 18,000 claims relate to claimants alleging
first exposure to asbestos after 1964 and approximately 40,500
relate to claimants alleging first exposure to asbestos before or
during 1964, of which approximately 13,000 were filed in Texas,
1,500 were filed in Pennsylvania, 6,000 were filed in other states
that have enacted asbestos legislation and 20,000 were filed in
other states. The outstanding claims at December 31, 2023 also
exclude approximately 19,000 inactive claims, as well as claims in
Texas filed after June 11, 2003. Due to the passage of time, the
Company considers it unlikely that the plaintiffs in these cases
will pursue further action. The exclusion of these inactive claims
had no effect on the calculation of the Company's accrual as the
claims were filed in states where the Company's liability is
limited by statute. The Company devotes significant time and
expense to defend against these various claims, complaints and
proceedings, and there can be no assurance that the expenses or
distractions from operating the Company's business arising from
these defenses will not increase materially.
"Crown Cork made cash payments of $17 million, $21 million and $19
million in 2023, 2022 and 2021 to settle asbestos claims and pay
related legal and defense costs. These payments and any such future
payments will reduce the cash flow available to Crown Cork for its
business operations and debt payments."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ol34au
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dayforce Defends Asbestos Related Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Dayforce, Inc., has been subject to asbestos related claims for
former CDC employees, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We are subject to claims and investigations as
a result of our predecessor, Control Data Corporation ("CDC"),
Ceridian Corporation, and other former entities for whom we are
successor-in-interest with respect to assumed liabilities. For
example, in September 1989, CDC became party to an environmental
matters agreement with Seagate Technology plc ("Seagate") related
to groundwater contamination on a parcel of real estate in Omaha,
Nebraska sold by CDC to Seagate. In February 1988, CDC entered into
an arrangement with Northern Engraving Corporation and the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in relation to groundwater
contamination at a site in Spring Grove, Minnesota. It has also
been subject to asbestos related claims for former CDC employees.
Although the Company is fully reserved for these groundwater
contamination liabilities, and partially insured for the asbestos
claims, the Company cannot be certain if additional claims,
investigations, or liabilities related to such predecessor
companies will surface."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oM7o54
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EFH Has 28,000 Claims Filed as of Feb. 20
----------------------------------------------------------
Sempra's indirect subsidiaries which were acquired as part of the
merger of Energy Future Holdings Corp. (EFH), were defendants in
personal injury lawsuits brought in state courts throughout the
U.S., according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "As of February 20, 2024, no lawsuits are
pending. Additionally, approximately 28,000 proofs of claim were
filed, but not discharged, in advance of a December 2015 deadline
to file a proof of claim in the EFH bankruptcy proceeding on behalf
of persons who allege exposure to asbestos under similar
circumstances and assert the right to file such lawsuits in the
future. The costs to defend or resolve such claims and the amount
of damages that may be incurred could have a material adverse
effect on Sempra's results of operations, financial condition, cash
flows and/or prospects.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ha5nN3
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enviri Corp. Has 17,000 Pending PI Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Enviri Corporation is named as one of many defendants in legal
actions in the U.S. alleging personal injury from exposure to
airborne asbestos over the past several decades, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
As of December 2023, there were approximately 17,000 pending
asbestos personal injury actions filed against the Company. The
vast majority of these actions were filed in the New York Supreme
Court (New York County), of which the majority of such actions were
on the Deferred/Inactive Docket created by the court in December
2002 for all pending and future asbestos actions filed by persons
who cannot demonstrate that they have a malignant condition or
discernible physical impairment. A relatively small portion of
cases are on the Active or In Extremis docket in New York County or
on active dockets in other jurisdictions. The complaints in most of
those actions generally follow a form that contains a standard
demand of significant damages, regardless of the individual
plaintiff's alleged medical condition, and without identifying any
Company product.
