/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250120.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, January 20, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 14
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Dittmar Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Eaglefeathers Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: French Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Goudreau Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Hawkins Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Hill Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film Forming Foams
ACCIDENT LLC: Lane Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Ray Seeks to Certify Class of Consumers
ADDSHOPPERS INC: Lineberry Seeks to Certify Four Rule 23 Classes
AIR LIQUIDE: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Deadlines
AIR PRODUCTS: Class Exhibits Temporarily Sealed
AIRGAS INC: Third Coast Suit Removed to N.D. Texas
ALAMO INTERMEDIATE: Bond Files Fraud Suit in S.D.N.Y.
AMAZON.COM INC: De Coster Must File Class Cert Bid by Feb. 20
AMAZON.COM INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 2
AMAZON.COM INC: Frame-Wilson Must File Class Cert Bid by Feb. 20
AMAZON.COM INC: King Files Personal Injury Suit in W.D. Wash.
AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert. Bid
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Final Order and Judgment Issued in Boone Suit
AMERICAN ADDICTION: Faces Jay Suit Over Private Data Breach
AMERICAN CRUISE: Class Cert Response in Kirk Suit Due Jan. 31
AMERICAN CRUISE: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bids
AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Barajas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOOD: Jacob Files Personal Injury Claims in D.N.J.
AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOOD: Keeper Files Class Suit in D. New Jersey
ANYWHERE REAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Godwill Suit Due May 8
ARDVARK INC: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Commercial Property
ARISTOCRAT LEISURE: Rice Lawsuit Remanded to Alabama State Court
ARTSANA USA: ESI Protocol Motion Granted in Zarfati, et al. Suit
ARTSANA USA: Order Governing ESI Protocol Entered in Lexi Suit
ASCENT RESOURCES-UTICA: Eaton May Send Notice to Non-Class Members
ASPYR MEDIA: Class Cert Filing in Mickelonis Extended to March 21
BABSON COLLEGE: Ortiz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
BANCO POPULAR: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Approval
BANCO POPULAR: Settlement in Lipsett Suit Granted Final Approval
BARRYS BAY AREA: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BAXALTA US: Duncan Wage Lawsuit to Remain in Federal Court
BEAST AND BOUNTY: Faces Vizcarra Suit in California State Court
BH SOUTH: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Pardo Says
BINANCE: Faces Class Suit After U.S. Supreme Court Denies Petition
BIOAGE LABS: Faces Soto Suit Over Drop in Share Price
BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC: Cavara Sues Over Breach of Contract
BONIFACE-HIERS: Parties Must Confer Class Cert. Deadlines
BOYKIN FARMS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
BROOKLYN BEDDING: Phillips Must File Class Cert Bid by Feb. 24
BROOKS SHOPPING: Gil Sues Over Discriminative Property
BUKHARI GROUP: Campbell Suit Seeks Settlement Prelim. Approval
C.H. ROBINSON: Wood Suit Removed to N.D. California
CAPSULE MANUFACTURING: Standing Order in Lotte Class Suit Entered
CASEYS RETAIL: Ct. Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Shryock-Omer
CITY LOVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Renteria Suit Alleges
COLE HAAN: Court Tosses Bunkley Wage-and-Hour Lawsuit
CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Count 10 Claim in Ballast Suit Can Proceed
COURTYARD MANAGEMENT: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due June 6
COURTYARD MANAGEMENT: Must File Withdrawal Notice
CROSS COUNTRY: Blocker Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CUSTOMIZED DISTRIBUTION: First Amended Scheduling Order Entered
CVS PHARMACY: Must Oppose Class Certification Bid by Jan. 31
D & J PLUMBING: Mendez Files Labor Suit in California State Court
DAREN C. DALY: Bid to Enforce Discharge Injunction Granted in Part
DATANYZE LLC: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Hudson, et al. Suit
DAVIE GROUP: Jones Sues Over Website's Accessibility Barriers
DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Fernandez
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS: Hammond Suit Transferred to M.D. Pa.
DRAFTKINGS INC: Youngs Sues Over Improper Business Practices
DX ENTERPRISES: Settlement in McClaine Suit Gets Prelim. Approval
FARMERS INSURANCE: Court Upholds Dismissal of Anderson Claims
FOUNDRY HOME: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fernandez Says
GALLAGHER'S NEW YORK: Clement Sues Over Website Inaccessibility
GARDENS ALIVE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fernandez Claims
GENESCO INC: McClure Lawsuit Remanded to State Trial Court
GENWORTH LIFE: Class Settlement in Silverstein Gets Final Nod
GERARD VAN DE POL: Scheduling Order Entered in Villalovos-Gutierrez
GOOGLE LLC: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Rodriguez Suit
GRAND ISLE: Ortiguerra Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
GREG GOSSETT: Partially Wins Summary Judgment vs Ross
GROUP US: Conditional Collective Certification Partly OK'd
HAIRTAMIN LLC: Jackson Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Website
HEALTH & HOSPITAL: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $2.5-Mil.
HERTZ CORP: Williams Labor Suit Removed to D. Nev.
HRB TAX: Faces Buehring Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
HYATT HOTELS: Court Remands Travelers Suit to D.C. Superior Court
HYDRO EXTRUSION: Creasey Suit Remanded to Court of Common Pleas
IDAHO HEALTH: Dispositive Bid Filing in Rossow Due Feb. 18
INITO INC: Aids Google to Intercept Clients' Info, Doe Suit Says
LANDRY'S INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Clement Says
LETSGETCHECKED INC: Vaccaro Suit Removed to C.D. California
LINKEDIN CORP: N.D. California Dismisses Jackson's DPPA Claim
MARK OLSON: Loses Bid to Dismiss Mirabelli, et al. Lawsuit
MATTEL INC: Faces Class Action Over Fisher-Price Snuga Swings
MDL 2873: AFFF Products Harmful to Human Health, Workman Claims
MDL 2873: Faces Smith Suit Over Firefighters' Exposure to PFAS
MDL 2873: Soliday Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products
MEDICAL MGMT: Bid to Stay Discovery in Hulewat Suit Partly Granted
MOTOROLA MOBILITY: Gabrielli Sues Over Privacy Violations
NESPRESSO USA: Kolar Sues Over Breach of Warranties
NEW YORK, NY: Inmate Allowed to Submit Late Settlement Claim
NINTENDO OF AMERICA: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Dunn Suit
O'REILLY AUTO: Settlement in Pipich Suit Granted Final Approval
OAKLAND COUNTY, MI: Brasile, et al. Tax Foreclosure Suit Stayed
OAKLAND COUNTY, MI: Court Won't Certify Class in Sinclair Suit
OCMBC INC: Pocci Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
OMNI FAMILY: Has Until Feb. 10 to Respond to Aguirre Lawsuit
OMNI FAMILY: Has Until Feb. 14 to Oppose Stevenson Suit Remand
OXY USA: Rider Seeks to Certify Class
PALISADES LLC: New Jersey Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Lopez Suit
PANERA LLC: Interim Co-Lead Counsel Named in Data Security Suit
PARKER PLASTICS: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Generose Due Nov. 12
PAUL HESSE: Court Narrows Claims in White Suit
PAYPAL INC: Steals Marketing Commissions, Young Suit Says
PLASTIC OMNIUM: Filing for Class Cert in Dally Suit Due Oct. 14
PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 27
PLAYSTUDIOS US: Pilati Lawsuit Remanded to Alabama State Court
PLAYTIKA LTD: Mills Lawsuit Remanded to Alabama State Court
PORT IMPERIAL: S.D. New York Grants Bid to Stay Mayors Labor Suit
PRIME HYDRATION: Heaven WESCA Suit Remanded to State Court
QUANEX HOMESHIELD: Washington Files Suit in California State Court
RIVERSIDE, CA: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Two Classes
ROZLIN FINANCIAL: Faces Mazucyk Debt Collection Suit in D. Nevada
SAMARIA BEAUTY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Toledo Alleges
SIMS GROUP: Vallin Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.
SMITH GAMBRELL: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Owens Suit Says
STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: January 22 Deadline Set for Scheduling Order
TOMS RIVER, NJ: Smit's Bids for Reconsideration & Sanctions Denied
TOYOTA MOTOR: Settlement in Salas, et al. Suit Gets Final Approval
TURNBULL & ASSER: Riley Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
VERDE ENERGY: Fitzgerald Sues Over Unwanted Robocalls
VGW LTD: Seal Lawsuit Remanded to Alabama State Court
WAKEFERN FOOD: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Gaspa Says
WALMART INC: Court Directs Filing Discovery Plan in Eskridge Suit
WALMART INC: Golikov Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
WALMART INC: Golikov Suit Seeks Certify California Class
WELTMAN WEINBERG: Class Cert Bids in Andrews Due Jan. 31, 2026
WHITE SPACE: Faces Tucker Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
WILSON LOGISTICS: Phase I Class Certification Sched Order Entered
WINIX GLOBAL: Court Narrows Claims in Debari
WISCONSIN: Washington et al. Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action
WL GENERAL SERVICES: Hernadez Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
YARDI SYSTEMS: Time to Respond to Duffy's 1st Amended Suit Stayed
YELLOW SOCIAL: Pilati Lawsuit Remanded to Alabama State Court
YESCARE CORP: Darpoh Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ZILLOW GROUP: Court Allows Distribution of Class Settlement Funds
[*] Class Action Settlements Exceed $40-BB for Third Year in a Row
*********
3M COMPANY: Dittmar Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Dittmar, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION;
ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION, individually
and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS
COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA,
INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS,
INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.;
L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC
MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS,
LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING
COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN
MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.
(f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE &
ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., and DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-20, fictious names whose present identities are
unknown, Case No. 2:24-cv-06502-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 15, 2024), is
brought for damages relating to Defendants' development, marketing,
release, training users of, instructional materials, warnings,
sale, handling, and use in connection with Aqueous Film-Forming
Foam ("AFFF") containing Perfluorooctanoic Acid ("PFOA"),
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS"), Perfluorononanoic acid
("PFNA"), Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid ("PFHxS"),
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid ("PFBS"), Hexafluoropropylene Oxide
("HFPO", also known as "Gen-X"), and/or their precursors and
derivatives, and other fluorochemicals and for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film forming foams
("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing
"fluorochemical products."
The Defendants failed to warn users and consumers of their
fluorochemical products' persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxic
properties, as well as the fluorochemical products' propensity to
contaminate water supplies, which was known or knowable to the
Defendants.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS as well
as result in the contamination of Plaintiff's public drinking water
supply. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to
develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged
herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities and arising from
the intentional, malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts
and/or omissions of Defendants in connection with the contamination
of the Plaintiff's drinking water supply with Defendants'
fluorochemical products to which Plaintiff was exposed. Plaintiff
further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising
from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed
with Testicular Cancer.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Wilson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 560
Raleigh, NC 27601
Phone: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: nicholas@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
John J. Driscoll, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, LLC
1311 Avenida Ponce de Leon, Suite 501
San Juan, PR 00907
Phone: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: john@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
Heidi J. Johnson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
211 N. Broadway, Ste 4050
St. Louis, MO 63102
Phone: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: heidi@thedriscollfirm.com
3M COMPANY: Eaglefeathers Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Eaglefeathers, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION;
ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION, individually
and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS
COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA,
INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS,
INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.;
L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC
MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS,
LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING
COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN
MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.
(f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE &
ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., and DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-20, fictious names whose present identities are
unknown, Case No. 2:24-cv-06507-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 15, 2024), is
brought for damages relating to Defendants' development, marketing,
release, training users of, instructional materials, warnings,
sale, handling, and use in connection with Aqueous Film-Forming
Foam ("AFFF") containing Perfluorooctanoic Acid ("PFOA"),
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS"), Perfluorononanoic acid
("PFNA"), Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid ("PFHxS"),
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid ("PFBS"), Hexafluoropropylene Oxide
("HFPO", also known as "Gen-X"), and/or their precursors and
derivatives, and other fluorochemicals and for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film forming foams
("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing
"fluorochemical products."
The Defendants failed to warn users and consumers of their
fluorochemical products' persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxic
properties, as well as the fluorochemical products' propensity to
contaminate water supplies, which was known or knowable to the
Defendants.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS as well
as result in the contamination of Plaintiff's public drinking water
supply. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to
develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged
herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities and arising from
the intentional, malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts
and/or omissions of Defendants in connection with the contamination
of the Plaintiff's drinking water supply with Defendants'
fluorochemical products to which Plaintiff was exposed. Plaintiff
further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising
from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed
with Kidney Cancer.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Wilson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 560
Raleigh, NC 27601
Phone: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: nicholas@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
John J. Driscoll, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, LLC
1311 Avenida Ponce de Leon, Suite 501
San Juan, PR 00907
Phone: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: john@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
Heidi J. Johnson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
211 N. Broadway, Ste 4050
St. Louis, MO 63102
Phone: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: heidi@thedriscollfirm.com
3M COMPANY: French Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith French, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION;
ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION, individually
and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS
COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA,
INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS,
INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.;
L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC
MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS,
LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING
COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN
MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.
(f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE &
ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., and DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-20, fictious names whose present identities are
unknown, Case No. 2:24-cv-06512-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 15, 2024), is
brought for damages relating to Defendants' development, marketing,
release, training users of, instructional materials, warnings,
sale, handling, and use in connection with Aqueous Film-Forming
Foam ("AFFF") containing Perfluorooctanoic Acid ("PFOA"),
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS"), Perfluorononanoic acid
("PFNA"), Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid ("PFHxS"),
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid ("PFBS"), Hexafluoropropylene Oxide
("HFPO", also known as "Gen-X"), and/or their precursors and
derivatives, and other fluorochemicals and for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film forming foams
("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing
"fluorochemical products."
The Defendants failed to warn users and consumers of their
fluorochemical products' persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxic
properties, as well as the fluorochemical products' propensity to
contaminate water supplies, which was known or knowable to the
Defendants.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS as well
as result in the contamination of Plaintiff's public drinking water
supply. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to
develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged
herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities and arising from
the intentional, malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts
and/or omissions of Defendants in connection with the contamination
of the Plaintiff's drinking water supply with Defendants'
fluorochemical products to which Plaintiff was exposed. Plaintiff
further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising
from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed
with Kidney Cancer.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Wilson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 560
Raleigh, NC 27601
Phone: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: nicholas@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
John J. Driscoll, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, LLC
1311 Avenida Ponce de Leon, Suite 501
San Juan, PR 00907
Phone: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: john@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
Heidi J. Johnson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
211 N. Broadway, Ste 4050
St. Louis, MO 63102
Phone: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: heidi@thedriscollfirm.com
3M COMPANY: Goudreau Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Goudreau, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION;
ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION, individually
and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS
COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA,
INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS,
INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.;
L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC
MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS,
LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING
COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN
MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.
(f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE &
ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., and DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-20, fictious names whose present identities are
unknown, Case No. 2:24-cv-06492-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 15, 2024), is
brought for damages relating to Defendants' development, marketing,
release, training users of, instructional materials, warnings,
sale, handling, and use in connection with Aqueous Film-Forming
Foam ("AFFF") containing Perfluorooctanoic Acid ("PFOA"),
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS"), Perfluorononanoic acid
("PFNA"), Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid ("PFHxS"),
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid ("PFBS"), Hexafluoropropylene Oxide
("HFPO", also known as "Gen-X"), and/or their precursors and
derivatives, and other fluorochemicals and for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film forming foams
("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing
"fluorochemical products."
The Defendants failed to warn users and consumers of their
fluorochemical products' persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxic
properties, as well as the fluorochemical products' propensity to
contaminate water supplies, which was known or knowable to the
Defendants.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS as well
as result in the contamination of Plaintiff's public drinking water
supply. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to
develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged
herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities and arising from
the intentional, malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts
and/or omissions of Defendants in connection with the contamination
of the Plaintiff's drinking water supply with Defendants'
fluorochemical products to which Plaintiff was exposed. Plaintiff
further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising
from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed
with Kidney Cancer.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Wilson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 560
Raleigh, NC 27601
Phone: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: nicholas@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
John J. Driscoll, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, LLC
1311 Avenida Ponce de Leon, Suite 501
San Juan, PR 00907
Phone: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: john@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
Heidi J. Johnson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
211 N. Broadway, Ste 4050
St. Louis, MO 63102
Phone: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: heidi@thedriscollfirm.com
3M COMPANY: Hawkins Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Hawkins, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION;
ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION, individually
and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS
COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA,
INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS,
INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.;
L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC
MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS,
LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING
COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN
MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.
(f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE &
ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., and DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-20, fictious names whose present identities are
unknown, Case No. 2:24-cv-06505-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 15, 2024), is
brought for damages relating to Defendants' development, marketing,
release, training users of, instructional materials, warnings,
sale, handling, and use in connection with Aqueous Film-Forming
Foam ("AFFF") containing Perfluorooctanoic Acid ("PFOA"),
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS"), Perfluorononanoic acid
("PFNA"), Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid ("PFHxS"),
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid ("PFBS"), Hexafluoropropylene Oxide
("HFPO", also known as "Gen-X"), and/or their precursors and
derivatives, and other fluorochemicals and for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film forming foams
("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing
"fluorochemical products."
The Defendants failed to warn users and consumers of their
fluorochemical products' persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxic
properties, as well as the fluorochemical products' propensity to
contaminate water supplies, which was known or knowable to the
Defendants.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS as well
as result in the contamination of Plaintiff's public drinking water
supply. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to
develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged
herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities and arising from
the intentional, malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts
and/or omissions of Defendants in connection with the contamination
of the Plaintiff's drinking water supply with Defendants'
fluorochemical products to which Plaintiff was exposed. Plaintiff
further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising
from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed
with Testicular Cancer.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Wilson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 560
Raleigh, NC 27601
Phone: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: nicholas@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
John J. Driscoll, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, LLC
1311 Avenida Ponce de Leon, Suite 501
San Juan, PR 00907
Phone: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: john@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
Heidi J. Johnson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
211 N. Broadway, Ste 4050
St. Louis, MO 63102
Phone: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: heidi@thedriscollfirm.com
3M COMPANY: Hill Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film Forming Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hill, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION;
ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION, individually
and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS
COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA,
INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS,
INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.;
L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC
MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS,
LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING
COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN
MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.
(f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE &
ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., and DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-20, fictious names whose present identities are
unknown, Case No. 2:24-cv-06511-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 15, 2024), is
brought for damages relating to Defendants' development, marketing,
release, training users of, instructional materials, warnings,
sale, handling, and use in connection with Aqueous Film-Forming
Foam ("AFFF") containing Perfluorooctanoic Acid ("PFOA"),
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS"), Perfluorononanoic acid
("PFNA"), Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid ("PFHxS"),
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid ("PFBS"), Hexafluoropropylene Oxide
("HFPO", also known as "Gen-X"), and/or their precursors and
derivatives, and other fluorochemicals and for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film forming foams
("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing
"fluorochemical products."
The Defendants failed to warn users and consumers of their
fluorochemical products' persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxic
properties, as well as the fluorochemical products' propensity to
contaminate water supplies, which was known or knowable to the
Defendants.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS as well
as result in the contamination of Plaintiff's public drinking water
supply. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to
develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged
herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities and arising from
the intentional, malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts
and/or omissions of Defendants in connection with the contamination
of the Plaintiff's drinking water supply with Defendants'
fluorochemical products to which Plaintiff was exposed. Plaintiff
further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising
from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed
with Kidney Cancer.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Wilson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 560
Raleigh, NC 27601
Phone: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: nicholas@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
John J. Driscoll, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, LLC
1311 Avenida Ponce de Leon, Suite 501
San Juan, PR 00907
Phone: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: john@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
Heidi J. Johnson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
211 N. Broadway, Ste 4050
St. Louis, MO 63102
Phone: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: heidi@thedriscollfirm.com
ACCIDENT LLC: Lane Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE TERRELL LANE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ACCIDENT, LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-01155-WWB-UAM (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the class
certification deadline until 90 days after the Court's ruling on
Accident's motion to compel arbitration.
On June 25, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action
complaint against Defendant, asserting claims under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
On Aug. 30, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration
and to stay, and on September 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed a response
to the motion to compel arbitration and to stay.
On Oct. 1, 2024, Plaintiff served a first set of written discovery
on Defendant seeking discovery regarding the putative class claims.
On Oct. 18, 2024, the Court entered a Case Management and
Scheduling Order, setting among other deadlines, a Jan. 6, 2025,
deadline for Plaintiff to move for class certification.
On Oct. 24, 2024, as part of the parties’ conferral regarding an
anticipated motion for protective order by Defendant regarding
Plaintiff’s first set of written discovery, the parties agreed to
stay class discovery and limit discovery to issues relating to
Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.
The Plaintiff requires class discovery prior to seeking class
certification and will be prejudiced if required to seek class
certification without completing class discovery.
Accident is a lawyer referral service specializing in accident and
personal injury cases.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 6, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6FOLXY at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
rachel@kaufmanpa.com
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Ray Seeks to Certify Class of Consumers
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jerry W. Ray, on Behalf of
Himself and Others Similarly Situated, v. AdaptHealth Corp., et
al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00898-TDS-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order certifying a class:
"All (1) consumers who purchased, leased, or rented medical
equipment, supplies, and/or other products from AdaptHealth or
any of AdaptHealth's "family of companies;" (2) who were sent
one or more debt collection bills or notices from AdaptHealth
and/or an AdaptHealth company demanding payment of a fee,
penalty, and/or other charge; (3) which fee, penalty, and/or
other charge the individual did not owe based on objective
information contained in business records of AdaptHealth
and/or an AdaptHealth company; (4) which bills and/or notices
were sent between April 3, 2019, until the date of class
certification; and (5) which consumers resided in North
Carolina when AdaptHealth and/or the AdaptHealth company sent
the bill or notice."
AdaptHealth has repeatedly violated N.C. Gen. Stat. section 75-54
by sending at least 3,689 North Carolina patients one or more
standardized bills demanding that they pay amounts they did not
owe.
Because AdaptHealth sent each of these consumers—including Mr.
Ray -- substantially the same standardized bills, the central
question of AdaptHealth's liability is common to each member of Mr.
Ray's proposed class and can be resolved by the Court at once.