In view of the persistence of asbestos litigation in the U.S., the
Company expects to continue to receive additional claims in the
future. The Company intends to continue its practice of vigorously
defending these claims and cases. As of December 2023, the Company
has successfully dismissed approximately 28,500 cases by
stipulation or summary judgment prior to trial.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iZf8Iu
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Group Records $209MM Net Loss Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Group, Ltd., with respect to asbestos only, at December 31,
2023, had net asbestos loss reserves of $209 million, or 90.4%, of
total net A&E reserves, all of which was for assumed business,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We continue to receive claims under expired
insurance and reinsurance contracts asserting injuries and/or
damages relating to or resulting from environmental pollution and
hazardous substances, including asbestos. Environmental claims
typically assert liability for (a) the mitigation or remediation of
environmental contamination or (b) bodily injury or property damage
caused by the release of hazardous substances into the land, air or
water. Asbestos claims typically assert liability for bodily injury
from exposure to asbestos or for property damage resulting from
asbestos or products containing asbestos.
"Our reserves include an estimate of our ultimate liability for A&E
claims. There are significant uncertainties surrounding our
estimates of our potential losses from A&E claims. Among the
uncertainties are: (a) potentially long waiting periods between
exposure and manifestation of any bodily injury or property damage;
(b) difficulty in identifying sources of asbestos or environmental
contamination; (c) difficulty in properly allocating responsibility
and/or liability for asbestos or environmental damage; (d) changes
in underlying laws and judicial interpretation of those laws; (e)
the potential for an asbestos or environmental claim to involve
many insurance providers over many policy periods; (f) questions
concerning interpretation and application of insurance and
reinsurance coverage; and (g) uncertainty regarding the number and
identity of insureds with potential asbestos or environmental
exposure."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nnXZVh
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corp. Has 10,976 Pending Claims as of Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corporation, like hundreds of other industrial companies, has
been named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related personal
injury litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "As of December 31, 2023, there were
approximately 10,976 premises and product asbestos claims pending
against FMC in several jurisdictions. Since the 1980s,
approximately 122,000 asbestos claims against FMC have been
discharged, the overwhelming majority of which have been dismissed
without any payment to the claimant. Since the 1980s, settlements
with claimants have totaled approximately $207 million.
"Most of these cases allege personal injury or death resulting from
exposure to asbestos in premises of FMC or to asbestos-containing
components installed in machinery or equipment manufactured or sold
by discontinued operations. The machinery and equipment businesses
we owned or operated did not fabricate the asbestos-containing
component parts at issue in the litigation. Further, the
asbestos-containing parts for this machinery and equipment were
accessible only at the time of infrequent repair and maintenance. A
few jurisdictions have permitted claims to proceed against
equipment manufacturers relating to insulation installed by other
companies on such machinery and equipment. We believe that,
overall, the claims against FMC are without merit."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Croycc
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Inc. Faces 1,065 PI Lawsuits as of Jan 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------
GMS Inc., since 2002 and as of January 31, 2024, approximately
1,065 asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits have been filed,
and it vigorously defends against them, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Of these, 1,011 have been dismissed without
any payment by us, 40 are pending and only 14 have been settled,
which settlements have not materially impacted our financial
condition or operating results.
"As a distributor of building materials, we face an inherent risk
of exposure to product liability claims if the use of the products
we have distributed in the past or may in the future distribute is
alleged to have resulted in economic loss, personal injury or
property damage or to have violated environmental, health or safety
or other laws. Such product liability claims have included and may
in the future include allegations of defects in manufacturing,
defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the
product, negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties.
Certain of our subsidiaries have been the subject of claims related
to alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products they
distributed prior to 1979."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s15aUN
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Horace Mann Insurance Defends Asbestos Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
In 2023, the Horace Mann Insurance Company (HMIC) was named as a
defendant in one lawsuit and received various demands for
reimbursement and notices of claims related to legacy, long-tail
commercial lines claims, including asbestos, environmental, and
sexual molestation claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "It is alleged that HMIC reinsured certain
commercial lines policies as a member of various insurance pooling
arrangements in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The related
policies were written prior to the 1975 acquisition of Horace Mann
by INA discussed in Part I - Item 1 of this Annual Report on Form
10-K. HMEC's available records indicate that on January 1, 1975,
HMIC entered a quota share retrocession treaty with INA. It is the
Company's understanding that claims arising under these legacy
policies were handled by various third parties pursuant to the
terms of that treaty and its subsequent amendments entered into on
behalf of HMIC. Ultimately, after amendments to the treaty and
various corporate transactions involving the reinsurer, these
obligations were assumed by companies that were affiliated with R&Q
Reinsurance Company (R&Q)."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JEZ9h5
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IPALCO Still Defends Asbestos Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
IPALCO Enterprises, Inc., has been named as a defendant in asbestos
litigation as asbestos and other regulated substances are, and may
continue to be, present at its facilities, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "The continued presence of asbestos and other
regulated substances at these facilities could result in additional
litigation being brought against us, which could have a material
adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition
and cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ntSBJx
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Co-Defends 1,387 Exposure Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., as of December 31, 2023, was a
co-defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving
claims by approximately 1,387 plaintiffs, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "In each instance, we are one of a large number
of defendants. The asbestos claimants allege that exposure to
asbestos contained in welding consumables caused the plaintiffs to
develop adverse pulmonary diseases, including mesothelioma and
other lung cancers.