AdaptHealth provides home medical equipment.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 9, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mkwpCW at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard J. Keshian, Esq.
Chad D. Hansen, Esq.
Chase H. Stevens, Esq.
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON L.P.
1001 West Fourth Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Telephone: (336) 607-7322
Facsimile: (336) 734-2645
E-mail: rkeshian@kilpatricktownsend.com
chadhansen@kilpatricktownsend.com
chstevens@kilpatricktownsend.com
ADDSHOPPERS INC: Lineberry Seeks to Certify Four Rule 23 Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABBY LINEBERRY, TERRY
MICHAEL COOK and MIGUEL CORDERO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. ADDSHOPPERS, INC., and PEET'S COFFEE,
INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01996-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will
move the Court on March 20, 2025, under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, for an order certifying the following Propose
Classes:
-- Nationwide CDAFA Class:
"All natural persons who visited Peet's website and for whom
AddShoppers collected their detailed browsing activity."
-- California CIPA Subclass:
"All natural persons who, while in California, visited Peet's
website for whom AddShoppers collected their detailed
browsing activity.
-- California CDAFA and CIPA Subclass:
"All natural persons who, while in California, visited Peet's
or Dia's websites for whom AddShoppers collected their
detailed browsing activity.
-- California Injunctive Relief Class:
"All natural persons who, while in California, visited a
website for whom AddShoppers collected their detailed
browsing activity."
The Plaintiffs seek the appointment of these Plaintiffs as class
representatives.
The Plaintiffs also seek appointment of Norman Siegel, J. Austin
Moore, and Kasey A. Youngentob from Stueve Siegel Hanson and David
Berger from Gibbs Law Group as class counsel.
The case is ideal for class certification. When visitors to Peet's
Coffee's website viewed multiple webpages (one with a product) or
added items to their carts, AddShoppers automatically collected
their detailed browsing data. No exceptions, no variations. The
tracking code works the same way for everyone, every time.
The system's uniformity stems from AddShoppers’ streamlined
approach: retailers simply copy and paste the company’s
JavaScript tracking code onto their websites, choose behavioral
triggers, and the data collection starts.
AddShoppers is the provider of social media apps and customized
share buttons for ecommerce websites.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uYGuFl at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
J. Austin Moore, Esq.
Kasey Youngentob, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
moore@stuevesiegel.com
youngentob@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
David M. Berger, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 350-9713
Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
E-mail: dmb@classlawgroup.com
AIR LIQUIDE: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Deadlines
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONTE BOOZE, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AIR
LIQUIDE ADVANCED MATERIALS INC. a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-01288-VC (N.D. Cal.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting stipulation to
continue all deadlines associated with the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification by no more than 60 days.
On Jan. 19, 2024, the Plaintiff filed this Class Action Complaint
for Damages, against Defendant in the Superior Court of California,
County of Alameda.
On March 1, 2024, the Defendant removed the Complaint to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
The Plaintiff and ALAM participated in two mediations will Michael
Loeb, Esq. on Nov. 8, 2024, and Nov. 20, 2024.
The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due by Feb. 27,
2025, with motion hearing set for May 1, 2025.
Air Liquide offers a range of products that includes containers,
tube trailers and high-pressure gas compressor systems.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 8, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aGF6MZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry Lee, Esq.
Christine Lee, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
515 S Figueroa St Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 488-6555
The Defendants are represented by:
Chad D. Greeson, Esq.
Nicholas Gioiello, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Treat Towers
1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Telephone: (925) 932-2468
Facsimile: (925) 946-9809
E-mail: cgreeson@littler.com
ngioiello@littler.com
AIR PRODUCTS: Class Exhibits Temporarily Sealed
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CamCara, Inc. v. Air
Products and Chemicals, Inc. Case No. 5:21-cv-02264-JLS (E.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge Jeffrey Schmehl entered an order that the following
documents shall be temporarily sealed until the Court's final
resolution of Defendant's Emergency Motion:
1. Plaintiff's memorandum of law in support of Plaintiff's
motion for class certification; and
2. Exhibits 1, 3, 4-13, 15-29, and 31-36 cited therein.
Air Products is a U.S.-based international corporation whose
principal business is selling gases and chemicals for industrial
use.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 8, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SkfltH at no extra
charge.[CC]
AIRGAS INC: Third Coast Suit Removed to N.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Third Coast Insurance Company, and all others
similarly situated v. AIRGAS INC., AIRGAS USA, LLC, SARNOVA
HOLDINGS, INC., BOUND TREE MEDICAL, LLC, SARNOVA HC, LLC, INOVO,
INC., and MEDICAL DEPOT, INC. D/B/A DRIVE DEVILBISS HEALTHCARE,
Case No. DC-24-00034 was removed from the 116th Judicial District
Court of Dallas, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas on Jan. 8, 2025, and assigned Case No.
3:25-cv-00056-D.
On January 9, 2024, Plaintiff Bethany Hall and Antonio Holmes,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the
"Hall Plaintiffs") filed an amended petition alleging negligence,
strict liability, and breach of warranty against Defendants. On the
same date, Third Coast Insurance Company filed a petition in
intervention alleging negligence and strict liability in tort
against the Diverse Defendants.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
R. E. Felix Cox, Esq.
Shan Marie Egliskis, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Saenz, Esq.
McCOY LEAVITT LASKEY LLC
20726 Stone Oak Parkway, Suite 116
San Antonio, TX 78258
Phone: (210) 446-2828
Fax: (262) 522-7020
Email: fcox@mlllaw.com
segliskis@mlllaw.com
jasaenz@mlllaw.com
ALAMO INTERMEDIATE: Bond Files Fraud Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alamo Intermediate II
Holdings, LLC. The case is captioned as LANCE BOND, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALAMO
INTERMEDIATE II HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-09279-ALC
(S.D.N.Y., December 5, 2024).
The suit is brought over the Defendant's alleged fraud violations.
Alamo Intermediate II Holdings, LLC is a limited liability company
in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Robert Reese, Esq.
Michael Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, Ste. 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
Email: mreese@reesellp.com
AMAZON.COM INC: De Coster Must File Class Cert Bid by Feb. 20
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH DE COSTER, et
al., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:21-cv-00693-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Chun entered an
order modifying class certification deadlines as follows:
-- Plaintiffs' deadline to file their Feb. 20, 2025
class certification motion is:
-- Amazon's deadline to oppose Plaintiffs' May 21, 2025
class certification motion is:
-- Plaintiffs' deadline to file their July 23, 2025
reply in support of class
certification is:
-- Plaintiffs' deadline to file their March 26, 2025
reply in support of class
certification, their opposition to
any motion to exclude their experts,
and any motion to exclude Amazon's
experts is:
-- Amazon's opposition to Plaintiffs' May 2, 2025
motion to exclude Amazon's expert is:
-- Plaintiffs' deadline to file a reply May 30, 2025
in support of their motion to exclude
Amazon's expert is:
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=533XI4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq.
Anne F. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
barbaram@hbsslaw.com
annej@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Zina G. Bash, Esq.
Jessica Beringer, Esq.
Shane Kelly, Esq.
Roseann Romano, Esq.
Alex Dravillas, Esq.
KELLER POSTMAN LLC
111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500
Austin, TX, 78701
Telephone: (512) 690-0990
E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com
Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com
shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com
roseann.romano@kellerpostman.com
ajd@kellerpostman.com
- and -
Alicia Cobb, Esq.
Steig D. Olson, Esq.
David D. LeRay, Esq.
Nic V. Siebert, Esq.
Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq.
Adam B. Wolfson, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
1109 First Avenue, Suite 210
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 905-7000
E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com
steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
davidleray@quinnemanuel.com
nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com
maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com
adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John A. Goldmark, Esq.
MaryAnn Almeida, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Telephone: (206) 622-3150
Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com
JohnGoldmark@dwt.com
MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com
- and -
Karen L. Dunn, Esq.
William A. Isaacson, Esq.
Amy J. Mauser, Esq.
Martha L. Goodman, Esq.
Kyle Smith, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1047
Telephone: (202) 223-7300
Facsimile: (202) 223-7420
E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com
wisaacson@paulweiss.com
amauser@paulweiss.com
ksmith@paulweiss.com
mgoodman@paulweiss.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 2
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN HORN, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM,
INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-01727-RSL (W.D. Wash.),
the Court entered an amended order setting trial date and related
dates
Trial Date Oct. 5, 2026
Motion for Class Certification filed Sept. 2, 2025
by and noted on the Court's calendar
for no earlier than 28 days after
filing
Deadline for amending pleadings: Oct. 2, 2025
Expert Disclosures/Reports under Sept. 30, 2026
FRCP 26(a)(2) due:
All motions related to discovery must
be noted on the motion calendar no later
than the Friday before discovery closes
pursuant to LCR 7(d) or LCR 37(a)(2)
Discovery completed by: Sept. 30, 2026
Settlement conference held no later than: Sept. 30, 2026
All dispositive motions must be filed by Sept. 30, 2026
and noted on the motion calendar for no
earlier than twenty-eight days after
filing (see LCR 7(d)(4)):
All motions in limine must be filed by Sept. 30, 2026
and noted on the motion calendar for no
earlier than fourteen days after filing.
Replies will be accepted.
Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kbj11O at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM INC: Frame-Wilson Must File Class Cert Bid by Feb. 20
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH FRAME-WILSON, et
al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:20-cv-00424-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Chun entered an
order modifying class certification deadlines as follows:
-- Plaintiffs' deadline to file their Feb. 20, 2025
class certification motion is:
-- Amazon's deadline to oppose Plaintiffs' May 21, 2025
class certification motion is:
-- Plaintiffs' deadline to file their July 23, 2025
reply in support of class
certification is:
-- Plaintiffs' deadline to file their March 26, 2025
reply in support of class
certification, their opposition to
any motion to exclude their experts,
and any motion to exclude Amazon's
experts is:
-- Amazon's opposition to Plaintiffs' May 2, 2025
motion to exclude Amazon's expert is:
-- Plaintiffs' deadline to file a reply May 30, 2025
in support of their motion to exclude
Amazon's expert is:
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w24jZe at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq.
Anne F. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
barbaram@hbsslaw.com
annej@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Zina G. Bash, Esq.
Jessica Beringer, Esq.
Shane Kelly, Esq.
Roseann Romano, Esq.
Alex Dravillas, Esq.
KELLER POSTMAN LLC
111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500
Austin, TX, 78701
Telephone: (512) 690-0990
E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com
Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com
shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com
roseann.romano@kellerpostman.com
ajd@kellerpostman.com
- and -
Alicia Cobb, Esq.
Steig D. Olson, Esq.
David D. LeRay, Esq.
Nic V. Siebert, Esq.
Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq.
Adam B. Wolfson, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
1109 First Avenue, Suite 210
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 905-7000
E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com
steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
davidleray@quinnemanuel.com
nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com
maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com
adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John A. Goldmark, Esq.
MaryAnn Almeida, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Telephone: (206) 622-3150
Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com
JohnGoldmark@dwt.com
MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com
- and -
Karen L. Dunn, Esq.
William A. Isaacson, Esq.
Amy J. Mauser, Esq.
Martha L. Goodman, Esq.
Kyle Smith, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1047
Telephone: (202) 223-7300
Facsimile: (202) 223-7420
E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com
wisaacson@paulweiss.com
amauser@paulweiss.com
ksmith@paulweiss.com
mgoodman@paulweiss.com
AMAZON.COM INC: King Files Personal Injury Suit in W.D. Wash.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amazon.com Inc. The
case is captioned as ALAMAZE KING, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM INC., Case
No. 2:24-cv-02009-KKE (W.D. Wash., December 5, 2024).
The Plaintiffs bring personal injury claims against the Defendant.
Amazon.com Inc. is an American multinational technology company
headquartered in Seattle, Washington. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Janelle Bailey, Esq.
WASHINGTON INJURY LAW
1905 Queen Anne Avenue North, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98121
Telephone: (206) 960-4522
Email: Litigation@WashingtonInjuryLaw.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert. Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH DE COSTER, et
al., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:21-cv-00693-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order modifying the class certification deadlines contained in
Frame-Wilson as follows:
-- In Frame-Wilson, Plaintiffs' deadline to Feb. 20, 2025
file their class certification motion is:
-- Amazon's deadline to oppose Plaintiffs' May 21, 2025
class certification motion is:
-- The Plaintiffs' deadline to file their July 23, 2025
reply in support of class certification
is:
-- In De Coster, Plaintiffs' deadline to March 26, 2025
file their reply in support of class
certification, their opposition to any
motion to exclude their expert[s], and
any motion to exclude Amazon's expert[s]
is:
-- Amazon's opposition to Plaintiffs' motion May 2, 2025
to exclude Amazon's expert is:
-- Plaintiffs' deadline to file a reply in May 30, 2025
support of their motion to exclude Amazon's
expert is:
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 3, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fFtsxr at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq.
Anne F. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
barbaram@hbsslaw.com
annej@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Zina G. Bash, Esq.
Jessica Beringer, Esq.
Shane Kelly, Esq.
Roseann Romano, Esq.
Alex Dravillas, Esq.
KELLER POSTMAN LLC
111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500
Austin, TX, 78701
Telephone: (512) 690-0990
E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com
Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com
shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com
roseann.romano@kellerpostman.com
ajd@kellerpostman.com
- and -
Alicia Cobb, Esq.
Steig D. Olson, Esq.
David D. LeRay, Esq.
Nic V. Siebert, Esq.
Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq.
Adam B. Wolfson, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
1109 First Avenue, Suite 210
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 905-7000
E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com
steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
davidleray@quinnemanuel.com
nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com
maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com
adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John A. Goldmark, Esq.
MaryAnn Almeida, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Telephone: (206) 622-3150
Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com
JohnGoldmark@dwt.com
MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com
- and -
Karen L. Dunn, Esq.
William A. Isaacson, Esq.
Amy J. Mauser, Esq.
Martha L. Goodman, Esq.
Kyle Smith, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1047
Telephone: (202) 223-7300
Facsimile: (202) 223-7420
E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com
wisaacson@paulweiss.com
amauser@paulweiss.com
ksmith@paulweiss.com
mgoodman@paulweiss.com
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Final Order and Judgment Issued in Boone Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kirk E. Sherriff of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California, Fresno Division, issued a Final Order and
Judgment in the lawsuit captioned HEATHER BOONE and ROXANNE RIVERA,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, CRISTIAN BARRERA, individually, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM
SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00241-KES-BAM-LEAD (E.D.
Cal.), Case No. 1:22-CV-0146-KES-BAM-MEMBER (E.D. Cal.).
Previously, the Court issued an order granting final approval of
the Class Action Settlement Agreement that was reached between
parties. The parties now request a final judgment be issued,
consistent with the terms of their settlement agreement and the
final approval order. Accordingly, the Court incorporates its prior
findings in granting final approval of the Class Action Settlement,
as amended by the Court's Order on the joint stipulation for
clarification of the order, and, incorporates defined terms from
the Settlement Agreement.
The Court approves the settlement of this class action in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and finds
that the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement described therein,
and the Gross Settlement Fund of $5,500,000 are fair, reasonable,
and adequate in all respects pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Court approves Class Counsel's attorney's fees in the amount of
$1,833,333.333 and costs in the amount of $69,881.64. The Court
approves the Class Representative Enhancement Payments in the
amount of $30,000 total, allocated as follows: $10,000 to Plaintiff
Heather Boone, $10,000 to Plaintiff Roxanne Rivera, and $10,000 to
Plaintiff Cristian Barrera.
The Court approves the Non-California Payments in the amount of
$200 total, representing $50 to each of the four Non-California
FLSA Opt-In Plaintiffs: Taylor Bouie, Camryn McSweeney, Omar
Ramirez Vasquez, and George Werito. The Court approves the PAGA
award of $100,000.00, of which $75,000 will be paid to the
California Labor and Workforce Development Agency and $25,000
distributed to PAGA Settlement Members on a pro rata basis.
The Court approves the Settlement Administration Costs of $392,341
to be paid from the Gross Settlement Fund to Rust Consulting, Inc.
The Court approves the Individual Settlement Payments to the
Participating Settlement Class Members in amounts based on the pro
rata distribution of the Net Settlement Amount.
The Court approves the release of claims in the Settlement
Agreement. The Participating Settlement Class Members are barred
from prosecuting any Released Class Claims against the Released
Parties, as those terms are defined in the Settlement Agreement.
The PAGA Settlement Members are barred from prosecuting any
Released PAGA Claims against the Released Parties. The
Non-California FLSA Opt-In Plaintiffs are barred from prosecuting
any Released Non-California Claims against the Released Parties.
The Settlement Administrator will issue all payments to the
Participating Settlement Class Members, PAGA Settlement Members,
the Non-California FLSA Opt-In Plaintiffs, and the California Labor
and Workforce Development Agency within twenty-one (21) calendar
days of the Funding Date set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The
Settlement Administrator will issue the payments to Class Counsel
for their attorney's fees and costs within twenty-one (21) calendar
days of the Funding Date set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The
Settlement Administrator will issue the payments to the Class
Representatives within twenty-one (21) calendar days of the Funding
Date set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
Upon completion of the administration of the Settlement, the
Settlement Administrator will provide a written declaration under
oath to certify such completion to the Court and counsel for all
parties, and Class Counsel will file such declaration with the
Court.
Based upon the Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval
of Class Action Settlement, as amended by the Order on the joint
stipulation, the Court enters final judgment in this action as
defined in Rule 58(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Without affecting the finality of this Judgment in any way, the
Court retains jurisdiction for a period of nine (9) months from the
date of the Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement for purposes of resolving issues relating
to the interpretation, administration, implementation,
effectuation, and enforcement of the Settlement.
The parties are ordered to comply with the terms of the Settlement
and Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement, including bearing their own costs and attorney's
fees except as provided for in the Settlement Agreement.
The Clerk of Court will close this case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Final Order and Judgment is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4e7vk9d4 from PacerMonitor.com.
AMERICAN ADDICTION: Faces Jay Suit Over Private Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
TRACY LEE JAY, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN ADDICTION CENTERS, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01513 (M.D. Tenn., December 31, 2024)
arises from Defendants failure to properly secure and safeguard
Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information and
personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's
information network.
The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of herself and the
approximately 422,424 other patients whose PHI/PII was accessed and
exposed to unauthorized third parties during a data breach of
Defendant's system on September 23, 2024, which American Addiction
Centers, Inc. announced on or about December 23, 2024.
The Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se,
breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidences, breach of an
implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment,
seeking actual and putative damages, with attorneys' fees, costs,
and expenses, and appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief.
Headquartered in Brentwood, TN, American Addiction Centers, Inc.
provides addiction treatment and mental health services at numerous
locations nationwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
gwells@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street, Suite N300
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (215) 867-2399
E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com
AMERICAN CRUISE: Class Cert Response in Kirk Suit Due Jan. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kirk v. American Cruise
Lines, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-01057 (D. Conn., Filed Aug. 8, 2023),
the Hon. Judge Victor A. Bolden entered an order granting motion
for extension of time to file response / reply.
Responses to the Motion for Class Certification due Jan. 31, 2025.
Any reply due March 3, 2025.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA).[CC]
AMERICAN CRUISE: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bids
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARIU KIRK, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN CRUISE
LINES, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01057-VAB (D. Conn.), the Parties ask
the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time of 90
days for the remaining class certification briefing deadlines:
-- Defendant's response brief is due by: Jan. 31, 2025
-- The Plaintiff's reply brief must be Mar. 3, 2025
filed by:
The Defense counsel is ill and needs additional time to recover and
complete Defendant's response.
The Plaintiff filed his motion for class certification on December
13, 2024. The Defendant's deadline to respond is currently January
12, 2025, and Plaintiff's reply deadline is February 11, 2025.
American Cruise is a river and small-ship cruise line in the United
States with its headquarters in Guilford, Connecticut.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=45QBHx at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Parties are represented by:
Michael J. Dugan, Esq.
LITCHFIELD CAVO LLP
82 Hopmeadow Street, Suite 210
Simsbury, CT 06089
Telephone: (860) 413-2800
Facsimile: (860) 413-2801
E-mail: dugan@litchfieldcavo.com
- and -
Jeffrey B. Sand, Esq.
WEINER & SAND LLC
800 Battery Avenue SE,Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (404) 205-5029
Facsimile: (866) 800-1482
E-mail: aw@wsjustice.com
js@wsjustice.com
- and -
James A. Francis, Esq.
Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com
- and -
Sarah Poriss, Esq.
777 Farmington Avenue
West Hartford, CT 06119
Telephone: (860) 233-0336
Facsimile: (866) 424-4880
E-mail: sarahporiss@prodigy.net
AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Barajas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Financial
Integrity Of California, Inc., et al. The case is styled as David
Barajas, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
American Financial Integrity Of California Inc., PLS Financial
Solutions Of California Inc. Case No. 25STCV00505 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 8, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
American Integrity Financial Inc. is the premier mortgage brokerage
here to serve the experienced mortgage loan originator.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638
Phone: 310-432-0000
Fax: 310-432-0001
Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOOD: Jacob Files Personal Injury Claims in D.N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Neighborhood
Mortgage Acceptance Company, LLC. The case is captioned as DAVID
JACOB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOOD MORTGAGE ACCEPTANCE COMPANY, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-10709-RMB-MJS (D.N.J., November 25, 2024).
The Plaintiff brings personal injury claims against the Defendant.
American Neighborhood Mortgage Acceptance Company, LLC is a
nationwide mortgage loan provider, doing business in California.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James C. Shah, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
2 Hudson Place, Suite 100
Hoboken, NJ 07030
Telephone: (856) 526-1100
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
Email: jcshah@millershah.com
AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOOD: Keeper Files Class Suit in D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Neighborhood
Mortgage Acceptance Company, LLC. The case is captioned as JAMIE
KEEFER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOOD MORTGAGE ACCEPTANCE COMPANY,
LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-10726-RMB-MJS (D.N.J., November 25, 2024).
The Plaintiff brings personal injury claims against the Defendant.
American Neighborhood Mortgage Acceptance Company, LLC is a
nationwide mortgage loan provider, doing business in California.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, PC
135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
Montvale, NJ 07645
Telephone: (201) 391-7000
Facsimile: (201) 307-1086
Email: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
ANYWHERE REAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Godwill Suit Due May 8
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GOODWILL v. ANYWHERE REAL
ESTATE, INC., et al, Case No. 2:22-cv-00407 (D. Maine, Filed Dec.
21, 2022), the Hon. Judge Stacey D. Neumann entered an order
amending scheduling order.
-- The deadline for amendment of pleadings March 7, 2025
and joinder of parties is:
-- The Plaintiff shall designate experts March 7, 2025
by:
-- The Defendant shall designate experts by: March 21, 2025
-- The Plaintiff shall serve a written March 21, 2025
settlement demand by:
-- The Defendant shall respond in writing by: April 22, 2025
-- Class certification motion shall be May 8, 2025
filed by:
-- Discovery shall be completed by: Aug. 7, 2025
The nature of suit states Civil Rights – Employment --
Diversity-Breach of Contract.
Anywhere Real is an American publicly traded real estate services
company. It owns and franchises several real estate brands and
brokerages, and offers consumer programs, lead generation,
relocation, and title settlement services.[CC]
ARDVARK INC: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Commercial Property
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. ARDVARK, INC. d/b/a REDLAND MARATHON,
Case No. 1:25-cv-20115-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 8, 2025), is brought
for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and
costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a
result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual
Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment
of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the commercial property and restaurant and bar
business within the commercial property.
Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of
Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities
accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Plaintiff found
the commercial property and commercial restaurant business located
within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The
Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial
property and commercial restaurant business located within the
commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of
the premises.
The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and
businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to
access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each
denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial
Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA.
The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies),
embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff and others similarly
situated.
The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff
by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located
therein, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate.
ARDVARK, INC. d/b/a REDLAND MARATHON, owns, operates, and oversees
the Commercial Property, its general parking lot and parking spots
specific to the businesses therein, located in Miami Dade County,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beverly Virues, Esq.
Armando Mejias, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, Fl 33134
Phone: (305) 553-3464
Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com
Secondary Emails: amejias@lawgmp.com
jacosta@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL, 33155
Phone: (305) 350-3103
Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com
ARISTOCRAT LEISURE: Rice Lawsuit Remanded to Alabama State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Liles C. Burke of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama granted the plaintiff's motion to
remand the case captioned as SERA STANCIL RICE, Plaintiff, v.
ARISTOCRAT LEISURE, LTD. et al., Defendants, Case No.:
3:23-cv-1334-LCB (N.D. Ala.). The case is remanded to the Circuit
Court of Colbert County, Alabama.
Sera Stancil Rice sued Aristocrat Leisure Ltd., and two related
business entities, Aristocrat Technologies, Inc., and Product
Madness, Inc. in the Circuit Court of Colbert County, Alabama.
After Aristocrat removed the case to the District Court, Rice filed
a motion to remand.
This case and four others currently pending before the District
Court raise the same allegations against various defendants. Each
case is nearly identical to a set of nine cases filed in early
2023. Five of those cases were assigned to Judge Burke, and four
were assigned to Judge Lynwood C. Smith.
As they did in the Original Cases, the individual plaintiffs have
sued various defendants, all providers of online casino-themed
games, under Ala. Code Sec. 8-1-150(b)(1975). That statute allows,
among other things, any person to file a lawsuit to recover money
lost on illegal gambling wagers for the use of the losing player's
wife, children, or next of kin.
Four plaintiffs, Gayla Mills, Amy Nicole Seal, Angel Deann Pilati,
and Sera Stancil Rice have sued several defendants in two state
courts under this statute to recover money allegedly lost by all
Alabama residents who have played the defendants' games for the use
of those players' wives, children, or next of kin. The defendants
in each case removed the action to the District Court asserting
jurisdiction under various provisions of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332. The
plaintiffs have all filed motions to remand.
After the Original Cases were removed to the District Court, Judge
Burke remanded to state court each of the cases assigned to him
while the plaintiffs in the cases assigned to Judge Smith
voluntarily dismissed their complaints a few days later. The
plaintiffs in the voluntarily dismissed cases assigned to Judge
Smith, refiled new cases in state court in August of 2023. The
plaintiffs in the remanded cases filed amended complaints.
Rice was one of the plaintiffs who filed an amended complaint after
the District Court granted her motion to remand when deciding the
Original Cases. The only relevant difference is that in her amended
complaint, she specifically excluded from recovery any Alabamian
who lost more than $75,000. Accordingly, the factual allegations
and legal theories are essentially the same.
In the present case, Aristocrat has again argued that the District
Court has traditional diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1332. However, it has also argued that the District Court has
jurisdiction over the case pursuant to the Class Action Fairness
Act, specifically 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1332(d)(2) and 1453(b).
In responding to the motions to remand in each of the cases now
pending, the defendants filed a consolidated response stating that
because of the strong similarities between this action and four
other actions pending before the District Court, the overlap
between Plaintiffs' arguments in each case, and the shared bases on
which this Court has jurisdiction over these matters, the
defendants in all five actions are all filing the same opposition
brief to promote efficient resolution of these issues. Therefore,
the factual allegations and legal theories are essentially the
same.
The District Court agrees that the cases all share nearly identical
legal issues. However, it notes that there is a relevant difference
between the cases that were dismissed and refiled and the remanded
cases in which the plaintiffs filed amended complaints. Rice's case
falls into the latter category. In addition to arguing that the
case is due to be remanded because the District Court lacks
diversity jurisdiction—under CAFA or otherwise—Rice also argues
that remand is appropriate for an additional reason. According to
Rice, the present motion to remand is essentially a motion to
reconsider the prior remand order. Because 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(d)
prohibits reconsideration of a prior remand order, the case is due
to be remanded on that basis, the District Court concludes.
A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IqwdW1 from PacerMonitor.com.
ARTSANA USA: ESI Protocol Motion Granted in Zarfati, et al. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as LEXI LEIGH ZARFATI, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
ARTSANA USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-21372, Magistrate
Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida (i) granted the plaintiffs'
motion for entry of order governing electronically stored
information protocol and (ii) denied as mooo the plaintiff's motion
for status conference.
In the Motion, Plaintiffs explain that they need certain discovery
from Defendant that will take the form of ESI to prevail at the
class certification stage and at trial. To that end, Plaintiffs
have attempted to negotiate with Defendant an ESI protocol that
will both efficiently identify relevant custodians, data sources,
and search terms to ensure relevant information is produced in a
usable format. Plaintiffs explain, however, that Defendant insists
on keeping its relevant custodians and data sources to itself (or
at least forcing Plaintiffs to try and discover the same through
interrogatories and depositions). Plaintiffs argue that such a
process is needlessly inefficient, which seems to be designed to
obfuscate and delay the search for relevant information.
Defendant opposes Plaintiffs' proposed ESI protocol, characterizing
it as highly technical and one-sided. Defendant explains that it is
a small Pennsylvania-based company and that the ESI protocol
Plaintiffs propose is better suited to a complex putative class
action brought against a Fortune 50 company involving complicated
banking and financial information, including detailed provisions
about negotiating over appropriate data sources, custodians, and
search terms. Furthermore, Defendant takes issue with Plaintiffs'
proposed ESI protocol because it requires the Parties to waste time
negotiating search terms, which custodians should be searched, and
which data sources Defendant should collect from.
Contrary to Defendant's assertions, this is not a run-of-the-mill
lawsuit nor is Defendant a mom-and-pop business. To Defendant's
first claim, this is a class-action lawsuit that seeks to represent
putative class members throughout the United States, involves
consumer-protection claims concerning an allegedly known design
defect in the braking mechanism of various stroller models, and
seeks over $5 million in damages. Due to the potential large scale
of this case, the Court is inclined to implement a thorough ESI
protocol that facilitates the full and efficient disclosure of
discoverable ESI.
As Defendant has not proposed its own alternative protocols for
preserving, searching for, and collecting the ESI in the case, the
Court will adopt Plaintiff's proposed protocols, with some minor
modifications.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GWylPI from PacerMonitor.com.
ARTSANA USA: Order Governing ESI Protocol Entered in Lexi Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEXI LEIGH ZARFATI, et
al., v. ARTSANA USA, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-21372-KMM (S.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein entered an order granting
the Plaintiffs' motion for Entry of Order Governing ESI Protocol.
Artsana filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion, to which
Plaintiffs filed a Reply. After the Parties fully briefed the
Motion, Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for Status Conference,
in an apparent effort to expedite the Court's ruling on the Motion.
Having reviewed the Parties' filings and the relevant law, the
Motion, is granted and Plaintiffs' motion for status conference, is
denied as moot.
As Defendant has not proposed its own alternative protocols for
preserving, searching for, and collecting the ESI in the case, the
Court will adopt Plaintiff's proposed protocols, with some minor
modifications. Further, the Court notes that the ESI protocol
Plaintiffs propose more closely aligns with the objectives of the
District's ESI Checklist.
Artsana USA provides baby related products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 8, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZiQW5V at no extra
charge.[CC]
ASCENT RESOURCES-UTICA: Eaton May Send Notice to Non-Class Members
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, grants the Parties'
Joint Motion Regarding Notice to Non-Class Members in the lawsuit
titled BRIAN CHRISTOPHER EATON, et al., Plaintiffs v. ASCENT
RESOURCES-UTICA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-03412-EAS-CMV
(S.D. Ohio).
The matter is before the Court on the Parties' Joint Motion
Regarding Notice to Non-Class Members. In August 2024, the Court
granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to approve their class
action notice plan. After effectuating notice, the Parties
discovered that 44 individuals inadvertently received class
notice.
The Parties now ask the Court for permission to send a letter to
those individuals to ensure that they understand that they are not
properly within the class definition. The Parties propose that the
settlement administrator, Epiq, send the following language by
letter:
Dear [INSERT NAME HERE],
You previously were provided notice that you were a member
of one of the classes in the pending class action case of
Eaton v. Ascent Resources- Utica, LLC, Case No.
2:19-cv-3412. You were inadvertently included on the class
list, which means that you should not have received the
class notice that you received in October 2024. There is
documentation indicating that your lease includes a clause
requiring any disputes to be handled solely by arbitration
and not by a court, which the presiding judge has ruled
makes your property ineligible to participate as a class
member in this case.
If you have any questions, you may contact Class Counsel
Ethan Vessels via telephone at (740) 374-5346 or email at
ethan@fieldsdehmlow.com, who will provide a review of your
lease at no cost to you to determine whether it contains an
arbitration clause and is properly excluded from the class.
Based on agreement of the Parties and for good cause shown, the
Court grants the Parties' Joint Motion. The Plaintiffs are directed
to request that the settlement administrator, Epiq, send the letter
with the proposed language above to the 44 individuals referenced
in the Parties' Joint Motion within 21 days from the date of this
Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5cxcj37k from PacerMonitor.com.
ASPYR MEDIA: Class Cert Filing in Mickelonis Extended to March 21
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MALACHI MICKELONIS, JOSEPH
ALFILANI, JACOB ALVA- MELVILLE, MICAIAH FLORES, MATTHEW GORKA,
JARED HILLIARD, CHARLES KIRK, DAVID KIRKLAND, YALE LIEBOWITZ, JACOB
MUELLER, KEVIN MUNOZ, COLEBIE NIEDERMEIER, JOSHUA PALMER, BRYCE
PHILLIPS, CHRISTOPHER SOUSA, ROLANDO VAZQUEZ, ADRIAN VILLA, BRIAN
WALSH, and NICHOLAS YEE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. ASPYR MEDIA, INC. and DOES 1-5, Case No.
8:23-cv-01220-MWC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Williams
Court entered an order denying the Parties stipulation to extend
trial-related deadlines asking the court to extend trial-related
deadlines but nonetheless modifying the Court's previous scheduling
order as follows:
1. Trial is set for: Sept. 22, 2025
2. Final Pretrial Conference & Sept. 5, 2025
Hearing on Motions in Limine is:
3. Last Date to File Motion for Class March 21, 2025
Certification is:
4. Last Date to File Opposition to April 11, 2025.
Motion for Class Certification is:
5. Last Date to File Reply in support April 25, 2025.
of Motion for Class Certification is:
6. Hearing on Motion for Class May 9, 2025
Certification is:
7. Last Date to Hear Motion to Amend Aug. 26, 2024
Pleadings / Add Parties is:
8. Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off is: March 17, 2025
9. Expert Disclosure (Initial) is: March 24, 2025
10. Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal) is: April 7, 2025
11. Expert Discovery Cut-Off is: April 21, 2025
12. Last Date to Hear Motions is: June 13, 2025
13. Deadline to Complete Settlement June 23, 2025
Conference is:
Aspyr is a company that specialized in porting Windows video games
to Mac OS and Linux, as well as certain console games to Windows.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3GTljU at no extra
charge.[CC]
BABSON COLLEGE: Ortiz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Ortiz, for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, v. BABSON COLLEGE, Case No. 1:25-cv-00022
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 8, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website,
https://www.babson.edu/, including all portions thereof or accessed
thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is
not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures
so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.
By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
BABSON COLLEGE, operates the Babson online interactive Website and
retail store across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
dana@gottlieb.legal
BANCO POPULAR: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANKIE LIPSETT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BANCO POPULAR NORTH AMERICA, Case No. 1:22-cv-03901-MMG (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Margaret Garnett entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's unopposed motion for:
-- final approval of class action settlement;
-- final certification of the settlement class;
-- payment of attorney fees and reimbursement of costs to class
counsel;
-- payment of a service award to the class representative, and
entering judgment
The Court finally certifies for settlement purposes only the
following Settlement Class:
"All holders of Popular Bank consumer checking accounts who
during the Class Period were assessed and not refunded an
overdraft ("OD") fee in connection with:
1) a debit card or other ATM transaction on their account
that was the subject of an authorization made on or
before April 15, 2020; and/or
2) a debit card or other ATM transaction that was
authorized against positive funds on or after April 16,
2020.
Provided, however, that OD Fees assessed on or before August 6,
2018, against members of the settlement class in Valle v. Popular
Community Bank, Index No. 653936/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), are not
included in these two categories of OD Fees."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendant, its parents,
subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, and directors; all Settlement
Class members who make a timely election to opt out; and all judges
assigned to this litigation and their immediate family members.
The Court grants Final Approval to the appointment of Plaintiff
Frankie Lipsett as the Class Representative. The Court concludes
that the Class Representative has fairly and adequately represented
the Settlement Class and will continue to do so.
Banco is a financial institution that offers a range of banking
services to individuals and businesses.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i2tGJU at no extra
charge.[CC]
BANCO POPULAR: Settlement in Lipsett Suit Granted Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Margaret M. Garnet of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York granted the plaintiff's
motion for final approval of the class action settlement in the
case captioned as FRANKIE LIPSETT, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. BANCO POPULAR NORTH
AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-03901-MMG (S.D.N.Y.).
The Settlement was entered into in good faith following
arm's-length negotiations by experienced counsel with the
supervision of a respected mediator and is non-collusive.
The Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate,
in the best interests of the Settlement Class, satisfies Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and therefore approved. The
Court finds that the Parties faced significant risks, expenses,
delays, and uncertainties, including as to the outcome, of
continued litigation of this complex matter. It finds that the
uncertainties of continued litigation in both the trial and
appellate courts, as well as the expense associated with it, weigh
in favor of approval of the Settlement.
Al Settlement Class Members, who have not opted-out, are bound by
the Settlement and this Final Approval Order and Judgment. No
Settlement Class Members have timely and validly elected to opt-out
of the Settlement and Settlement Class.
The Court finally certifies for settlement purposes only the
following Settlement Class:
All holders of Popular Bank consumer checking accounts who during
the Class Period were assessed and not refunded an overdraft fee in
connection with: 1) a debit card or other ATM transaction on their
account that was the subject of an authorization made on or before
April 15, 2020; and/or 2) a debit card or other ATM transaction
that was authorized against positive funds on or after April 16,
2020. Provided, however, that OD Fees assessed on or before August
6, 2018, against members of the settlement class in Valle v.
Popular Community Bank, Index No. 653936/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), are
not included in these two categories of OD Fees.
The Court determines that the Settlement Class meets all the
requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3). It grants Final Approval to
the appointment of Plaintiff Frankie Lipsett as the Class
Representative. It concludes that the Class Representative has
fairly and adequately represented the Settlement Class and will
continue to do so.
The Court re-affirms the appointment, pursuant to Rule 23(g), of
Michael R. Reese of Reese LLP and Jefrrey Kaliel of KalielGold PLLC
as Class Counsel.
The Court finds that Defendant has fully complied with the Notice
requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 1715.
Class Counsel are entitled to payment of attorneys' fees and
expenses under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(h) in the
amount of $500,000 in fees and $7,505.39 in expenses, which is fair
and reasonable in light of the result obtained, the time and labor
devoted to the case by Class Counsel, the skill, experience,
reputation and ability of Class Counsel, the contingent nature of
the fee requested, the hours spent and hourly rate of Class
Counsel, the costs incurred by Class Counsel, a consideration of
comparable settlements in other bank fee class actions, and the
overwhelmingly favorable reaction of the Settlement Class. These
attorneys' fees and costs shall be paid from the Settlement Fund in
accordance with the Settlement.
The Court grants Class Counsel's request for a Service Award of
$10,000 to Frankie Lipsett for his service as the Class
Representative. It finds that this payment is justified by
Plaintiff's service to the Settlement Class. This Service Award
shall be paid from the Settlement Fund in accordance with the
Settlement.
As to the Released Parties, this Action is dismissed with prejudice
and, except for as provided herein, without award of costs. There
is no just reason for delay, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 54(b), the Court directs that this judgment of dismissal
as to Popular Bank is final and that it be entered immediately by
the Clerk of the Court
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YN92ZD from PacerMonitor.com.
BARRYS BAY AREA: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BARRYS BAY AREA. The
case is styled as Miguel Martinez, an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. BARRYS BAY AREA, BARRY'S BOOTCAMP
LLC, BARRY'S BOOTCAMP SAN DIEGO LLC, Case No. 25STCV00527 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 8, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Barrys Bay Area -- https://www.barrys.com/ -- is a gym in San
Diego, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
1460 Westwood Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: 310-438-5555
Fax: 310-300-1705
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
- and -
Henry G. Glitz, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
1460 Westwood Blvd, Fl. 1
Los Angeles, CA 90024-4973
Phone: 310-438-5555
BAXALTA US: Duncan Wage Lawsuit to Remain in Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable R. Gary Klausner of the United States District Court
for the Central District of California denied the plaintiff's
motion to remand the case captioned as Monika Duncan v. Baxalta US
Inc. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-09388-RGK-AS (C.D. Calif.) to the
state court.
On Sept. 30, 2024, Monika Duncan filed a putative class action
Complaint in state court against her employer, Baxalta US Inc, and
Ron Grave. She asserts the following claims under the California
Labor Code:
(1) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages:
(2) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages;
(3) Failure to Provide Meal Periods;
(4) Failure to Provide Rest Periods;
(5) Failure to Pay All Wages Due Upon Termination;
(6) Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements;
(7) Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment;
(8) Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; and
(9) Failure to Pay Vacation Benefits Upon Termination.
She also asserts a tenth claim for unfair competition under
California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200. On Oct. 30,
2024, Baxalta removed the case to federal court pursuant to the
Class Action Fairness Act.
In its Notice of Removal, Baxalta claims the amount in controversy
in this case is $21,282,313.48 before factoring in attorneys' fees,
which is over four times CAFA's $5 million threshold. Plaintiff
nonetheless argues that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
under CAFA because Baxalta has failed to satisfy its burden of
proving that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.
Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the violation rates Baxalta
used to calculate the amount in controversy with respect to each of
her claims are unsubstantiated. The Court disagrees.
The Court finds Baxalta's amount in controversy calculations for
Plaintiff's meal and rest period claims and waiting time violation
claim are reasonable and sufficient on their own to establish
subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rU5A9G from PacerMonitor.com.
BEAST AND BOUNTY: Faces Vizcarra Suit in California State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beast and Bounty LLC.
The case is captioned as ANTHONY VIZCARRA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BEAST AND BOUNTY LLC,
Case No. 24CV024004 (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., November 25,
2024).
A case management conference is set for June 27, 2025, before Judge
Richard K. Sueyoshi.
Beast and Bounty LLC is a restaurant company doing business in
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Horton, Esq.
LAWYERS FOR EMPLOYEE AND CONSUMER RIGHTS
3500 W. Olive Ave., Fl. 3
Burbank, CA 91505
Telephone: (323) 375-5101
Facsimile: (323) 306-5571
BH SOUTH: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Pardo Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BH SOUTH DIXIE SL MALL LLC;
and APPLE FLORIDA LLC d/b/a APPLEBEE'S NEIGHBORHOOD GRILL & BAR,
Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-20083 (S.D. Fla., Jan. 7, 2025)
alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' a
commercial property at 20505 South Dixie Highway, Miami, Florida,
33189, is not accessible to mobility-impaired individuals in
violation of ADA.
BH South Dixie SL Mall LLC owns and operates commercial properties
in Miami, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beverly Virues, Esq.
Armando Mejias, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 553-3464
Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com
amejias@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL 33155
Telephone: (305) 350-3103
Primary E-mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com
BINANCE: Faces Class Suit After U.S. Supreme Court Denies Petition
------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Young of CoinTelegraph reports that the US Supreme Court has
declined to hear an appeal from crypto exchange Binance and its
founder, Changpeng "CZ" Zhao, regarding a class-action lawsuit by
investors who alleged the exchange illegally sold unregistered
tokens that lost significant value.
On Jan. 13, the Supreme Court of the United States denied a
petition to review a lower court ruling that US securities laws
applied to the crypto exchange, even though it doesn't have a
physical headquarters in America.
In March, a lower court ruled the case could proceed because token
purchases were finalized in the US and transactions took place on
US servers, despite Binance not being an American company.
Binance appealed this decision in December, requesting that the
higher court review the lower court's decision and arguing that
"recent innovations in technology have empowered investors to
participate in foreign financial markets with greater ease and
efficiency" and that this interconnectivity enables Americans to
trade on foreign exchanges.
Chase Williams filed the class action in April 2020 on behalf of
investors, alleging that Binance sold securities as an unregistered
securities exchange or broker-dealer. This case will now be able to
proceed following the Jan. 13 Supreme Court decision.