"Since January 1, 1995, we have been a co-defendant in asbestos
cases that have been resolved as follows: 56,986 of those claims
were dismissed, 23 were tried to defense verdicts, 7 were tried to
plaintiff verdicts (which were reversed or resolved after appeal),
1 was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount and 1,015 were
decided in favor of the Company following summary judgment
motions.
"The long-term impact of the asbestos loss contingency, in the
aggregate, on operating results, operating cash flows and access to
capital markets is difficult to assess, particularly since claims
are in many different stages of development and we benefit
significantly from cost-sharing with co-defendants and insurance
carriers. While we intend to contest these lawsuits vigorously, and
believe we have applicable insurance relating to these claims,
there are several risks and uncertainties that may affect our
liability for personal injury claims relating to exposure to
asbestos, including the future impact of changing cost sharing
arrangements or a change in our overall trial experience."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2mJjrH
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Manitex International, Inc., has been named as a defendant in
several multi-defendant asbestos related product liability
lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "In certain cases the plaintiff has, to date,
not been able to establish any exposure by the plaintiff to the
Company's products. The Company is uninsured with respect to these
claims but believes that it will not incur any material liability
with respect to these to claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EtOq6M
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ODP Corp. Estimates $25MM Possible Losses
----------------------------------------------------------
The ODP Corporation's subsidiary OfficeMax, is named as a defendant
in a number of lawsuits, claims, and proceedings arising out of the
operation of certain paper and forest products assets prior to
those assets being sold in 2004, for which OfficeMax agreed to
retain responsibility, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Additionally, as of December 30, 2023, the Company has made
provision for environmental liabilities with respect to certain
sites where hazardous substances or other contaminants are or may
be located. For these liabilities, the Company's estimated range of
reasonably possible losses was approximately $15 million to $25
million. The Company regularly monitors its estimated exposure to
these liabilities. As additional information becomes known, these
estimates may change; however, the Company does not believe any of
these OfficeMax retained proceedings are material to the Company's
financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZRkbWH
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paramount Global Reports 2,790 New Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Paramount Global is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various
personal injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which
allegedly occurred as a result of exposure caused by various
products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally
prior to the early 1970s, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "As of December 31, 2023, we had pending
approximately 19,970 asbestos claims, as compared with
approximately 21,580 as of December 31, 2022 and 27,770 as of
December 31, 2021. During 2023, we received approximately 2,790 new
claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket approximately
4,400 claims. We report claims as closed when we become aware that
a dismissal order has been entered by a court or when we have
reached agreement with the claimants on the material terms of a
settlement. Settlement costs depend on the seriousness of the
injuries that form the basis of the claims, the quality of evidence
supporting the claims and other factors. Our total costs for the
years 2023 and 2022 for settlement and defense of asbestos claims
after insurance recoveries and net of tax were approximately $54
million and $57 million, respectively. Our costs for settlement and
defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year and insurance
proceeds are not always recovered in the same period as the insured
portion of the expenses."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pZol9w
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Perrigo Co. Faces 115 Product Liability Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc has been named, together with other
manufacturers, in product liability lawsuits in a variety of state
courts alleging that the use of body powder products containing
talcum powder causes mesothelioma and lung cancer due to the
presence of asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
As of December 31, 2023, the Company has been named in
approximately 115 individual lawsuits seeking compensatory and
punitive damages. The Company has several defenses and intends to
aggressively defend these lawsuits. Trials for these lawsuits are
currently scheduled throughout 2024 and 2025.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V02bwo
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Estimates $61.5MM in Liabilities
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation, as of December 31, 2023, has estimated
liabilities and estimated insurance recoveries for all current and
future indemnity and defense costs projected through 2064 of $61.5
million and $56.5 million, respectively, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We endeavor to maintain insurance coverage
with reasonable deductible levels to protect us from potential
exposures to product liability claims. Any liability associated
with such claims is based on management's best estimate of the
potential claim value, while insurance receivables associated with
related claims are not recorded until verified by the insurance
carrier.