Binance and Zhao's legal entanglements in the US have escalated
since mid-2023 when the Securities and Exchange Commission sued the
company and then CEO for selling unregistered securities and
illegally servicing US citizens.
In November 2023, Binance reached a $4.3 billion settlement with
the US Department of Justice for violating money laundering and
terrorism financing laws.
Binance was also slapped with a class action in Canada in April for
allegedly violating securities laws after it announced its
departure from the country in May 2023.
The FTX bankruptcy estate is also suing Binance and Zhao for $1.8
billion over an alleged "fraudulent" share deal from 2021.
Meanwhile, CZ and Binance were hit with a separate lawsuit for
allegedly laundering stolen crypto in August 2024.
Zhao was sentenced to four months in prison in April after pleading
guilty to enabling money laundering at the exchange and failing to
implement proper Anti-Money Laundering controls. He was released in
late September. [GN]
BIOAGE LABS: Faces Soto Suit Over Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------
CELIA SOTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BIOAGE LABS, INC.; KRISTEN FORTNEY; DOV
GOLDSTEIN; SHANE BARTON; JEAN-PIERRE GARNIER; MICHAEL DAVIDSON;
PATRICK ENRIGHT; JAMES HEALY; REKHA HEMRAJANI; ERIC MORGEN; and
VIJAY PANDE, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00196 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 7,
2025) alleges violation of the Securities Act of 1933.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, BioAge completed its
initial public offering on September 27, 2024, selling 12.65
million shares at $18 per share, which included the exercise in
full by the underwriters of their option to purchase 1.65 million
additional shares. However, less than three months later, on
December 6, 2024, BioAge announced that it would discontinue the
ongoing STRIDES Phase 2 study of its investigational drug candidate
azelaprag after liver transaminitis was observed in some subjects
receiving azelapgrag.
An analyst reported on the announcement, noting that the news was
surprising that liver tox never appeared across eight Phase 1
studies conducted previously by BioAge. In response to the news,
BioAge's stock price declined from $20.09 per share on December 6,
2024 to $4.65 per share on December 7, 2024.
BioAge Labs, Inc. operates as a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company. The Company develops therapeutic product candidates for
metabolic diseases, such as obesity, by targeting the biology of
human aging. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam M. Apton, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
1160 Battery Street East, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: (415) 373-1671
Email: aapton@zlk.com
BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC: Cavara Sues Over Breach of Contract
--------------------------------------------------------
Marco Cavara, Josef Johann Schneider, Maria Schneider, Joerg Zahn,
Sabine Zahn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA, Case No.
1:25-cv-00165 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 8, 2025), is brought for breach of
contract arising from the Republic's failure to make certain
contractually mandated payments of principal and interest on
certain of the Republic's debt securities.
For their relief, Plaintiffs and the other members of the Classes
seek payment of the unpaid principal, in the case of the AN08
Bonds, AG56 Bonds, AC16 Bonds, AA59 Bonds, AP55 Bonds, and 9126
Bonds, as provided in the FAAs and in the respective Bonds
themselves, under New York law.
For their relief, Plaintiffs and other members of the Classes seek
payment of the accrued and unpaid interest on the Bonds, and
interest thereon, as provided in the FAAs and in the respective
Bonds themselves, under New York law, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs hold beneficial interests of the AN08 Bonds, AG56
Bonds, AC16 Bonds, AA59 Bonds, AP55 Bonds, and 9126 Bonds.
The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is a foreign state.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Constantini, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
1540 Broadway
New York, NY 10036-4086
Phone: +1 212 692 1032
Fax: +1 212 202 4715
Email: AJCostantini@duanemorris.com
BONIFACE-HIERS: Parties Must Confer Class Cert. Deadlines
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Taylor v. BONIFACE-HIERS
CYCLES, INC., Case No. 6:25-cv-00005 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 2, 2025), the
Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to
confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class
certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their
case management report.
The deadlines should include a deadline for
(1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and
defendant;
(2) discovery - class action;
(3) motion for class certification;
(4) response to motion for class certification; and
(5) reply to motion for class certification.
The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).
Boniface was founded in 2011. The company's line of business
includes the retail sale of new and used automobiles.[CC]
BOYKIN FARMS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRISTOBAL LOPEZ LOPEZ and
GILBERTO FLORES LOZANO, on behalf of themselves and all similarly
situated persons, v. BOYKIN FARMS, INC., RHODES FARMING, LLC,
WILLIE C. BOYKIN, III, MATTHEW Z. RHODES, TONY D. LEE, d/b/a LEE
AND SONS FARMS, TONY CAMERON LEE, d/b/a LEE AND SONS FARMS, and
CLINT LEE, d/b/a LEE AND SONS FARMS, Case No. 5:22-cv-00491-BO-RN
(E.D.N.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting
an extension of time for filing a response to Plaintiffs' motion
for certification of NCWHA and contract classes and subclasses and
to approve Class Notice through and including Feb. 13, 2025.
In support of this motion, the undersigned counsel (some of whom
have recently filed notices of appearance in this action) need
additional time to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Certification
of NCWHA and Contract Classes and Subclasses and to Approve Class
Notice.
The undersigned conferred with counsel for Plaintiffs on Jan. 6,
2025, and Plaintiffs consent to this Motion, which is made in good
faith, for good cause shown, and without any intent to delay.
Boykin is a family-owned agricultural business, specializing in the
cultivation and distribution of a variety of crops.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 6, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rOnnIS at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
F. Marshall Wall, Esq.
Elizabeth C. King, Esq.
CRANFILL SUMNER LLP
Raleigh, NC 27611-7808
Telephone: (919) 828-5100
Facsimile: (919) 828-2277
E-mail: MWall@cshlaw.com
eking@cshlaw.com
- and -
Kieran J. Shanahan, Esq.
SHANAHAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
128 E. Hargett Street, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27601
E-mail: kieran@shanahanlawgroup.com
- and -
Luther D. Starling, Jr., Esq.
DAUGHTRY, WOODARD,
LAWRENCE & STARLING
405 East Market Street
Smithfield, NC 27577
E-mail: lewstarling@dwlslaw.com
BROOKLYN BEDDING: Phillips Must File Class Cert Bid by Feb. 24
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN PHILLIPS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BROOKLYN BEDDING LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-03781-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an order granting motion to enlarge
time for completion of discovery and related deadlines:
-- The deadline for the parties to conclude fact discovery on
issues related to class certification shall be extended to
Feb. 10, 2025;
-- Plaintiff Sean Phillips' motion for class certification will
be filed no later than: Feb. 24, 2025;
-- Defendant Brooklyn Bedding's opposition will be filed no
later than April 14, 2025;
-- Plaintiff Sean Phillips' Reply will be filed no later than
May 5, 2025.
-- The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification,
currently set for April 29, 2025, shall be noticed for May
27, 2025.
Brooklyn Bedding is an American made manufacturer of mattresses.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CRp54H at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Simon Franzini, Esq.
Grace Bennett, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: simon@dovel.com
grace@dovel.com
BROOKS SHOPPING: Gil Sues Over Discriminative Property
------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Gil, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. BROOKS SHOPPING CENTERS LLC; a Delaware
limited liability company, and MARX REALTY & IMPROVEMENT CO., INC.,
a New York corporation, Case No. 7:25-cv-00158 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 8,
2025), is brought for injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys'
fees and costs (including, but not limited to, court costs and
expert fees) pursuant to Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (the "ADA") and the New York State Human
Rights Law as a result of the Defendants inaccessible property.
The Commercial Property includes an open-air shopping mall with
over 80 stores and restaurants, including numerous famous brand
names and a wide variety of dining options--all within a single
walkable area, which can be especially helpful for people with
disabilities and mobility challenges.
The Plaintiff intends to return to the Commercial Property by late
2024 and/or early 2025, in conjunction with a trip to the Racetrack
and to visit friends. Thereafter, Plaintiff intends to visit the
Commercial Property after Defendants makes the Commercial Property
readily accessible to, and usable by, individuals with disabilities
to the extent required by the ADA.
The Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiff by denying him
access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the
Commercial Property, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff suffers optic nerve damage, is legally blind, suffers
from cerebral palsy, is unable to walk, and is confined to a
wheelchair.
BROOKS SHOPPING CENTERS LLC is a limited liability company
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, and
authorized to do business in the State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph M. Horn, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH M. HORN LLC
580 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 1-G
Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
Phone: (201) 884-6000
Fax: (201) 205-1382
BUKHARI GROUP: Campbell Suit Seeks Settlement Prelim. Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIANNA CAMPBELL, SHAKEIM
ROBINSON, and KEVAUGHN ROBINSON on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, v. BUKHARI GROUP LLC, NAFEES BUKHARI, an
individual, ALI BUTT, an individual, 4399 BRONX CHICKEN LLC,
BAYCHESTER CHICKEN BG LLC., 3555 WHITE PLAINS BG LLC, 3411 JEROME
AVE CORP., and CONEY FOOD OF NY LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02813-PK
(E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
(1) granting preliminary approval of the settlement on the
terms set forth in the Agreement, attached as Exhibit A to
the Kaske Declaration;
(2) conditionally certifying, for settlement purposes only,
the proposed settlement class under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3) and collective under the FLSA;
(3) appointing Kessler Matura P.C. and The Law Office of
Delmas A. Costin, Jr., PC as Class Counsel;
(4) approving the proposed Notices, attached as Exhibits A-1
and A-7 to the Kaske Declaration, and direct their
distribution;
(5) appointing Xpand Legal Consulting LLC as the Settlement
Administrator; and
(6) scheduling a fairness hearing for final approval of the
settlement, to be held approximately 160 days after the
issuance of the Preliminary Approval Order.
Bukhari delivers tailored IT services and provides technology
consultation, implementation, management, support, and application
development services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 3, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iEUZGc at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
Garrett Kaske, Esq.
KESSLER MATURA P.C.
534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 499-9100
E-mail: tkessler@kesslermatura.com
gkaske@kesslermatura.com
- and -
Delmas A. Costin, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF
DELMAS A. COSTIN, JR., PC
930 Grand Concourse, Suite 1B
Bronx, NY 10451
Telephone: (718) 618-0589
E-mail: dacostin@dacostinlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Kaitlyn P. Long, Esq.
MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN,
DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C
580 White Plains Rd., Suite 620
Tarrytown, NY 10591
Telephone: (914) 345-3701
E-mail: klong@moodklaw.com
C.H. ROBINSON: Wood Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Elizabeth Wood, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. C.H. ROBINSON COMPANY, INC, a
Minnesota Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. C24-03249
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Contra Costa, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on Jan. 8, 2025, and assigned Case
No. 3:25-cv-00294-SK.
The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: failure to
pay all overtime wages; meal period violations; rest period
violations; failure to pay all sick time; wage statement
violations; failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; and
unfair competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jack S. Sholkoff, Esq.
Carmen M. Aguado, Esq.
Stacey M. Shim, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213-239-9800
Facsimile: 213-239-9045
Email: jack.sholkoff@ogletree.com
carmen.aguado@ogletree.com
stacey.shim@ogletree.com
CAPSULE MANUFACTURING: Standing Order in Lotte Class Suit Entered
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOTTE GLOBAL LOGISTICS
NORTH AMERICA INC., v. CAPSULE MANUFACTURING INC., Case No.
8:24-cv-02785-JWH-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Holcomb
entered a standing order as follows:
The Plaintiff shall serve the Complaint promptly in accordance with
Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and shall file the
proofs of service pursuant to L.R. 5-3.1.
Any answers filed in state court must be re-filed in this Court,
either as an exhibit to the Notice of Removal or as a separate
filing. Any pending motions must be re-noticed in accordance with
Counsel are directed to review thoroughly Rule 7.1 and to comply
strictly with its instruction to file a compliant Disclosure
Statement.
Under 28 U.S.C. section 636, the parties may consent to have a
Magistrate Judge preside over all proceedings. The Magistrate
Judges who accept those designations are identified on the Central
District's website, which also contains the consent form.
All discovery matters have been referred to a United States
Magistrate Judge.
Capsule custom designs, manufactures, and installs prefabricated
modular products for trade-dense, high cost-per-square-foot
construction projects.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 2, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UHt90R at no extra
charge.[CC]
CASEYS RETAIL: Ct. Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Shryock-Omer
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shryock-Omer v. Caseys
Retail Company, Case No. 1:24-cv-01501-MMM (C.D. Ill.), the Hon.
Judge Jonathan Hawley entered a temporary 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 y 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.
Caseys Retail operates convenience stores.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 8, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LVJXg5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
CITY LOVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Renteria Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA RENTERIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY LOVE SALON AND BARBERSHOP
LLC; BRITTANY CASTILLO; BRYAN CASTILLO; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Case No. 25STCV00403 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 7, 2025)
is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum
wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest
periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary
business expenses.
Plaintiff Renteria was employed by the Defendants as a barber.
City Love Salon and Barbershop LLC owns and operates a barbershop
and salon in Long Beach, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Antoine D. Williams, Esq.
Bart A. Seemen, Esq.
WILLIAMS & SEEMEN APC
16255 Ventura Blvd. Suite #1106
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 898-3300
Facsimile: (818) 574-3006
COLE HAAN: Court Tosses Bunkley Wage-and-Hour Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Dale A. Drozd of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California granted Cole Haan LLC's motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint in the case captioned as KEITH
BUNKLEY, Plaintiff, v. COLE HAAN, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-00245-DAD-AC (E.D. Calif.) with leave to amend.
On January 22, 2019, plaintiff Keith Bunkley filed this putative
wage-and-hour class action in the Solano County Superior Court. On
January 18, 2024, defendant removed the action to the District
Court.
On March 29, 2024, plaintiff filed his operative SAC.
Plaintiff was employed by defendant as an hourly-paid employee from
December 2015 to June 2016.
Plaintiff asserts the following ten claims in his SAC:
(1) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of California
Labor Code Secs. 510, 1198;
(2) failure to provide meal periods in violation of California
Labor Code Secs. 226.7, 512(a);
(3) failure to provide rest periods in violation of California
Labor Code Sec. 226.7; (4) failure to pay minimum wages in
violation of California Labor Code Secs. 1194, 1197, 1197.1;
(5) failure to pay all wages due upon separation of employment
in violation of California Labor Code Secs. 201, 202;
(6) failure to timely pay wages in violation of California Labor
Code Sec. 204;
(7) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in
violation of California Labor Code Sec. 226(a);
(8) failure to maintain accurate and complete payroll records in
violation of California Labor Code Sec. 1174(d);
(9) failure to reimburse business expenses in violation of
California Labor Code Secs. 2800, 2802; and
(10) violation of California Business & Professional Code Secs.
17200, et seq.
On April 12, 2024, defendant filed the pending motion to dismiss
plaintiff's SAC in its entirety.
In its moving to dismiss plaintiff's SAC, defendant argues that
claims 1 and 4 are not supported by factual allegations sufficient
to satisfy Rule 8's requirements. It further argues that
plaintiff's allegations that he was pressured to work overtime are
insufficient to identify a specific instance of defendant failing
to pay plaintiff overtime wages. Additionally, defendant argues
that plaintiff's allegations in support of his minimum wage claim
merely recite the law but do not allege any facts.
In his opposition, plaintiff argues that he has stated a claim for
unpaid overtime wages because he alleges his hourly wage and an
estimate of how many unpaid overtime hours he worked per week. He
further contends that he has stated a claim for unpaid minimum
wages because he alleges that defendant's rounding policy
undercounted the hours he worked, causing him to not be compensated
for those hours. In reply, defendant reiterates that plaintiff's
allegations are vague, threadbare and fail to satisfy Rule 8.
In his SAC, plaintiff alleges that he was not paid all minimum
wages and overtime hours. However, he does not allege a particular
workweek where he was not paid overtime wages. Moreover, while
plaintiff does allege that his earning statement on April 1, 2016
was improperly rounded, he does not allege what the true value
reflected on that earning statement should have been nor does he
even allege that the amount was rounded down.
Because plaintiff has also failed to allege the approximate number
of hours he worked per week, how frequently he was not paid for
overtime hours, or a general estimate of the overtime wages he
believes he is owed, the District Court concludes he has not stated
a cognizable claim for failure to pay overtime wages.
Though plaintiff provides some specificity in his SAC by alleging
his hourly wage and an estimate of how many hours of overtime he
worked on a weekly basis, his allegations are not sufficiently
specific to satisfy the requirements of Rule 8, the District Court
finds. Further, plaintiff does not allege specific tasks that led
to the regular need to work overtime and resulted in his estimation
of the overtime wages owed.
According to the District Court, Plaintiff's minimum wage claim
suffers from similar defects. As to that claim, plaintiff alleges
that defendant failed to pay all minimum wages due to its rounding
policy. However, defendant correctly notes that plaintiff has only
alleged the existence of a rounding policy, but not the actual
details of that rounding policy, an instance of the rounding policy
lowering his wages, or how the policy would have led to the payment
of lessened wages. Because plaintiff has not alleged any facts
explaining how the rounding policy caused minimum wage violations,
or even any detail of the rounding policy itself, plaintiff has not
sufficiently stated a claim for minimum wage violations under a
rounding theory, the District Court concludes.
In its pending motion to dismiss, defendant argues that plaintiff
has not alleged sufficient facts to state a cognizable meal break
or rest break claim.
The District Court finds Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts
to state a cognizable claim for missed meal and rest breaks because
he has not alleged that defendant impermissibly denied those breaks
rather than that plaintiff skipped them by his choice. Because
plaintiff has not alleged how defendant's policies or actions
prevented him from taking a meal or rest period, he has failed to
state a cognizable claim in this regard, the District Court
concludes. Accordingly, the District Court will grant defendant's
motion to dismiss with claims 2 and 3 in plaintiff's SAC.
Defendant also argues that claim 5 of plaintiff's SAC must be
dismissed because it is fully derivative of his prior claims and,
further, he has not alleged any factual support for his unpaid
timely wages claim. The District Court concludes that plaintiff has
not adequately alleged that defendant willfully failed to timely
pay his final wages. Accordingly, the District Court will grant
defendant's motion to dismiss claim 5 of plaintiff's SAC.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=27sytZ from PacerMonitor.com.
CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Count 10 Claim in Ballast Suit Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edgardo Ramos of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part
Consolidated Edison Company of New York's motion to dismiss Count
10 of plaintiff's third amended complaint in the case captioned as
VICTOR BALLAST, LUIS SIMONE, RICHARD WALKER, and ORLANDO OBRET,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, – against – WORKFORCE7 INC., CONSOLIDATED EDISON
COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC., VALI INDUSTRIES, INC. and RONALD HILTON,
jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-03812 (ER).
Plaintiffs were employed by Workforce7 and worked as construction
site flaggers on public streets, roadways, and sidewalks pursuant
to contracts with ConEd, a public utilities provider in New York
City and Westchester County, NY.
In this wage and hour putative class action, Plaintiffs allege that
ConEd failed to pay prevailing wages, daily overtime, and
supplemental benefits which Plaintiffs were entitled to receive as
third-party beneficiaries to contracts between ConEd and New York
City.
Ballast and Simone filed suit on May 15, 2020 against Workforce7,
ConEd, Ronald Hilton, Safeway Construction Enterprises, LLC, M.J.
Electric, LLC, and John Doe Corp.Plaintiffs have amended their
complaint twice.
On April 22, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint and
ConEd filed the instant motion to dismiss Count 10 of the TAC on
June 21, 2024. Count 10 is a claim for breach of contract against
ConEd and Vali Industries for breaching the agreements they entered
into during the process of applying for street opening permits from
the DOT to pay Plaintiffs prevailing wages and supplemental
benefits.
Plaintiffs argue that although the permits themselves may not be
contracts, the applications required to obtain the permits created
a binding agreement between ConEd and the City of New York to pay
Plaintiffs prevailing wages, which ConEd failed to do.
The Court concludes that Plaintiffs plausibly allege that ConEd
entered into agreements with the City during the permit application
process, which required ConEd to pay Plaintiffs prevailing wages in
order to receive the DOT Permits based on Admin. Code Sec. 19-142.
Accordingly, ConEd's motion to dismiss is denied. Count 10 may
proceed as it is related to the application permits. ConEd is
directed to answer the TAC by Jan. 22, 2025.
A copy of the Court's Opinion & Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=buRvGS from PacerMonitor.com.
COURTYARD MANAGEMENT: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due June 6
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA BALDINO-MILLER, on
behalf of herself and all similarly aggrieved employees, v.
COURTYARD MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-01613-KES-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Barbara McAuliffe
entered an amended preliminary scheduling order as follows:
Mid-Discovery Status Conference: Feb. 4, 2025,
9:00 a.m.
Class Certification Written Discovery Apr. 18, 2025
Cutoff:
Class Certification Motion Filing June 6, 2025
Deadline:
Class Certification Opposition Aug. 8, 2025
Deadline:
Class Certification Reply Deadline: Oct. 3, 2025
Class Certification Motion Hearing: Oct. 23, 2025,
9:00 a.m.
Courtyard Management operates as a chain of hotels. The Company
offers accommodation and dining services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 8, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QWah86 at no extra
charge.[CC]
COURTYARD MANAGEMENT: Must File Withdrawal Notice
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Baldino-Miller v.
Courtyard Management Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01613
(E.D. Cal., Filed Nov. 15, 2023), the Hon. Judge Kirk E. Sherriff
entered an order that no later than Jan. 17, 2025, the Defendants
shall file either a notice of withdrawal of the motion or a Joint
Statement Re Discovery Disagreement pursuant to Local Rule 251(c).
In addition, the Plaintiff also requested to exceed the number of
interrogatories permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Court declined Plaintiff's informal request.
On Jan. 8, 2025, the Court held a further status conference to
address Defendants' request for a protective order concerning
Plaintiff's discovery requests.
At the outset of the conference, the Court identified a
typographical error in the Preliminary Scheduling Order regarding
class certification briefing. The Court will issue an amended
scheduling order reflecting the correct deadline for filing an
opposition to the motion for class certification.
The parties also updated the Court on their meet and confer efforts
and reported that the discovery issues likely can be resolved once
the relevant facilities for sampling are identified. Plaintiff
proposed a sampling from two Courtyard locations, plus Plaintiff's
location, one Residence Inn location, and one Springhill Suites
location.
While not ruling on the issue, the Court indicated that the
proposal was reasonable. The Court also indicated that a
statistical sampling of less than all employees for locations with
100 or more employees was reasonable. Defense counsel agreed to
discuss Plaintiff's proposal with Defendants. However, the hearing
on Defendants' motion for protective order remains as calendared
for Jan. 31, 2025.
The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.
Courtyard Management operates as a chain of hotels.[CC]
CROSS COUNTRY: Blocker Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CROSS COUNTRY
HEALTHCARE INC., et al. The case is styled as Shautauqua Nekita
Blocker, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
CROSS COUNTRY HEALTHCARE INC. DBA CROSS COUNTRY LOCUMS, THE TEEN
PROJECT INC., Case No. 25STCV00534 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., Jan. 8, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. -- https://www.crosscountry.com/ --
is a national leader in providing healthcare recruiting, staffing
and workforce management solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638
Phone: 310-432-0000
Fax: 310-432-0001
Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
CUSTOMIZED DISTRIBUTION: First Amended Scheduling Order Entered
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN NEWBERN, v.
CUSTOMIZED DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-03871-RJD
(S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Reona Daly entered a first amended
scheduling order:
Discovery prior to Class Certification must be sufficient to permit
the Court to determine whether the requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23 are satisfied, including a sufficient inquiry
into the merits of the case to ensure appropriate management of the
case as a Class Action. Once class certification is decided, the
Court will schedule an additional conference with the parties to
address entering a new discovery order, addressing any additional
merits discovery needed as necessary.
Initial interrogatories and requests to produce, pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 34 and SDIL-LR 33.1, were
served on opposing parties on Apr. 12, 2024.
The Parties exchanged their responses on May 13, 2024. Defendant
provided objections based on its then-pending motion to dismiss.
Defendant shall provide its objections and responses to discovery
by Jan. 31, 2025. The Parties shall also serve Rule 26 initial
disclosures by Janu. 31, 2025.
The Plaintiff's deposition shall be taken by June 6, 2025.
The Defendant's deposition(s) shall be taken by July 11, 2025.
Third Party actions must be commenced by Apr. 2, 2025 (which date
shall be no late than 90 days following the scheduling
conference).
Expert witnesses for Class Certification, if any, shall be
disclosed, along with a written report prepared and signed by the
witness pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2), as
follows:
Plaintiff's expert(s): July 31, 2025
Defendant's expert(s): Aug. 29, 2025
Depositions of Class Certification expert witnesses must be taken
by:
Plaintiff's expert(s): Aug. 29, 2025
Defendant's expert(s): Sept. 26, 2025
Customized Distribution operates as a third party logistics
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NQQiTB at no extra
charge.[CC]
CVS PHARMACY: Must Oppose Class Certification Bid by Jan. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE ONE, RICHARD ROE,
in his capacity as executor for JOHN DOE TWO, JOHN DOE SIX, and
JOHN DOE SEVEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated and for the benefit of the general public, v. CVS
PHARMACY, INC.; CAREMARK, L.L.C.; CAREMARK CALIFORNIA SPECIALTY
PHARMACY, L.L.C.; GARFIELD BEACH CVS, L.L.C.; CAREMARKPCS HEALTH,
L.L.C.; and DOES 1–10, inclusive, Case No. 3:18-cv-01031-EMC
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward Chen
entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion regarding the
briefing deadlines:
a. Opposition to Class Certification: Jan. 31, 2025
b. Reply in Support of Motion for Feb. 28, 2025
Class Certification:
c. Hearing on motion for class April 3, 2025
certification:
On Aug. 24, 2024, the Court entered the following briefing schedule
on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs filed their opening motion for class certification
on Nov. 1, 2024.\
On Dec. 4, 2024, the Defendants asked Plaintiffs to identify dates
during the first full week of January 2025 to conduct the
deposition of Plaintiffs' class certification expert, Michelle J.
Sherman.
On Dec. 9, 2024, the Plaintiffs informed Defendants that Michelle
J. Sherman would be unavailable during the requested week and was
not available until January 22, 2025, a week after Defendants’
current deadline to file their opposition brief.
CVS distributes pharmaceutical products.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 8, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=91Psb7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
Edith M. Kallas, Esq.
Henry C. Quillen, Esq.
Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
C. Nicholas Dorman, Esq.
WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
152 West 57th Street, 41st Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 447-7060
Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
E-mail: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com
ekallas@whatleykallas.com
hquillen@whatleykallas.com
amansfield@whatleykallas.com
ndorman@whatleykallas.com
- and -
Benjamin Powell, Esq.
Ryan Mellino, Esq.
CONSUMER WATCHDOG
6330 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 250
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Telephone: (310) 392-0522
Facsimile: (310) 392-8874
E-mail: ben@consumerwatchdog.org
ryan@consumerwatchdog.org
The Defendants are represented by:
Enu Mainigi, Esq.
Craig D. Singer, Esq.
Grant A. Geyerman, Esq.
Benjamin W. Graham, Esq.
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
680 Maine Ave., S.W.
Washington, DC 20024
Telephone: (202) 434-5000
Facsimile: (202) 434-5029
- and -
John J. Atallah, Esq.
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
555 South Flower Street, Ste. 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 972-4500
Facsimile: (213) 486-0065
D & J PLUMBING: Mendez Files Labor Suit in California State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against D & J Plumbing, Inc.
The case is captioned as GERMAN GIL MENDEZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. D & J PLUMBING, INC.,
Case No. 24CV024048 (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., November 25,
2024).
A case management conference is set for December 12, 2025, before
Judge Christopher E. Krueger.
D & J Plumbing, Inc. is a plumbing and well pump services provider
doing business in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
KOUL LAW
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 761-5484
Facsimile: (818) 561-3938
DAREN C. DALY: Bid to Enforce Discharge Injunction Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Scott M. Grossman of the United States Bankruptcy Court for
the Southern District of Florida granted in part Daren C. Daly's
motion to enforce discharge injunction entered in his chapter 11
bankruptcy case.
Daren C. Daly moves to enforce the discharge injunction entered in
his chapter 11 bankruptcy case, by requiring his parents Patrick
and Elizabeth Daly y (together, the "Dalys")and their business All
Paving & Sealcoating, LLC to dismiss their claims asserted against
him in the state court action styled All Paving Inc., et al. v.
Daly. He also requests that the Dalys and Sealcoating, and their
counsel, be held in contempt ofcourt and fined if they do not
dismiss the state court claims against him.
The Dalys and Sealcoating oppose the Debtor's motion and argue that
they have not violated the discharge injunction, have not proceeded
affirmatively against the Debtor in the State Court Action, and
have not interfered with his confirmed chapter 11 plan. But, they
assert that because they have a pending appeal of certain
pre-confirmation litigation in this bankruptcy case, they may be
prejudiced if they are required to dismiss their state court claims
before resolution of that appeal.
The litigation began in 2017 when the Dalys, together with
Sealcoating and All Paving, Inc. (purportedly by the Dalys as
alleged majority shareholders), sued the Debtor and his fiance,
Jamie Schindler, in the State Court Action. The Dalys allege that
they rightfully own 87.5% of the equity in All Paving, Inc., and
that the Debtor and Ms. Schindler are liable to them for a myriad
of damages stemming from the alleged conversion of those equity
interests. Ultimately, through their Second Amended Complaint they
asserted thirteen causes of action:
(I) Conversion of business interests in All Paving, Inc.,
against both the Debtor and Ms. Schindler;
(II) Conspiracy to convert the business interests in All Paving,
Inc., against both the Debtor and Ms. Schindler;
(III) Aiding and abetting the conversion of business interests in
All Paving, Inc., against both the Debtor and Ms. Schindler;
(IV) Conversion of the "All Paving" tradename, trademark, logo,
and the AllPaving.com domain name, against both the Debtor and
Ms. Schindler;
(V) Conspiracy to convert the "All Paving" tradename, trademark,
logo, and the AllPaving.com domain name, against both the Debtor
and Ms. Schindler;
(VI) Aiding and abetting the conversion of the "All Paving"
tradename, trademark, logo, and the AllPaving.com domain name,
against both the Debtor and Ms. Schindler;
(VII) Breach of fiduciary duties, against the Debtor;
(VIII) Conspiracy to breach fiduciary duties, against both the
Debtor and Ms. Schindler;
(IX) Aiding and abetting the breach of fiduciary duties, against
both the Debtor and Ms. Schindler;
(X) Tortious interference, against both the Debtor and Ms.
Schindler;
(XI) Violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act, against both the Debtor and Ms. Schindler;
(XII) Declaratory Judgment regarding ownership of All Paving, Inc.,
against both the Debtor and Ms. Schindler; and
(XIII) Declaratory Judgment regarding ownership of the All Paving,
Inc. tradename, trademark, logo, and the AllPaving.com domain name,
against the Debtor and Ms. Schindler.
Debtor's bankruptcy filing stayed the State Court Action.
While the discharge injunction prohibits the continuation of an
action for personal liability against the Debtor, it does not bar
claims for declaratory relief. The claims in Counts I through XI in
the State Court Action each sought damages against the Debtor, so
each of those claims has been discharged. But the claims in Counts
XII and XIII -- which seek only declaratory relief -- do not need
to be dismissed on that basis. Count XII, however, seeks the same
determination -- ownership of All Paving, Inc. -- that this Court
has already made after a nine-day trial. As such, the
Dalys and Sealcoating may be precluded from relitigating that issue
in state court, but that is for the state court to determine.
Neither the Confirmation Order, nor the discharge injunction,
however, require its dismissal.
The Bankruptcy Court will grant the Debtor's motion in part and
require dismissal of certain (but not all) of the claims against
him in the State Court Action, but without prejudice.
Patrick Daly, Elizabeth Daly, and All Paving & Sealcoating, LLC
must (to the extent not already dismissed) dismiss without
prejudice Counts I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, and XI of
the Second Amended Complaint in All Paving Inc., et al. v. Daly,
Case No. CACE17014794, the Bankruptcy Court holds. To the extent
Counts XII and XIII seek only declaratory relief to determine
ownership of property, and not to impose any personal liability on
the Debtor, the discharge injunction does not prohibit continued
litigation of those claims.
Nothing in this Order affects any claims asserted against Jamie
Schindler in the State Court Action.
Nothing in this Order affects the rights of Patrick Daly, Elizabeth
Daly, and All Paving & Sealcoating, LLC to defend against any
counterclaims asserted by the Debtor against them in the State
Court Action.
The Bankruptcy Court will not, however, hold any party in contempt
or otherwise award any sanctions at this time.
Judge Grossman concludes that a bankruptcy discharge is absolute,
not conditional. The Debtor received a discharge here and is
entitled to its full scope and protections. Neither the pending
appeal of the Pre-Confirmation Rulings, the agreed-upon language in
paragraph 7 of the Confirmation Order, nor the State Court Stay
modify the scope and protections of the discharge injunction to
which the Debtor is entitled. The claims asserted against the
Debtor seeking personal liability in the State Court Action must
therefore be dismissed, albeit without prejudice.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7X7v4V from PacerMonitor.com.
Daren C. Daly sought Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Case
No. 22-15694) on July 26, 2022. The Debtor is represented by Isaac
M. Marcushamer, Esq. at DGIM LAW PLLC.
DATANYZE LLC: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Hudson, et al. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as CHARISMA HUDSON and BRIAN SCHAEFER, Ohio
citizens, individually and as the representatives of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DATANYZE,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant-Appellee, Case
No. 23-3998 (6th Cir.), Judges Eugene E. Siler, Jr., Richard Allen
Griffin and Andre B. Mathis of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio dismissing the
privacy class action complaint.
Datanyze, LLC created digital profiles of over 100 million
individuals, including Plaintiffs Charisma Hudson and Brian
Schaefer. Datanyze then allowed their prospective customers to
access the profiles, including Plaintiffs', via a free trial to its
online database. Plaintiffs brought a putative class action
asserting that Datanyze violated their publicity rights under Ohio
law by using their identities to solicit paid subscriptions to its
database.
The district court dismissed Plaintiffs' complaint.
Plaintiffs contend that Datanyze violated the ORPS and committed
the common-law tort of invasion of privacy by appropriation. Both
causes of action protect Ohio citizens' right of publicity.
Plaintiffs must establish that their names or likenesses have
commercial value to succeed on their claims.
Plaintiffs purport to allege facts showing the commercial value of
their names and likenesses in two ways. First, they allege that
they have intellectual property and privacy interests in their
names and likenesses. Second, Plaintiffs allege that they have been
denied the commercial value of their names and likenesses. The
Circuit Judges find these cursory allegations are insufficient to
show that Plaintiffs' names or likenesses have commercial value.
Thus, they have not stated plausible claims for violation of the
ORPS or for invasion of privacy by appropriation.
The Circuit Judges point out that the complaint mentions nothing
about the distinctiveness of Plaintiffs' identities. Nor does the
complaint explain how Plaintiffs received more recognition than
others receiving publicity. Additionally, Plaintiffs do not allege
that their names and likenesses were particularly valuable or
recognizable to Datanyze's targeted customers -- business
recruiters, salespersons, and marketers. At most, Plaintiffs allege
that they have LinkedIn profiles, but the Circuit Judges cannot
reasonably infer that the existence of such profiles, without any
elucidating factual allegations, shows that Datanyze's prospective
customers value Plaintiffs' names or likenesses.
Plaintiffs argue that Datanyze's misappropriation of their names or
likenesses to solicit paid subscriptions, in and of itself,
demonstrates commercial value. But the Circuit Judges find no
allegations in the complaint permit a reasonable inference that
Plaintiffs' names and likenesses had commercial value before or
after their appropriation. They affirm the district court's
judgment.
A copy of the Court's Opinion dated Jan. 13, 2025 is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WLi9Nn from PacerMonitor.com.
DAVIE GROUP: Jones Sues Over Website's Accessibility Barriers
-------------------------------------------------------------
CLAY LEE JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DAVIE GROUP TRADING (USA), INC., D/B/A
OUTDOORPLAY, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-10039 (S.D.N.Y, December
31, 2024) alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The violations stem from Defendant's failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate Defendant’s website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, says the suit.
Davie Group Trading (USA), Inc. owns and operates the website,
www.outdoorplay.com, which serves as an online store for outdoor
gear and equipment. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Fernandez
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, v.
DELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00016-VSB-BCM (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general
pretrial management:
All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to
scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for
judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary
judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must
be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's
Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's
website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.
Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must be
initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by
the Court.
Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting
discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for
such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule
37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices.
For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences
are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that
an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a
motion or narrow the issues.
Dell provides technology solutions, services & support.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6lX4wK at no extra
charge.[CC]
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS: Hammond Suit Transferred to M.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Khalil Hammond, David Thompson, Antoine
Walker, Muwsa Green, Tyrone Leonard, Malika Henderson, on their own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Department
of Corrections; Laurel Harry, Secretary of Corrections; George
Little, former Secretary of Corrections; Michael Wenerowicz,
Executive Deputy Secretary for Institutional Operations,
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections; Ph.D. Lucas Malishchak,
Director of Psychology, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections;
Brian Schneider, Director of Psychology, Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections; Case No. 2:24-cv-00922 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Jan.
8, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00048-DFB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights (Prison
Conditions).
The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections --
https://www.pa.gov/agencies/cor.html -- is responsible for
operating the state's prison system.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew A. Feldman, Esq.
PENNSYLVANIA INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT
718 Arch St., Suite 304S
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: (215) 925-2966
Email: mfeldman@pilp.org
- and -
Alexandra T Morgan-Kurtz, Esq.
PENNSYLVANIA INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT
247 Fort Pitt Blvd, 4th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 434-6175
Email: amorgan-kurtz@pailp.org
- and -
Dolly Prabhu, Esq.
ABOLITIONIST LAW CENTER
P.O. Box 8654
Pittsburgh, PA 15221
Phone: (610) 716-8381
Email: DPRABHU@ALCENTER.ORG
- and -
Noah Shaw Becker, Esq.
DECHERT, LLP
Cira Centre
2929 Arch St.
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Phone: (215) 994-2522
Email: noah.becker@dechert.com
- and -
Stormie Mauck, Esq.
DECHERT, LLP
2929 Arch Street
Cira Center
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Phone: (215) 994-2516
Email: stormie.mauck@dechert.com
- and -
Bret D. Grote, Esq.
ABOLITIONIST LAW CENTER
PO Box 8654
Pittsburgh, PA 15221
Phone: (412) 654-9070
Email: bretgrote@abolitionistlawcenter.org
The Defendant is represented by:
Sarina M. Kaplan, Esq.
Kevin Bradford, Esq.
Lindsey A. Bedell, Esq.
PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
1600 Arch Street, Suite 300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (267) 768-3964
Email: kbradford@attorneygeneral.gov
lbedell@pa.gov
- and -
Chase M. DeFelice, Esq.
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
1920 Tehnology Parkway
Mehanicsburg, PA 17050
Phone: (717) 728-7763
Email: chdefelice@pa.gov
- and -
Joseph G. Fulginiti, Esq.
Vincent R Mazeski, Esq.
CHIEF COUNSEL'S OFFICE
1920 Technology Parkway
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
Phone: (717) 728-7763
Email: josfulgini@pa.gov
vmazeski@pa.gov
- and -
Kelly J Hoke, Esq.
PA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS-OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL
1920 Technology Parkway
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
Phone: (717) 728-7749
Email: kelhoke@pa.gov
DRAFTKINGS INC: Youngs Sues Over Improper Business Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW YOUNGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DRAFTKINGS, INC.; CROWN NJ GAMING INC. d/b/a
DRAFTKINGS; RESORTS ATLANTIC CITY; and DGMB CASINO LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 2:25-cv-00179 (D.N.J., Jan. 7, 2025) alleges violation of
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, DraftKings' business
model has long involved pushing the boundaries of the law,
misleading consumers, and luring naïve gamblers into developing
addictions. DraftKings advertises an all-upside gambling
experience, falsely promising new users that they will get free
money which they can wager without any risk. In reality,DraftKings
has created an all-upside opportunity only for itself: the
contracts require new users to deposit and gamble almost
exclusively with their own money, which they almost always lose.
DraftKings also engages in other undisclosed manipulations, forcing
those users who are able to initially win to make worse and worse
bets until their funds are exhausted.
DraftKings uses these tactics to identify and cultivate the people
it wants on its platform: those who are susceptible to these sorts
of advertisements and most likely to lose a lot of money sports
betting. In other words, marks.
As a direct result of these promotions, many customers have gambled
and lost more money than they intended as a result of these
deceptive and unfair promotions, and some customers have developed
gambling addictions and lost thousands or -- like Plaintiff Youngs
-- even hundreds of thousands of dollars, says the suit.
DraftKings Inc. operates as a daily fantasy sports contest and
sports betting company. The Company allows users to enter daily and
weekly fantasy sports-related contests and win money based on
individual player performances in American sports. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elvin Esteves, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ELVIN ESTEVES LLC
460 Bloomfield Avenue, Suite 200
Montclair, NJ 07042
Telephone: (862) 881-5552
Email: elvin@estevesjuris.com
DX ENTERPRISES: Settlement in McClaine Suit Gets Prelim. Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David W. Dugan of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois granted preliminary approval of the
class action settlement agreement in the case captioned as HEATHER
MCCLAINE, Plaintiff, vs. DX ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
23-cv-1168 (S.D. Ill.).
The Settlement is preliminarily approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate. The Settlement Agreement was negotiated at arm's-length
between counsel for the Parties who are experienced in class action
litigation.
The Court finds that the requirements for a class action under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 are preliminarily satisfied,
including numerosity, commonality and predominance, adequacy, and
appropriateness of class treatment.
The Court preliminarily certifies the following Settlement Class
and Subclass:
Settlement Class: All persons who had their biometrics collected
and/or biometric information and/or data collected, captured,
received converted, stored, obtained, shared, taken, used,
disclosed or disseminated by Defendant in Illinois between February
27, 2018 to the date of preliminary approval without first
executing a written release. Excluded from the Settlement Class
are: (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this Action and
members of their families; (2) the Defendant, Defendant's
subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any
entity in which the Defendant or its parents have a controlling
interest; (3) persons who properly execute and file a timely
request for exclusion from the Settlement Class; and (4) the legal
representatives, successors or assigns of any such excluded person.
Defendant estimates there are 586 Settlement Class Members.
Settlement Subclass: The Settlement Subclass will be defined to
consist of only those members of the Settlement Class who were
hired by DX Enterprises, Inc. more than one time during the period
of February 27, 2018 to the date of preliminary approval and who
had their biometrics collected and/or biometric information and/or
data collected, captured, received, converted, stored, obtained,
shared, taken, used, disclosed, or disseminated by Defendant in
Illinois without first executing a written release.
Defendant estimates that there are 86 Subclass Members.
The Court appoints Heather McClaine as the Settlement Class
Representative.
The Court appoints the following attorney as Settlement Class
Counsel:
The Garfinkel Group, LLC
Max P. Barack
max@garfinkelgroup.com
701 N. Milwaukee Avenue
The CIVITAS
Chicago, Illinois 60642
Telephone: (312) 736-7991
The Court appoints Simpluris as the Settlement Administrator to
perform all duties described in the Settlement Agreement or ordered
by this Court.
The Court schedules a Final Approval Hearing for April 15, 2025, at
10:00 a.m., which will be conducted in person, at the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, East St.
Louis, Illinois, to consider, among other things, (1) whether to
finally approve the Settlement; (2) whether to approve Settlement
Class Counsel's request for attorney fees and litigation costs; (3)
whether to approve the Class Representative's request for an
Incentive Award; and (4) whether to approve the Settlement
Administrator's costs.
The deadlines in the Settlement Agreement are anticipated to be as
follows:
A. Class List to Administrator: January 21, 2025;
B. Notice distributed by: February 4, 2025;
C. Exclusion deadline: March 6, 2025;
D. Objection deadline: March 6, 2025;
E. Fee Petition filing: April 8, 2025;
F. Final Approval Motion filing: April 8, 2025; and
G. Final Approval Hearing: April 15, 2025, at 10:00 a.m.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NB1b8M from PacerMonitor.com.