For asbestos-related claims, we recognize projected asbestos
liabilities and related insurance receivables, with any difference
between the liability and related insurance receivable recognized
as an expense in the consolidated statements of operations. Our
estimates of asbestos-related contingent liabilities and related
insurance receivables are based on a claim projection analysis and
an insurance usage analysis prepared annually by third parties. The
claim projection analysis contains numerous assumptions, including
number of claims that might be received, the type and severity of
the disease alleged by each claimant, the long latency period
associated with asbestos exposure, dismissal rates, average
indemnity costs, average defense costs, costs of medical treatment,
the financial resources of other companies that are co-defendants
in claims, uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, and the impact
of potential changes in legislative or judicial standards,
including potential tort reform. Furthermore, any predictions with
respect to these assumptions are subject to even greater
uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. The insurance usage
analysis considers, among other things, applicable deductibles,
retentions and policy limits, the solvency and historical payment
experience of various insurance carriers, the likelihood of
recovery as estimated by external legal counsel and existing
insurance settlements.
"The liability projection period covers all current and future
indemnity and defense costs through 2064, which represents the
expected end of our asbestos liability exposure with no further
ongoing claims expected beyond that date. This conclusion was based
on our history and experience with the claims data, the diminished
volatility and consistency of observable claims data, the period of
time that has elapsed since we stopped manufacturing products that
contained encapsulated asbestos and an expected downward trend in
claims due to the average age of our claimants, which is
approaching the average life expectancy.
"Our accrued asbestos liabilities may not approximate our actual
asbestos-related indemnity and defense costs, and our accrued
insurance recoveries may not be realized. We believe it is
reasonably possible that we may incur additional charges for our
asbestos liabilities and defense costs in the future that could
exceed existing reserves and insurance recoveries. We plan to
continue to vigorously defend ourselves and believe we have
substantial unutilized insurance coverage to mitigate future costs
related to this matter."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=37ceCm
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp Has 459 PI Cases Pending at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation, as of December 31, 2023, was a party to 459
pending cases involving an aggregate of 4,863 claimants primarily
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing
materials formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and
otherwise) manufactured or distributed by its former Lamons
division and certain other related subsidiaries for use primarily
in the petrochemical refining and exploration industries, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute
its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers
prior to acquisition. The Company believes that many of the pending
cases relate to locations at which none of its gaskets were
distributed or used.
The Company may be subjected to significant additional
asbestos-related claims in the future, and will aggressively defend
or reasonably resolve, as appropriate. The cost of settling cases
in which product identification can be made may increase, and the
Company may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former
activities of its acquired gasket distributors. The cost of claims
varies as claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions
without specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the
requisite or maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be
amended to alter the amount sought. The large majority of claims do
not specify the amount sought. Of the 4,863 claims pending at
December 31, 2023, 33 set forth specific amounts of damages (other
than those stating the statutory minimum or maximum). At December
31, 2023, of the 33 claims that set forth specific amounts, there
were no claims seeking more than $5 million for punitive damages.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uzfdc2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Fire Group Has $0.8MM A&E Loss Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Fire Group, Inc., at December 31, 2023 and 2022, had $0.8
million and $1.9 million, respectively, in direct and assumed
asbestos and environmental loss reserves, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "The estimation of loss reserves for
environmental claims and claims related to long-term exposure to
asbestos and other substances is one of the most difficult aspects
of establishing reserves, especially given the inherent
uncertainties surrounding such claims. Although we record our best
estimate of loss and loss settlement expense reserves, the ultimate
amounts paid upon settlement of such claims may be more or less
than the amount of the reserves, because of the significant
uncertainties involved and the likelihood that these uncertainties
will not be resolved for many years.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cRjX2p
*********
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 ***