FARMERS INSURANCE: Court Upholds Dismissal of Anderson Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as SPENCER HECKATHORN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FARMERS
INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., and FIRE
INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Defendants, Case No. 24-CV-0174 (N.D. Okla.),
Judge Claire V. Eagan of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma denied without prejudice plaintiff
Robert Anderson's motion seeking an entry of judgment on his claims
against the defendants pursuant to Rule 54(b).
Anderson seeks entry of judgment in order to appeal the Court's
order and opinion dismissing his claim without prejudice for
failure to state a claim. Plaintiff Spencer Heckathorn's claim
remains.
Plaintiffs Anderson and Heckathorn filed a purported class action
complaint against Farmers, and Farmers filed a motion to dismiss
Anderson's claim only. Plaintiffs then filed an amended class
action complaint with additional factual allegations, alleging one
count of violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Farmers filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint as to
Anderson's claim only. Because Anderson failed to plausibly allege
that he received more than one phone call by or on behalf of
Farmers as required under 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(c)(5), the Court
dismissed Anderson's claim without prejudice. Anderson did not seek
leave to amend his complaint a second time.
Anderson seeks entry of judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b), even
though Heckathorn's putative class action complaint against Farmers
remains pending. Anderson argues that the Court's order and opinion
dismissing Anderson's claim is final because the Court fully
disposed of Anderson's claim, and his claim is factually distinct
from Heckathorn's claim. He contends that no just reason to delay
entry of final judgment as to his claim exists because delaying his
appeal until Heckathorn's claim is fully adjudicated will result in
an injustice to Anderson.
During the course of discovery, the attorneys may discover that
Anderson received more than one phone call by or on behalf of
Farmers, and, if so, Anderson may qualify as a class member or may
amend his complaint to be reinstated as a class representative
plaintiff. Conversely, if, after discovery, the Court certifies a
class and Anderson does not qualify as a class member or
representative, or if the Court does not certify the class,
Anderson may then appeal the legal issue of whether he plausibly
alleged that he received more than one phone call by or on behalf
of Farmers. Thus, Anderson's claim remains intertwined with
Heckathorn's pending purported class action, and the Court's order
and opinion does not constitute a final judgment.
The Court also finds that delaying Anderson's appeal is not
inequitable. As Anderson may qualify as a class member or
representative after discovery, the interest of judicial efficiency
weighs against allowing Anderson to pursue a piecemeal appeal.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CXiJvg from PacerMonitor.com.
FOUNDRY HOME: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fernandez Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE FOUNDRY HOME GOODS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-10031 (S.D.N.Y., December 31, 2024) arises from
Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted multiple times,
most recently on August 28, 2024 to access Defendant's website from
Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but
encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to
Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff asserts claims for Americans with Disabilities Act and
the New York City Human Rights Law.
The Foundry Home Goods, Inc. owns and operates the website,
www.thefoundryhomegoods.com, which serves as online store for
kitchenware, linens, and decor items. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
GALLAGHER'S NEW YORK: Clement Sues Over Website Inaccessibility
---------------------------------------------------------------
VINCENT CLEMENT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GALLAGHER'S NEW YORK STEAKHOUSE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08928 (E.D.N.Y., December 31, 2024)
arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Defendant has violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and
the New York City Human Rights Law by failing to update or remove
access barriers on its website so either can be independently
accessible to the Class. These barriers prevent free and full use
by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software, says
the suit.
Gallagher's New York Steakhouse, Inc. owns and operates a
restaurant that serves steaks, fresh seafood, and classic American
dishes. It also owns and operates the website,
www.gallaghersnysteakhouse.com. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
GARDENS ALIVE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fernandez Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. GARDENS ALIVE, INC., D/B/A BRECK'S,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-10038 (S.D.N.Y., December 31, 2024),
accuses that Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities
Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.
Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendant for the
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.
Gardebs Alive, Inc. owns and operates the website, www.brecks.com,
which offers flower bulbs for sale directly from Holland to
gardeners in North America. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
GENESCO INC: McClure Lawsuit Remanded to State Trial Court
----------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable John F. Walter of the United States District Court
for the Central District of California remanded the case captioned
as TUISDI LAYNE McCLURE, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GENESCO INC., a Tennessee
corporation; and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-11164 (C.D. Calif.) back to Los Angeles County Superior
Court.
All future federal court dates and deadlines are vacated.
The Plaintiff's Complaint pleads causes of action for: failure to
pay all wages in violation of California Labor Code; failure to pay
minimum wages in violation of California Labor Code; failure to pay
all overtime wages at the legal overtime pay rate in violation of
California Labor Code; failure to provide all meal periods in
violation of California Labor Code; failure to authorize and permit
all paid rest periods in violation of California Labor Code;
failure to fully reimburse work expenses in violation of California
Labor Code; failure to timely furnish accurate itemized wage
statements in violation of California Labor Code; derivative
violations of California Labor Code; independent violations of
California Labor Code; and unfair business practices in violation
of California Business & Professions Code.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iLO55s from PacerMonitor.com.
GENWORTH LIFE: Class Settlement in Silverstein Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN SILVERSTEIN, V.
GENWORTH LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00684-DJN (E.D.
Va.), the Hon. Judge David Novak entered an order as follows:
-- The Court finds that Genworth Life Insurance Company has
complied with the notice provisions of the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005.
-- The Settlement Administrator properly and timely notified the
appropriate government officials of the Settlement, pursuant
to CAFA.
-- The Settlement includes, as set forth in greater detail in
the Settlement Agreement, a $5,100,000 common fund to cover
Settlement Class Member Payments, attorneys' fees and costs,
and a service award for the named Plaintiff: the costs of
notice and administration to be paid separately by Genworth.
-- The appointment of Martin Silverstein as Class Representative
is confirmed.
-- The appointment of Susman Godfrey, LLP as Class Counsel is
affirmed.
-- The Court affirms the finding that the Settlement Class meets
the relevant requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(a) and (b)(3) for purposes of the Settlement.
Genworth provides life, health, and disability insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 3, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MN4pb3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
GERARD VAN DE POL: Scheduling Order Entered in Villalovos-Gutierrez
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN VILLALOVOS-GUTIERREZ,
ET AL., v. GERARD VAN DE POL, ET AL., Case No.
2:24-cv-02305-DJC-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel Calabretta
entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- Service of Process
The named defendants have been served as required by Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 5.
No further service is permitted without leave of the Court,
good cause having been shown under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 16(b).
-- Joinder Of Additional Parties / Amendment Of Pleadings
No further joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is
permitted without leave of the Court, good cause having been
shown.
-- Discovery Procedures
Discovery matters that do not implicate the schedule of the
case or that do not relate to sealing or redaction of
documents related to dispositive motions are referred to the
assigned United States Magistrate Judge, who will hear all
discovery disputes subject to his or her procedures.
-- Discovery Deadlines
A. Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures If not already completed,
All parties appearing shall make initial disclosures
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(a)(1)
no later than Jan. 10, 2025.
B. Fact Discovery All fact discovery shall be completed no
later than Sept. 12, 2025.
C. Expert Discovery The parties shall disclose initial
Experts and produce reports in accordance with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) by no later than Oct. 10,
2025.
-- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification, shall be
filed on or before June 2, 2025, and shall be noticed for
-- All dispositive motions, except motions for continuances,
temporary restraining orders, or other emergency
applications, shall be filed on or before Feb. 13, 2026, and
shall be noticed for hearing before Judge Calabretta no later
than April 2, 2026 at 1:30 p.m.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 2, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mZ6bQt at no extra
charge.[CC]
GOOGLE LLC: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Rodriguez Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California denied Google LLC's motion for
summary judgment in the case captioned as ANIBAL RODRIGUEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-04688-RS (N.D.
Calif.). The pending motions to seal are granted.
This is a privacy class action brought against Google LLC.
Plaintiffs are members of two sub-classes, comprising individuals
with Android and non-Android mobile devices who had certain
privacy-related settings switched off in their Google accounts. In
the Fourth Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs aver that Google
contravened its user-facing privacy representations regarding its
Web App and Activity and supplemental Web App and Activity
("(s)WAA") settings, advancing three California claims: invasion of
privacy under the California Constitution, common law intrusion
upon seclusion, and violation of the Comprehensive Computer Data
Access and Fraud Act. Google moves for summary judgment on all
claims advanced by Plaintiffs in the FAC.
Google insists that while Plaintiffs may have suffered Article III
injury, they cannot show, class-wide, that they suffered harm under
the invasion of privacy claims because the "emotional harms"
associated with those claims are only available on an individual
basis. Plaintiffs have offered no models or explanations for how
these harms apply across the classes, and at the hearing,
Plaintiffs' counsel admitted that if emotional harm was Plaintiffs'
sole theory of harm, only nominal damages would be available to the
class. Contrary to Google's view, however, that only nominal
damages are available class-wide does not defeat Plaintiffs'
invasion of privacy claims, the Court finds.
Google seeks summary judgment for Plaintiffs' CDAFA claim on the
grounds that it had permission to use (s)WAA-off data and that
Plaintiffs suffered no damage or loss.
The Court finds Google presents no relevant authority to show that
under CDAFA, permission given by third parties to use (s)WAA-off
data satisfies the statute's permission requirement.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KN9VpA from PacerMonitor.com.
GRAND ISLE: Ortiguerra Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR CAGARA ORTIGUERRA,
DONATO MANALILI AGUSTIN, AMADO TRANATE YUZON, CHRISTOPHER ESCALANTE
RAYOS, ARVIN BANZON SAN PEDRO, WILFREDO BATONG SATUROS, ROSEL
NUFABLE HERNANDEZ, SIEGFRIED TAPIA CARLOS, RENATO ARBOLIDA DECENA,
and ISAIAS SANTIAGO DINGLASAN, v. GRAND ISLE SHIPYARD, LLC., and
GIS, LLC, Case No. 22-cv-00309 (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order that:
(1) authorizes Plaintiffs to proceed, on behalf of themselves
and two certified Classes, against the Defendants for
their violation of Plaintiffs' rights, and those of
individuals similarly situated, to be free from forced
labor, trafficking for forced labor, attempt, and
conspiracy under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act
(TVPA), and for their discrimination against the
Plaintiffs, and those of individuals similarly situated,
because of race, color, and/or national origin in
violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA); and
(2) directs the Defendants to promptly provide Plaintiffs'
counsel with the names, mobile telephone numbers, email
addresses, and last known addresses for all potential
members of the certified Classes so that additional
similarly situated current and former employees can be
promptly notified of their right to participate in this
lawsuit.
Grand Isle provides oilfield and construction services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 8, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SM6CyM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel Werner, Esq.
Elaine Woo, Esq.
RADFORD SCOTT, LLC
125 Clairemont Ave., Suite 380
Decatur, GA 30030
Telephone: (404) 400-3600
Facsimile: (678) 271-0304
E-mail: dwerner@radfordscott.com
ewoo@radfordscott.com
- and -
Kenneth C. Bordes, Esq.
Amneh Attallah, Esq.
Abigail L. Floresca, Esq.
Kenneth C. Bordes, Esq.
ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC
4224 Canal St.
New Orleans, LA 70119
Telephone: (504) 588-2700
Facsimile: (504) 708-1717
E-mail: kcb@kennethbordes.com
amneh@kennethbordes.com
abigail@kennethbordes.com
GREG GOSSETT: Partially Wins Summary Judgment vs Ross
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEMETRIUS ROSS, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GREG
GOSSETT, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00309-SMY (S.D. Ill.), the Hon.
Judge Staci Yandle entered an order granting in part and denying in
part Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The Defendants' motion is granted as to Defendants Alex Jones and
Michael Gilreath on Plaintiffs' claims in the Second Amended
Complaint; granted as to Count V of the Second Amended Complaint as
to all Defendants; and granted as to any official capacity claims
against the Director of the IDOC.
The Defendants' motion is denied as to the remaining supervisory
Defendants as to Count I, II, and III.
The Defendants' motion is taken under advisement as to the
non-supervisory Defendants.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of
Defendants Jones and Gilreath and against Plaintiff at the close of
this case.
Although Plaintiffs sought class certification as to the 22
supervisory Defendants, this case has never been bifurcated between
the two groups of defendants.
The Plaintiffs shall file a response within 30 days of the entry of
this Order. Defendants may seek leave to file a reply pursuant to
the undersigned’s Case Management Procedures.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 8, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MyAY1v at no extra
charge.[CC]
GROUP US: Conditional Collective Certification Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OSVALDO MUNOZ, ET AL., v.
THE GROUP US MANAGEMENT LLC, ET AL., Case No. 1:22-cv-04038-MKV-HJR
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Henry Ricardo entered an order granting
in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
collective certification:
1. The Defendants shall produce a spreadsheet, in Excel format if
possible, containing the names, last known mailing addresses, email
addresses, and telephone numbers, dates of employment, current or
most recent job title, and current or most recent compensation
rate, for tipped employees at the Primary Locations; and
2. The parties shall, after meeting and conferring, prepare and
submit to the Court for its approval a revised form of
Notice (including the related opt-in form) and a proposed
distributor order, incorporating the Court's rulings.
The Plaintiffs brought this action on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated restaurant workers for violations of the
minimum wage, overtime, tip-pooling, wage notice, and wage
statement provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the
New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and their implementing regulations.
The Plaintiff Munoz worked as a busser at La Grande Boucherie,
located at 145 West 53rd Street, New York City, from February 2021
through December 2021.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YDHyc3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
HAIRTAMIN LLC: Jackson Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Website
----------------------------------------------------------
SYLINIA JACKSON, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HAIRTAMIN LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-10023 (S.D.N.Y., December 31, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive
website, https://hairtamin.com/, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons.
During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the Plaintiff encountered
multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping
experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal
access to the goods and services offered to the public and made
available to the public. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now asserts
claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the
New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights
Law.
Hairtamin LLC operates the HAIRtamin online retail store, as well
as the HAIRtamin interactive website which provides consumers with
access to an array of goods and services including information
about Hairtamin's hair growth vitamins and hair care products.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
HEALTH & HOSPITAL: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $2.5-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of classaction.org reports that The Health &
Hospital Corporation of Marion County, which does business as
Eskenazi Health, has agreed to pay $2.5 million to settle a
proposed class action lawsuit filed over a May 2021 data breach
that reportedly impacted 160,000 patients and employees.
The Eskenazi Health data breach settlement covers anyone who
received notice that their personal information was posted on the
dark web by cybercriminals as a result of the data incident. Data
breach notices were sent to affected individuals around November
11, 2021, court documents say.
The official settlement website can be found at
EskenaziDataSettlement.com.
Class members have until January 27, 2025 to file a claim form for
settlement benefits. You can submit a claim form online by heading
to this page and entering your class member ID located in the
settlement notice you should have received.
Class members who file a valid, timely claim can receive
reimbursement of up to $5,000 in out-of-pocket expenses incurred as
a result of the Eskenazi Health data breach. Claimants are also
eligible to get $20 for each hour they spent addressing issues
relating to the data breach, with a cap of four hours.
Finally, covered individuals can submit a claim to receive a
pro-rated cash payment, as well as three years of free credit
monitoring and identity theft protection services.
The deal received final approval from the court on November 4,
2024. Class members will receive their settlement benefits after
any appeals are resolved, which can take "perhaps more than a
year," the settlement site says.
Several class action lawsuits were filed in 2021 seeking to hold
Eskenazi Health liable for the unauthorized access and disclosure
of individuals' private information, including names, ages,
addresses, email addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, Social
Security numbers, medical information and more. These suits were
consolidated in April 2022 to form a single complaint against the
Indiana healthcare system. [GN]
HERTZ CORP: Williams Labor Suit Removed to D. Nev.
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as ATAVIAOUS WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated individual, Plaintiff v. THE HERTZ
CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
A-24-907114-C, was removed from the Eighth Judicial District Court
of the State of Nevada in and for the County of Clark to the United
States District Court for the District of Nevada on January 3,
2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00017 to the
proceeding.
The Plaintiff seeks recovery of monetary damages and other relief
against Hertz in connection with these purported causes of action:
(1) failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the Nevada
Constitution and NRS 608.250; (2) failure to compensate for all
hours worked in violation of NRS 608.140 and 608.016; (3) failure
to pay overtime in violation of NRS 608.140 and 608.018; and (4)
failure to pay all wages due and owing in violation of NRS 608.140
and 608.020-050.
The Hertz Corporation operates as a car rental company.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Laura R. Petroff, Esq.
Tristan R. Kirk, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
333 S. Grant Avenue, 38th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
Telephone: (213) 615-1700
Facsimile: (213) 615-1750
E-mail: lpetroff@winston.com
tkirk@winston.com
- and -
Travis F. Chance, Esq.
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600
Las Vegas, NV 89106
Telephone: (702) 382-2101
Facsimile: (702) 382-8135
E-mail: lpetroff@winston.com
tkirk@winston.com
HRB TAX: Faces Buehring Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett of Top Class Actions reports that William Buehring
filed a class action lawsuit against HRB Tax Group Inc., which does
business as H&R Block.
Why: Buehring claims H&R Block failed to properly secure and
safeguard the sensitive information of its customers during a May
2024 data breach.
Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in Missouri federal
court.
A new class action lawsuit alleges H&R Block failed to properly
secure and safeguard the sensitive information of its customers
during a May 2024 data breach.
Plaintiff William Buehring's class action lawsuit claims the
financial services company failed to implement "adequate" and
"reasonable" cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to
protect the information of its customers from a "foreseeable" and
"preventable" cyber-attack.
Buehring further argues H&R Block's customers entrusted their
sensitive personal information to the company on the "mutual
understanding" it would be protected against disclosure.
"Plaintiff and the Class Members have taken reasonable steps to
maintain the confidentiality of their (personally identifiable
information) and would not have entrusted it to Defendant absent a
promise to safeguard that information," the H&R Block class action
says.
Buehring wants to represent a nationwide class and Illinois
subclass of H&R Block customers whose personally identifiable
information was accessed and/or acquired by an unauthorized party
as a result of the data breach.
H&R Block data breach victims at 'imminent' risk of identity theft,
fraud, class action alleges
Buehring claims H&R Block customers affected by the data breach are
now at a "heightened" and "imminent" risk of identity theft and
fraud as a result of the incident.
"Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future closely
monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft,"
the H&R Block data breach class action says.
Buehring claims H&R Block is guilty of negligence, negligence per
se, unjust enrichment and breach of implied contract, and of
violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.
He demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive
relief and an award of actual, nominal, consequential and punitive
damages for himself and all class members.
The Federal Trade Commission sent an administrative complaint to
H&R Block in February 2024 over concerns it deceptively markets its
products as free when many customers are not eligible for them and
creates unnecessary obstacles for those who want to downgrade to
less costly services.
Were you affected by the H&R Block data breach? Let us know in the
comments.
The plaintiff is represented by John F. Garvey, Colleen Garvey,
Ellen Thomas, J. Gerard Stranch, IV and Grayson Wells of Stranch
Jennings & Garvey, PLLC; and Mariya Weekes of Milberg Coleman
Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC.
The H&R Block class action lawsuit is Buehring, et al. v. HRB Tax
Group Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-00009, in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Missouri. [GN]
HYATT HOTELS: Court Remands Travelers Suit to D.C. Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia grants the Plaintiff's motion to remand the
lawsuit captioned TRAVELERS UNITED, INC., Plaintiff v. HYATT HOTELS
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-02776-CKK
(D.D.C.), to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
Travelers United, Inc., a nonprofit public interest organization,
filed this putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of
the District of Columbia, alleging that Hyatt Hotels Corporation,
Hyatt Corporation, and Hyatt Franchising, LLC (collectively,
"Hyatt" or "the Hyatt Defendants") violated the District of
Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act ("CPPA") by charging
so-called "junk fees" to consumers. Hyatt removed the case to this
Court, invoking this Court's jurisdiction under a provision of the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA").
Now pending before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to
the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, in which the
Plaintiff argues that this case should be remanded because
Travelers United lacks standing to proceed with its claims in
federal court. Travelers United also requests an award of
attorney's fees and costs incurred because of the removal. Hyatt
opposes Travelers United's Motion and requests jurisdictional
discovery to support its arguments that Travelers United has
standing.
The pending Motion comes before the Court in an unusual procedural
posture. Travelers United, the Plaintiff, denies that it has
suffered any concrete injury and argues that it, therefore, lacks
standing to pursue its claims in federal court. The Hyatt
Defendants take the opposite view, insisting that Travelers United
has alleged a concrete injury and that the case should go forward
in this Court.
Travelers United is a nonprofit public interest organization with a
mission to improve and enhance travel for consumers. The
organization is incorporated in Delaware, registered as a foreign
corporation in D.C., and based in Washington, D.C., and Virginia.
In this action, Travelers United alleges that some of the ways that
Hyatt advertises and charges fees to customers, who book its hotel
rooms are unfair or deceptive practices prohibited by the CPPA.
Specifically, Travelers United challenges Hyatt's former practice
of charging "resort" and "destination" fees that were not
advertised as part of the regular nightly rate for a hotel room.
Travelers United labels these mandatory charges "junk fees."
Travelers United alleges that Hyatt's practice of charging these
fees amounted to unfair "partitioned pricing" because consumers
were shown "the actual total price" of a hotel room only "toward
the end of the purchase," hindering their ability to "compare the
costs and benefits of a given Hyatt hotel" with those of other
available options.
Travelers United proposes to represent two classes of consumers in
this action: a "National Class" consisting of individuals in the
United States, who booked a room at a Hyatt hotel in D.C. for
personal use and paid one of the fees at issue, and a "District
Class" consisting of D.C. residents, who booked a room at a Hyatt
hotel anywhere in the U.S. for personal use and paid one of those
same fees. Travelers United alleges that Hyatt's fee practices
violated each class member's individual statutory right to truthful
information from Hyatt about the actual price of nightly room rates
purchased, leased, or received in the District of Columbia. It
further alleges that Hyatt's practices have resulted in actual
injury and harm to the class members.
Travelers United seeks several remedies on its own behalf and on
behalf of the putative classes. It seeks a permanent injunction
barring Hyatt from advertising rates for hotel rooms that exclude
mandatory resort, destination, and/or other similar fees, and from
partitioning advertised hotel room prices from mandatory resort,
destination, and/or other similar fees, including by placing these
mandatory fees under a "Taxes & Fees" heading at checkout.
On behalf of the putative class members, Travelers United seeks
actual damages; treble damages or statutory damages of $1,500 per
violation, whichever is greater; and punitive damages. It seeks
"reasonable attorneys' fees and costs" for itself and for the
putative class members. And it seeks any additional relief as may
be necessary to restore to the class members money which may have
been acquired by means of Hyatt's unlawful trade practices or that
the Court may find "necessary and proper."
Judge Kollar-Kotelly notes that neither party disputes that Hyatt's
Notice of Removal was timely or that this Court has statutory
original jurisdiction under CAFA; on its face, the Notice of
Removal shows that both of those jurisdictional requirements are
satisfied. Therefore, the primary issue for the Court to resolve is
whether Travelers United has standing to pursue its claims in
federal court.
The Court concludes that Travelers United does not have standing,
rejects Hyatt's requests for jurisdictional discovery, and rejects
Travelers United's request for attorney's fees and costs. The case
will be remanded to the D.C. Superior Court.
For these reasons, the Court grants Travelers United's Motion to
Remand, denies Hyatt's requests for jurisdictional discovery, and
denies Travelers United's request for attorney's fees and costs.
The Court also denies as moot Hyatt's Motion to Transfer this case
to the Northern District of Illinois. This case will be remanded to
the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y22dmhvs from PacerMonitor.com.
HYDRO EXTRUSION: Creasey Suit Remanded to Court of Common Pleas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Harvey Bartle III of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania remands the lawsuit captioned TRISTAN
CREASEY v. HYDRO EXTRUSION USA, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-06458-HB
(E.D. Pa.), to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.
Plaintiff Tristan Creasey filed this action on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated in the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County against Defendant Hydro Extrusion USA, LLC, his
former employer, for failure to pay overtime in violation of the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"). The Defendant timely
removed this action on the ground that subject matter jurisdiction
exists under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a).
The Plaintiff does not contest the existence of complete diversity
of citizenship. Instead he moves to remand on the ground that the
amount in controversy requirement under Section 1332(a) has not
been satisfied. According to the Plaintiff, his claim does not
exceed $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs.
Judge Bartle notes that the Defendant, as the party asserting
jurisdiction, bears the burden of proof that the action is properly
before this Court.
The complaint is silent on the amount of unpaid overtime due the
Plaintiff, but the Defendant in its Notice of Removal states that
his claim could reasonably total up to $4,318.13, Judge Bartle
says. The Plaintiff, for purposes of the pending motion, accepts
this number.
Judge Bartle opines that the Defendant rightly points out that the
amount in controversy includes not only the damages sought but also
the Plaintiff's attorneys' fees when they are recoverable as they
are under the PMWA. The Defendant maintains that the $4,318.13
together with reasonable attorneys' fees more likely than not would
exceed $75,000. This calculates to attorneys' fees of at least
$70,681.88.
Attorneys' fees of $70,681.88 for the Plaintiff's damage claim of
$4,318.13 under the PMWA are outside the realm of reason, Judge
Bartle points out. Judge Bartle explains that it appears to a legal
certainty that the Plaintiff cannot recover at least $70,681.88 in
attorney fees on his individual claim and, thus, that the amount in
controversy does not exceed $75,000, exclusive of interest and
costs, as required under Section 1332(a).
Moreover, the complaint filed in the state court, signed by the
Plaintiff's counsel, declares that if this lawsuit proceeds on
behalf of the Plaintiff alone (because, for example, the court
refuses to certify the lawsuit in a class action) and he prevails,
then his counsel will seek less than $50,000 in statutory
attorney's fees (Creasey v. Hydro Extrusion USA LLC, Civ. A. No.
24-6438 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 3, 2024)).
The Plaintiff's counsel has also filed a separate declaration to
this effect under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1746, Judge Bartle notes. The Court takes the Plaintiff's counsel,
as an officer of the Court, at his word.
The Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly,
the action will be remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c).
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bda97w86 from PacerMonitor.com.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4d4prkux from PacerMonitor.com.
IDAHO HEALTH: Dispositive Bid Filing in Rossow Due Feb. 18
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEEVA ROSSOW, v. DAVE
JEPPESEN, Director, Idaho Health and Welfare, in his official
capacity, Case No. 1:23-cv-00131-BLW (D. Idaho), the Hon. Judge B.
Lynn Winmill entered an order that:
1. Defendant's motion shorten time or for temporary extension of
deadline is granted.
2. The Jan. 1, 2025 deadline for dispositive motions set forth in
the scheduling order is vacated.
3. Any dispositive motion shall be filed on or before Feb. 18,
2025.
The Court will note that Ms. Rossow opposes this motion.1 She has
further requested that if the Court grants the Defendant’s
request for a short extension of the dispositive motion deadline,
it also extend the deadline for discovery, which expired on
December 2, 2024. While the Court understands the basis for this
request, the Court will not order a similar extension of that
deadline.
This turns largely on the fact that that deadline has already
expired, and it expired before this motion, or the motion to modify
the scheduling order, was filed. Thus, even a short extension of
the deadline would operate to reopen discovery.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fmmgA9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
INITO INC: Aids Google to Intercept Clients' Info, Doe Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. INITO, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-08433-RFL (N.D. Cal., November 25, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the California Invasion of
Privacy Act and Invasion Privacy Under California's Constitution
and intrusion upon seclusion.
The case arises from the Defendant's practice of aiding and
assisting third parties such as Google, LLC to intercept
confidential communications on its mobile application, Inito
Fertility Tracker, without obtaining prior consent. The Inito
mobile app asks women to provide sensitive information about their
fertility, reproductive health, and menstrual cycles assuring that
their information will remain between them and the Defendant.
However, unbeknownst to them, the Defendant enabled third parties
to access their intimate health information. As a result, the
privacy rights of the Plaintiff and similarly situated women are
violated, says the suit.
Inito, Inc. is a mobile application developer, with its principal
place of business in San Francisco, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
Ines Diaz Villafana, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: bscott@bursor.com
idiaz@bursor.com
- and -
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646)-837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
- and -
Scott R. Drury, Esq.
DRURY LEGAL, LLC
6 Carriage Lane
Highwood, IL 60040
Telephone: (312) 358-8225
Email: scott@drurylegal.com
LANDRY'S INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Clement Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
VINCENT CLEMENT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LANDRY'S, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-08927 (E.D.N.Y., December 31, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Defendant failed to provide its online content and services in
a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology.
Defendant's website contains access barriers, including missing
alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted
lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive
elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely
with a mouse. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now asserts claims for
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York
City Human Rights Law,
Landry's, Inc. owns and operates the website, www.mortons.com,
which serves as the online platform of "Morton's The Steakhouse"
restaurant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
LETSGETCHECKED INC: Vaccaro Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as David Vaccaro, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. LetsGetChecked, Inc., Does 1-10,
inclusive, Case No. 24STCV31539 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California County of Los Angeles, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 8,
2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00196 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated Other P.I.
LetsGetChecked -- https://www.letsgetchecked.com/ -- offers
empowering at-home health testing, with fast and accurate
CLIA-certified lab results.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendants are represented by:
Jason Alan Orr, Esq.
BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP
1801 California Street Suite 4400
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 861-0600
Fax: (303) 861-7805
Email: rleader@burr.com
LINKEDIN CORP: N.D. California Dismisses Jackson's DPPA Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge P. Casey Pitts of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's DPPA claim in the lawsuit titled JACQUELINE JACKSON,
Plaintiff v. LINKEDIN CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
5:24-cv-00812-PCP (N.D. Cal.).
Plaintiff Jacqueline Jackson brings this putative class action
against Defendant LinkedIn Corporation, alleging that LinkedIn used
its Insight Tag to unlawfully obtain and use personal information
from LinkedIn users visiting the California Department of Motor
Vehicles website.
LinkedIn moves to dismiss Jackson's claim under the federal
Drivers' Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) for failure to state a
claim, and argues that, if the Court dismisses that claim, it
should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state
law claims.
For the reasons set forth in this Order, the Court grants
LinkedIn's motion to dismiss the DPPA claim with prejudice and
orders the parties to show cause why Jackson's state law claims
should or should not be dismissed without prejudice in the absence
of any remaining federal question.
Ms. Jackson is a California resident, who has been a registered
LinkedIn user for at least 10 years. She has an online account with
the DMV, called a "MyDMV" account. She submitted personal
information, including her name, phone number, and email address,
to the DMV in order to create her MyDMV account. She has had a
disability parking placard issued by the DMV since approximately
2009.
In 2023, Jackson used her mobile phone to renew her placard through
the DMV's website, which required that she provide her first and
last name, date of birth, disability information, and email
address. She was signed into her MyDMV account throughout the
process of renewing her placard. She alleges that in January 2024,
she discovered that LinkedIn was using its Insight Tag to obtain
her personal information from her MyDMV account and to learn the
contents of her communications with the DMV in connection with her
placard renewal.
LinkedIn's Insight Tag is used to gather information across
websites to support marketing services that LinkedIn offers to its
customers, including targeted advertising. Customers like the DMV
can install the Insight Tag on their own webpages to track a user's
actions on their website.
Ms. Jackson alleges that personal information and private
communications are transmitted to LinkedIn, incorporated into the
user's LinkedIn profile, and employed for targeted advertising. She
alleges that LinkedIn used the information it received from the DMV
"to generate substantial revenue from advertising and marketing
services."
In her original complaint, Jackson alleged that LinkedIn's conduct
violates the DPPA and the California Invasion of Privacy Act
(CIPA). LinkedIn moved to dismiss the case, arguing under Rule
12(b)(7) that the complaint failed to join the DMV as a necessary
party and under Rule 12(b)(6) that Jackson failed to state a valid
claim.
On Aug. 13, 2024, the Court granted LinkedIn's motion to dismiss in
part. The Court denied the 12(b)(7) motion and denied the 12(b)(6)
motion as to the CIPA claim but granted it as to the DPPA claim.
The Court concluded that Jackson had failed to plausibly allege
that the personal information LinkedIn purportedly obtained through
the Insight Tag came from a motor vehicle record.
On Sept. 3, 2024, Jackson filed a first amended complaint asserting
the same claims.
Judge Pitts finds that Jackson fails to state a claim under the
DPPA. Accordingly, the Court grants LinkedIn's motion to dismiss
Jackson's amended DPPA claim. Because Jackson has already had an
opportunity to amend her complaint to address this deficiency but
has failed to do so, the Court's dismissal of that claim is with
prejudice and without leave to amend.
Judge Pitts orders the parties to show cause why the Court has or
does not have CAFA jurisdiction over Jackson's CIPA claim.
In this case, the putative class is defined as LinkedIn members,
who applied for, renewed, or checked the status of a California
disability parking placard on the California DMV website. Under
these circumstances, Judge Pitts says it seems likely that the
class is composed overwhelmingly of California citizens. Even if
some putative class members were never California citizens and some
have the left the state and are no longer California citizens, it
seems unlikely that those individuals constitute over one third of
the class.
Unfortunately, the existing evidentiary record is inadequate for
the Court to make a final determination as to whether the home
state exception applies to Jackson's CIPA claim. Because this
presents a threshold issue that should be resolved as early as
possible in the litigation, the Court orders the parties to file,
within 21 days, supplemental briefs of no more than 10 pages, along
with any supporting evidence, addressing whether CAFA's "home
state" exception applies to Jackson's CIPA claim.
For these reasons, the Court grants LinkedIn's motion to dismiss
Jackson's DPPA claim. That claim is dismissed with prejudice and
without leave to amend. The parties will file supplemental briefs
and supporting evidence regarding CAFA's home state exception
within 21 days of this Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/58v3ku36 from PacerMonitor.com.
MARK OLSON: Loses Bid to Dismiss Mirabelli, et al. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Roger T. Benitez of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint in the case captioned as
ELIZABETH MIRABELLI, an individual, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MARK
OLSON, in his official capacity as President of the EUSD Board of
Education, et al., Defendants, Case No.: 3:23-cv-0768-BEN (VET)
(S.D. Calif.).
Plaintiffs are teachers in the Escondido Union School District and
parents of students in other California school districts. In their
recently filed Second Amended Complaint, they bring claims against
members of the California State Board of Education and the
California Superintendent of Public Instruction, members of the
EUSD Board of Education and administrative staff, as well as the
Attorney General of California.
The Plaintiffs contend that a state policy promulgated by the
California Department of Education and adopted by local school
districts violate their rights under the First and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution and they seek relief
under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The gravamen of the state policy is that
public school teachers are not to reveal to parents a student's
announced change of gender identity in order to maintain the
student's privacy, except where the student consents to disclosure.
The local school district Defendants say that the state forced it
to adopt the policy. The Defendant State Superintendent of Public
Instruction has issued at least one threatening letters to a school
district demanding the policy be followed.
Here, the State Defendants say the Plaintiffs lack standing because
there is no harm to parents or teachers because the policy is just
a suggestion. Because it is just a suggestion, the Plaintiffs have
not been injured, and because there is no injury, the Plaintiffs
lack Article III standing to bring suit, according to the State
Defendants. Alternatively, the State Defendants argue that even if
Plaintiffs do have Article III standing, parents lose much of their
federal constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door and whatever
parental rights remain are subordinate to the child's newly
state-created right to privacy and the child's right to be free
from gender discrimination. All Defendants move to dismiss. The
motions to dismiss are denied
The Court concludes that, in a collision of rights as between
parents and child, the long-recognized federal constitutional
rights of parents must eclipse the state rights of the child.
Therefore, it finds that the Plaintiffs have stated plausible
claims upon which relief can be granted and the motions to dismiss
are denied.
All Plaintiffs enjoy Article III standing, the Court holds. The
motion to dismiss of the Superintendent of Public Instruction is
denied. The motion to dismiss of the members of the Board of
Education is denied. The Attorney General's motion to dismiss is
denied. The motion to dismiss of the EUSD Defendants is denied.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6LoR9m from PacerMonitor.com.
MATTEL INC: Faces Class Action Over Fisher-Price Snuga Swings
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bennett Loudon, writing for NY Daily Record, reports that Just as
Mattel and Fisher-Price have reached a tentative settlement in one
class-action lawsuit claiming the companies sold a dangerous
product used by children, a new class-action case has been filed
over another allegedly dangerous product.
A final approval hearing on a $19 million settlement has been
scheduled for Feb. 28 in the class-action lawsuit against
Fisher-Price Inc. and its parent company, Mattel Inc., over the
Rock ‘n Play inclined infant sleeper, which was tied to at least
100 infant deaths and more than 700 injuries.
A new complaint seeking class-action status was filed in October in
U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York.
The complaint accuses the companies of selling the Snuga Swing,
which "created an unsafe suffocation risk for infants . . . and
defendants never warned families about this risk."
The complaint was filed in the Western District because
Fisher-Price is based in Erie County.
The plaintiffs' attorneys are Terrence M. Connors and Andrew M.
Debbins, lawyers at Connors LLP in Buffalo, and the Philadelphia
law firm of Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner Weinstock & Dodig
LLP.
Fisher-Price sells the Snuga Swings and similar products such as My
Little Snugabunny, My Little Snugabear, among others, according to
the complaint.
The products are designed to cradle infants and provide both
front-to-back and side-to-side motion, according to the complaint.
Since 2010, more than 2.1 million Snuga Swings have been sold in
the United States for an average price of $160.
The lawsuit claims the companies knew the products were dangerous.
"In a report made to the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC)
in 2014, one consumer stated that, while sitting in one of the
products, her three-month old son had turned the head support and
pillow with his head and face pressed into the fold," according to
the complaint.
"The consumer noted that while her son was okay, she was very
concerned that due to the way the head pillow is attached to the
swing that a baby could get trapped/folded, get their face in it,
have their breathing restricted, and die," according to the
complaint.
All CPSC reports are sent to the manufacturer, so "Mattel and
Fisher-Price received this report and were on notice of the danger
presented by the products," the suit claims.
In 2019, another consumer sent in a nearly identical incident
report, according to the complaint.
On Oct. 10, the CPSC issued a recall of all Snuga Swing products
sold since 2010. In the recall notice, the CPSC stated that the
products "should never be used for sleep and bedding materials
should never be added to it . . . (because) the headrest and body
support insert on the seat pad can increase the risk of
suffocation," according to the complaint.
The notice also noted that five deaths involving infants had been
reported when the products were used for sleep.
The recall provided only $25 in potential compensation if consumers
removed and destroyed the headrest and body support insert.
CPSC Commissioner Richard Trumka stated that the "flawed recall . .
. is doomed to fail and will keep many babies in harm's way,"
according to the complaint.
Trumka wrote that he had "no doubt that if these products remain in
homes, many consumers will still use these products for sleep
because they have received conflicting instructions," according to
the suit.
Consumer Reports wrote that the recall "did not go far enough to
help families protect their children and ensure that consumers are
made whole for spending money on a product that turned out to be
hazardous," according to the complaint.
In July 2021, Destini Bigelow, the one named plaintiff in the case,
bought a Snuga Swing for her newborn daughter. Her daughter fell
out of the swing twice and Bigelow stopped using the swing after
the second time when she suffered a minor bump on her forehead,
according to the suit.
According to the complaint, "there are tens or hundreds of
thousands of class members."
"Plaintiff and the nationwide class are entitled to monetary,
compensatory, statutory, treble and punitive damages, restitution
and disgorgement of all moneys obtained by means of Fisher-Price's
unlawful conduct, interest and attorneys' fees and costs,"
according to the complaint.
U.S. District Court Judge John L. Sinatra Jr. ordered the
defendants to file an answer to the complaint by Jan. 21. [GN]
MDL 2873: AFFF Products Harmful to Human Health, Workman Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES B. WORKMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR
FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL
SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY
SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC, MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and W.L.
GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06893-RMG
(D.S.C., November 25, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with testicular cancer, says the
suit.
The Workman case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Allstar Fire Equipment is a fire equipment manufacturer in
California.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Fire-Dex, LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment
in Ohio.
Globe Manufacturing Company LLC is a provider of fire safety
services and equipment in New Hampshire.
Honeywell Safety Product USA, Inc. is a provider of fire safety
services and equipment in Rhode Island.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Lion Group, Inc. is a protective clothing supplier in Vandalia,
Ohio.
Mallory Safety and Supply LLC is a safety equipment supplier in
Portland, Oregon.
Mine Safety Appliances Co., LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety
products in Pennsylvania.
Municipal Emergency Services, Inc. is a public safety company
offering fire equipment services based in Utah.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West
Chester, Pennsylvania.
PBI Performance Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting
equipment in North Carolina.
Raytheon Technologies Corporation is an aerospace and defense
company in Virginia.
Southern Mills, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective clothing
fabric for industrial and military use in Georgia.
Stedfast USA, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective barrier
technologies in Tennessee.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is an American multinational
manufacturing company in Delaware. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq.
RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP
225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110
Atlanta, GA 30624
Telephone: (404) 381-2888
Email: buck@lawrsd.com
MDL 2873: Faces Smith Suit Over Firefighters' Exposure to PFAS
--------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD S. SMITH, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR
FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL
SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY
SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC, MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and W.L.
GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06889-RMG
(D.S.C., November 25, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with thyroid disease, says the
suit.
The Smith case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Allstar Fire Equipment is a fire equipment manufacturer in
California.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Fire-Dex, LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment
in Ohio.
Globe Manufacturing Company LLC is a provider of fire safety
services and equipment in New Hampshire.
Honeywell Safety Product USA, Inc. is a provider of fire safety
services and equipment in Rhode Island.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Lion Group, Inc. is a protective clothing supplier in Vandalia,
Ohio.
Mallory Safety and Supply LLC is a safety equipment supplier in
Portland, Oregon.
Mine Safety Appliances Co., LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety
products in Pennsylvania.
Municipal Emergency Services, Inc. is a public safety company
offering fire equipment services based in Utah.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West
Chester, Pennsylvania.
PBI Performance Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting
equipment in North Carolina.
Raytheon Technologies Corporation is an aerospace and defense
company in Virginia.
Southern Mills, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective clothing
fabric for industrial and military use in Georgia.
Stedfast USA, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective barrier
technologies in Tennessee.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is an American multinational
manufacturing company in Delaware. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq.
RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP
225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110
Atlanta, GA 30624
Telephone: (404) 381-2888
Email: buck@lawrsd.com
MDL 2873: Soliday Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRAD A. SOLIDAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL
SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY
SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC, MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and W.L.
GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06896-RMG
(D.S.C., November 25, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with testicular cancer, the suit
says.
The Soliday case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Allstar Fire Equipment is a fire equipment manufacturer in
California.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Fire-Dex, LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment
in Ohio.
Globe Manufacturing Company LLC is a provider of fire safety
services and equipment in New Hampshire.
Honeywell Safety Product USA, Inc. is a provider of fire safety
services and equipment in Rhode Island.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Lion Group, Inc. is a protective clothing supplier in Vandalia,
Ohio.
Mallory Safety and Supply LLC is a safety equipment supplier in
Portland, Oregon.
Mine Safety Appliances Co., LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety
products in Pennsylvania.
Municipal Emergency Services, Inc. is a public safety company
offering fire equipment services based in Utah.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West
Chester, Pennsylvania.
PBI Performance Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting
equipment in North Carolina.
Raytheon Technologies Corporation is an aerospace and defense
company in Virginia.
Southern Mills, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective clothing
fabric for industrial and military use in Georgia.
Stedfast USA, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective barrier
technologies in Tennessee.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is an American multinational
manufacturing company in Delaware. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq.
RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP
225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110
Atlanta, GA 30624
Telephone: (404) 381-2888
Email: buck@lawrsd.com
MEDICAL MGMT: Bid to Stay Discovery in Hulewat Suit Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Diane J. Humetewa of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion
to stay discovery in the lawsuit titled Linda Hulewat, Plaintiff v.
Medical Management Resource Group LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-00377-DJH (D. Ariz.).
Defendants Medical Management Resource Group, L.L.C. d/b/a American
Vision Partners, Barnet Dulaney Perkins Eye Center, PC, the
Southwestern Eye Center, Ltd., Marc Ellman, M.D., P.A. d/b/a
Southwest Eye Institute, and the Eye Associates of Nevada d/b/a
Wellish Vision Institute have moved for a stay of discovery in this
matter pending their Motions to Dismiss ("the Motion to Stay"). All
Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a
claim. Defendants Eye Associates of Nevada and Southwest Eye
Institute have also separately filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack
of personal jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs Linda Hulewat, Karen Foti Williams, Ralph Gallegos,
Michael Martinez, Lynnae Anderson, Candia Franklin, Marie Therese
Montoya, Charles Peterson, Robert Kirk, Marilyn Zajacka, Lynda
Israel, Latricia Pelt, Barry Pelt, Ken Waters, Brenda
Moreno-Decerra, Robert Ahrensdorf, and David Yeager oppose a stay.
The Defendants have not filed a Reply.
The Plaintiffs bring 16 different counts in this class action
lawsuit for: Negligence, Negligence Per Se, Unjust Enrichment,
Breach of Express and Implied Contract, Breach of Confidence,
Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract, Breach of Fiduciary
Duty, Invasion of Privacy, Violation of Arizona Consumer Fraud Act,
Violations of Texas Deceptive Trade Practices, Violations of Nevada
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and Declaratory Judgment.
The Defendants argue that a stay is appropriate here because (1)
they have filed motions, which could dispose of the entire case
against some or all Defendants and/or substantially narrow the
claims in this case, and (2) a brief stay will not prejudice the
Plaintiffs, but commencing discovery now will unduly prejudice the
Defendants.
The Plaintiffs argue that a stay is inappropriate here because (1)
the Defendants' Motions are not likely to dispose of the
Plaintiffs' claims; (2) the Defendants have not demonstrated undue
burden or irreparable injury; and (3) granting the Defendants'
Motion will prejudice the Plaintiffs.
With regard to those Defendants seeking dismissal for failure to
state a claim, the Court finds that a stay is not proper here. The
Court must be convinced that the Plaintiffs will be unable to state
a claim for relief. At this juncture, the Court is not convinced.
Judge Humetewa notes that in Arizona, to establish a claim for
negligence, a plaintiff must prove four elements: "(1) a duty
requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of care;
(2) a breach by the defendant of that standard; (3) a causal
connection between the defendant's conduct and the resulting
injury; and (4) actual damages," citing Diaz v. Phoenix Lubrication
Serv., Inc., 230 P.3d 718, 721 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting
Gipson v. Kasey, 150 P.3d 228, 230 (Ariz. 2007)).
Taking a "preliminary peek" at the Defendants' Motion and the
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint without exhaustively reviewing the
merits, the Court finds that, at the very least, the Plaintiffs
have likely pled a plausible claim for negligence. In their Amended
Complaint, Judge Humetewa says the Plaintiffs plead all four of
these elements.
Judge Humetewa opines that the Plaintiffs appear to state a
plausible claim for negligence; so, the Court is not convinced that
they are unable to state a claim for relief when it addresses the
Defendants' Motion. Thus, a stay with regard to these Defendants is
not appropriate.
However, the Court will grant a stay as to Defendants Eye
Associates of Nevada and Southwest Eye Institute. These Defendants
separately filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction asserting that this Court does not have personal
jurisdiction over them as they are Nevada and Texas residents,
respectfully.
From a cursory review of this Motion, the Court finds that this
Motion has merit as they assert that they have virtually no
connections to Arizona.
The Court also finds that the Motion is (1) potentially dispositive
of the entire case against Defendants Eye Associates of Nevada and
Southwest Eye Institute, and (2) it can be decided absent
additional discovery. Thus, a stay is warranted as to Defendants
Eye Associates of Nevada and Southwest Eye Institute because their
pending Motion challenging the Court's jurisdiction "strongly"
favors a stay.
Accordingly, the Court rules that the Defendants' Motion to Stay is
granted in part and denied in part. Discovery is stayed related to
Defendants Eye Associates of Nevada and Southwest Eye Institute
until the Court can address their Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Personal Jurisdiction. Discovery will proceed as to the remaining
Defendants. A Scheduling Order will be issued by separate Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bdhu9s73 from PacerMonitor.com.
MOTOROLA MOBILITY: Gabrielli Sues Over Privacy Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN GABRIELLI, an individual, on behalf of himself, the
general public, and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOTOROLA
MOBILITY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-09533-KAW (N.D. Cal.,
December 31, 2024) accuses the Defendant of privacy violation and
total breach of consumer trust in violation of California law.
The Defendant's website offers consumers a choice to browse without
being tracked, followed, and targeted by third party data brokers
and advertisers. However, Defendant's promises are outright lies,
designed to lull users into a false sense of security. Defendant
allegedly enabled several third parties--including Google LLC
(DoubleClick and Google Analytics), ByteDance Ltd. (TikTok),
Amazon.com, Inc. (amazon-adsystem), Howl Technologies, Inc.
(Narrativ), and Emplifi, Inc. (GoInStore)--to place and/or transmit
cookies that track users' website browsing activities and eavesdrop
on users' private communications on the website. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff seeks all available relief for Defendant's unlawful
conduct and asserts several claims including invasion of privacy,
common law fraud, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and
for violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act.
Headquartered in Illinois, Motorola Mobility LLC manufactures
smartphones and other mobile devices. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth A. Safier, Esq.
Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
Todd Kennedy, Esq.
Kali R. Backer, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 639-9090
Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
marie@gutridesafier.com
todd@gutridesafier.com
kali@gutridesafier.com
NESPRESSO USA: Kolar Sues Over Breach of Warranties
---------------------------------------------------
IVO KOLAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NESPRESSO USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-11235 (C.D. Cal., December 26, 2024) alleges violations of
California's Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and California's
Unfair Competition Law.
On November 24, 2023, the Plaintiff purchased Defendant's product
online from Amazon.com for $139.30 to be delivered to his home in
Los Angeles, CA. However, the product was not delivered to
Plaintiff until at least November 25, 2023. Allegedly, Defendant
commenced its express warranties on the date of purchase, not on
the date of delivery, as required by the SBA.
As a result of Defendant's unlawful and deceitful business
practices, the Plaintiff and other consumers who receive their
goods after the date of purchase, such as those consumers who buy
goods online, do not receive the full benefit of their warranty,
says the suit.
Nespresso USA, Inc. manufactures and sells coffee and espresso
machines and accessories. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
David J. McGlothlin, Esq.
Mona Amini, Esq.
Gustavo Ponce, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
david@kazlg.com
mona@kazlg.com
gustavo@kazlg.com
- and -
Adib Assassi, Esq.
Veronica Cruz, Esq.
ASSASSI & CRUZ LAW FIRM. PC
1100 W. Town & Country Road, Suite 1250
Orange, CA 92868
Telephone: (800) 500-0301
Facsimile: (800) 500-0301
E-mail: adib@aclegalteam.com
veronica@aclegalteam.com
NEW YORK, NY: Inmate Allowed to Submit Late Settlement Claim
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMILLA CLARK and ARWA
AZIZ, on Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, -against- CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-02334 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Analisa Torres of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York allowed Robert
Johnson, who was incarcerated at New York's Attica Correctional
Facility, to submit his late claim for processing and participate
in the settlement class.
By order dated November 19, 2024, the Court granted final approval
of the parties' class action settlement.
The Court concludes that given that Mr. Johnson represents only one
person among a large settlement class, the prejudice to the City of
New York is minor, an inference bolstered by its choice not to take
a position on his participation. The length of Mr. Johnson's
delay—less than one month after the final approval of the
settlement—was not excessive, and there is no indication that he
filed his claim in bad faith. The reason for the delay is also
understandable, as mail service in prisons can be unreliable. Mr.
Johnson should not be prevented from participating in the
settlement class due to circumstances beyond his control.
The Settlement Administrator is directed to process Mr. Johnson's
claim form to determine whether he is entitled to participate in
the settlement class. If Mr. Johnson is so entitled, he shall be
included in the class.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bzCClD from PacerMonitor.com.
NINTENDO OF AMERICA: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Dunn Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James M. Moody Jr. of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Arkansas granted Nintendo of America Inc.'s
motion to compel arbitration in the case captioned as CASEY DUNN,
Individually and on Behalf of G.D., a minor; and THOMAS DUNN
PLAINTIFFS v. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.; INFINITY WARD, INC.;
TREYARCH CORP.; SLEDGEHAMMER GAMES, INC.; MICROSOFT CORPORATION;
EPIC GAMES, INC.; ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC.; UBISOFT DIVERTISSEMENTS
INC. d/b/a UBISOFT MONTREAL; UBISOFT ENTERTAINMENT; NINTENDO OF
AMERICA, INC.; GOOGLE LLC; and JANE & JOHN DOES I-XX DEFENDANTS,
Case No. 3:23CV00224 JM (E.D. Ark.).
The case is stayed as to Plaintiffs' claims against Nintendo
pending the completion of arbitration.
Plaintiffs, G.D., a minor, and his parents Casey Dunn and Thomas
Dunn filed suit against Nintendo and others due to alleged harm
experienced by G.D., including video game addiction -- also called
internet gaming disorder -- and brain damage, resulting from G.D.'s
use of Defendants' video game products. Nintendo markets and
distributes in the United States the Nintendo Switch console, a
video game console that plays games created by Nintendo and other
third-party licensees. Plaintiffs' claims against Nintendo arise
from G.D.'s alleged use of video games available on the Nintendo
eShop and playable on the Nintendo Switch.
Nintendo argues that Plaintiffs' claims should be compelled to
arbitration. Nintendo offers free accounts to users of its products
and services, called “Nintendo Accounts.” A Nintendo Account is
necessary to access Nintendo's online services and features. For
instance, the Nintendo eShop, an online marketplace accessible from
the Nintendo Switch, where users can download and purchase
authorized games, is only accessible with a Nintendo Account.
To download and play games from Nintendo eShop the user must have a
Nintendo Account and agree to the Nintendo Account User Agreement.
Nintendo contends that the User Agreement contains a binding
arbitration provision and an agreement to delegate issues of
arbitrability to an arbitrator. Plaintiffs admit that Nintendo
requires users to agree to create a Nintendo Account. Further, they
do not dispute that there are two Nintendo accounts associated with
their family. They argue that G.D. created the Nintendo accounts on
his own and without parental involvement and they disaffirm the
agreements.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs argue that there is not a valid agreement
to arbitrate. Additionally, even if an agreement existed, they
argue that it would not be enforceable because the arbitration
clause is unconscionable. They contend that the Court should
consider their arguments regarding the enforceability of the
arbitration provision because the delegation clause cannot apply
until there is a finding of a valid, enforceable contract.
The Court finds because G.D.'s contract is voidable, not void under
Arkansas law, G.D.'s infancy and alleged lack of competency do not
nullify his agreement. Further, because of the broad delegation
clause, the plaintiffs' contract enforceability challenges
including the parents' disaffirmation of the agreement go to an
arbitrator, the Court concludes.
According to the Court, Plaintiff Casey Dunn is bound by the
Nintendo User Agreement under the doctrine of apparent authority.
Judge Moody explains, "Here, Nintendo was justified in believing
that the user of the accounts possessed the authority to agree to
the User Agreement. There was no reason for Nintendo to question
whether the user of the accounts was anyone other than Casey Dunn
or someone to whom she gave authority."
The Court finds that a valid arbitration agreement exists and the
Plaintiffs G.D. and Casey Dunn's claims fall within the substantive
scope of the arbitration agreement.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VwMukh from PacerMonitor.com.
O'REILLY AUTO: Settlement in Pipich Suit Granted Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California granted final
approval of the proposed settlement agreement in the case captioned
as JEFFREY PIPICH, as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf of all
other similarly situated "aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code
Private Attorney General Act of 2004, Plaintiff, v. O'REILLY AUTO
ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; EXPRESS
SERVICES, INC., a Colorado corporation d/b/a Express Employment
Professionals; and DOES 2-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.:
3:21-cv-01120-AHG (S.D. Calif.).
On June 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed his initial complaint against
Defendant O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC in this Court, styling his
claims as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
and alleging that O'Reilly had failed to provide proper payment of
all wages to Plaintiff and other employees who were putative
collective members by requiring them to undergo COVID-19 screenings
and security inspections each day without pay, including during
meal breaks, rest breaks, and off-the-clock pre-shift and
post-shift time.
After the Court found that Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable
legal claim under the FLSA and dismissed the action without
prejudice, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint against
O'Reilly on April 7, 2022, bringing claims under the Private
Attorneys General Act of the California Labor Code based on the
same underlying allegations. On April 14, 2023, upon the order of
the Court, Plaintiff amended the complaint once more to properly
allege subject-matter jurisdiction.
On February 21, 2024, the parties settled the case during a
Mandatory Settlement Conference conducted by the Honorable Jill L.
Burkhardt.
Pursuant to the terms of the settlement and with leave of Court,
Plaintiff filed the operative Fourth Amended Complaint on May 21,
2024. The 4AC added Plaintiffs Eve Storm, Gary Cull, Melissa
Kolakowski, and Daniel Lopez to the case as class representatives,
added Express (a named defendant in the Storm cases) as a
Defendant, and added certain class allegations and causes of
action. Specifically, in the 4AC, Plaintiffs bring class-wide
claims for:
(1) failure to provide meal periods under California Labor Code
Secs. 226.7, 512, and 1198;
(2) failure to authorize and permit rest breaks under California
Labor Code Secs. 226.7 and 1198;
(3) failure to pay all wages earned at the correct rates of pay
under California Labor Code Secs. 223, 510, 1194, 1197, 1198;
(4) failure to indemnify under California Labor Code Secs. 1198
and 2802;
(5) failure to issue accurate and complete wage statements under
California Labor Code Sec. 226;
(6) willful failure to timely pay final wages under California
Labor Code Secs. 201-203; and
(7) unfair competition under California Business and
Professional Code Secs. 17200, et seq. In addition, Plaintiffs
bring an eighth cause of action seeking civil penalties under PAGA
on behalf of the "Aggrieved Employees," defined as all members of
the Class employed by Defendants during the period beginning May
11, 2020, and ending on the date that final judgment is entered in
this action.
On May 24, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Grant Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement, which the Court granted on
June 7, 2024.
The final approval hearing took place on October 9, 2024. No Class
Members objected to the settlement, and one Class Member requested
exclusion because they had reached an individual settlement
separately with O'Reilly.
Settlement Agreement
The parties have executed a Joint Stipulation of Class Action and
PAGA Settlement.
The Settlement Class is defined as all individuals employed by one
or both Defendants as non-exempt, hourly employees, either directly
or indirectly through staffing agencies, and who worked at one of
Defendant O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC's distribution centers in
California at any time during the Class Period of July 5, 2018 to
May 22, 2024. The "Aggrieved Employees" are all class members who
were employed by one or both Defendants in California and
classified as nonexempt, hourly employees, either directly or
indirectly through staffing agencies, at one of Defendant O'Reilly
Auto Enterprises, LLC's distribution centers in California at any
time during the PAGA Period of May 11, 2020 to May 22, 2024. The
Settlement Class thus includes all Aggrieved Employees.
Defendant O'Reilly will pay $4.1 million (the "Gross Settlement
Amount"), in addition to any and all employer payroll taxes owed on
the Wage Portions of the Individual Class Payments, to settle the
claims of the Settlement Class. The Administrator will disburse the
entire Gross Settlement Amount without asking or requiring
Participating Class Members or Aggrieved Employees to submit any
claim as a condition of payment. None of the Gross Settlement
Amount will revert to Defendants.
The Court grants final approval of the proposed Settlement
Agreement.
The Court grants Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees and costs,
administration expenses, and class representative payments.
The Court grants Class Counsel attorney fees in the amount of
$1,366,666.67 plus Class Counsel's actual litigation costs in the
amount of $58,918.01. The Court finds the 33 and 1/3% Class Counsel
fee award is well within the range of percentages which courts have
upheld as reasonable in other class action lawsuits. It also finds
that Class Counsel's out-of-pocket costs were reasonably incurred
in connection with the prosecution of this litigation, were
advanced by Class Counsel for the benefit of the Class and shall be
reimbursed in full in the amount requested.
The Court finds the service awards for the Class Representatives
are reasonable. It grants class representative awards to Plaintiffs
for their services as follows: (1) $22,500.00 to Jeffrey Pipich;
(2) $10,000.00 to Eve Storm; (3) $7,500 to Gary Cull; (4) $7,500 to
Melissa Kolakowski; and (5) $7,500 to Daniel Lopez;
The Court preliminary approved the estimated Administrator costs of
up to $40,000 to Xpand Legal Consulting, LLC, the appointed
Settlement Administrator. It concludes Xpand Legal Consulting,
LLC's costs were reasonably informed for the benefit of the Class.
It approves Class Counsel's request for administrative costs in the
amount of $38,900.
The Court approves payment of $307,500.00 (75% of the PAGA penalty)
to the LWDA.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vzvXr0 from PacerMonitor.com.
OAKLAND COUNTY, MI: Brasile, et al. Tax Foreclosure Suit Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Judith E. Levy of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan granted in part and denied in part
County of Oakland's motion to dismiss, certify and stay the class
action lawsuit captioned as Joan Brasile and Charlotte German,
Plaintiffs, v. County of Oakland, Defendant, Case No. 23-11690
(E.D. Mich.).
On July 14, 2023, Plaintiffs Joan Brasile and Charlotte German
filed a class action against Defendants Oakland County, Robert
Wittenberg, and Andrew Meisner. On Feb. 13, 2024, Andrew Meisner
was dismissed as a Defendant. On March 20, 2024, Defendant Robert
Wittenberg was dismissed as a Defendant. Plaintiffs allege
violations of Article X, Section 2 of the Michigan Constitution and
the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution related to Defendant's tax foreclosure practices.
Plaintiffs are residents of Oakland County, Michigan. Plaintiffs
and putative class members owed money to the County for delinquent
taxes and/or assessments, interest, penalties, and fees reasonably
related to the foreclosure and sale of their properties.
Certification for Interlocutory Appeal
Defendant requests certification for interlocutory appeal of the
Court's Feb. 2, 2024 order granting in part and denying in part
Defendant's motion to dismiss.
Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b), a district court may permit a party
to appeal a non-final order when that order involves:
[1] a controlling question of law,
[2] as to which there is substantial ground for difference of
opinion, and
[3] that an immediate appeal from the order may materially
advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.
The Court finds Defendant's request for an interlocutory appeal
fails because it has not met its burden on the third Sec. 1292(b)
factor. The Sixth Circuit will hear Howard v. County of Macomb
(Sixth Cir. Case No. 24-1665), where Faytima Howard brings a
putative class action challenging the validity of Macomb County's
practices under the same state law (Mich. Comp. Laws sec. 211.78t)
that allows the county to claim proceeds from tax foreclosure
sales. According to the District Court, it will be judicially
inefficient and not accelerate the resolution of this case, and
therefore not materially advance the ultimate termination of the
litigation, to certify the same or similar issues for interlocutory
appeal.
Staying the Case
The Court finds the competing interests of economy of time and
effort for itself, for counsel, and for the parties weigh in favor
of granting a stay in the litigation. The Sixth Circuit will hear
Howard, which has similar facts and legal issues because Howard
also brings a putative class action challenging the county's
practice of claiming surplus proceeds from tax foreclosure sales
under Mich. Comp. Laws Sec. 211.78t. Although the parties may
differ, the same body of law applies in both cases. Staying the
case will save energy and resources, since the Sixth Circuit is
addressing similar facts, claims, and applicable law and will
likely clarify whether the conduct alleged in this case violates
the U.S. Constitution when it decides the Howard case, the District
Court concludes.
Defendant's Motion is granted in part. Defendant's request to
dismiss various counts is denied without prejudice. Defendant's
request to certify for interlocutory appeal is denied. The case is
stayed pending the outcome of Howard v. County of Macomb (E.D.
Mich. Case No. 23-12595 and Sixth Cir. Case No. 24-1665).
A copy of the Court's Opinion Order dated Jan. 13, 2025 is
available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xSlS2M from PacerMonitor.com.
OAKLAND COUNTY, MI: Court Won't Certify Class in Sinclair Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Terrence G. Berg of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan denied the plaintiff's motion
for class certification in the case captioned as MARION SINCLAIR,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF OAKLAND, Defendant,
2:18-CV-14042-TGB-APP (E.D. Mich.).
Defendant Oakland County foreclosed on Plaintiff Marion Sinclair's
property for failure to pay delinquent taxes. The County then
transferred the property to the City of Southfield for the amount
of due taxes and fees owed, and Southfield then conveyed it for
$1.00 to a for-profit company to repair and resell the property.
Sinclair alleges that the market value of her home at the time it
was foreclosed upon was greater than the amount of the delinquent
taxes. But at no time during this process did the County ever pay
Sinclair for the equity in her
home.
Sinclair seeks to certify a class consisting of former Oakland
County property owners who lost their property through a tax
foreclosure process, where the property was then sold through a
right of first refusal program to a local municipality, whose
property was worth more than the tax delinquency, and who were
never compensated for the surplus equity of their homes. Defendant
opposes certification.
Because Sinclair failed to develop a "cognizable common theory for
measuring the value in each property at the time of transfer," the
proposed class definition failed to meet Rule 23(a) requirement of
numerosity, Rule 23(b)(3) requirements of predominance and
superiority, and the implied requirement of ascertainability.
Accordingly, Sinclair's motion for class certification is denied.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=guWB26 from PacerMonitor.com.
OCMBC INC: Pocci Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against OCMBC, Inc. The case
is styled as Derron Pocci, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. OCMBC, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00033-DMS-SBC
(M.D. Fla., Jan. 7, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
OCMBC, Inc. -- https://ocmbc.com/ -- is a premier mortgage lender
serving the TPO community.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ignacio Javier Hiraldo, Esq.
IJH LAW
1100 Town & Country Road, Suite 1250
Orange, CA 92868
Phone: (657) 200-1403
Email: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com
OMNI FAMILY: Has Until Feb. 10 to Respond to Aguirre Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California granted the stipulated
request of the parties in the case captioned as ALFRED AGUIRRE,
Plaintiff, v. OMNI FAMILY HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01361
(E.D. Calif.) to extend the time for defendant to respond to the
complaint to Feb. 10, 2025 by filing an answer or other responsive
pleading.
On Nov. 6, 2024, Plaintiff Alfred Aguirre initiated this action
with the filing of a complaint on behalf of himself and a putative
class of others against Defendant Omni Family Health. On Dec. 10,
2024, the parties stipulated pursuant to Local Rule 144(a) to
extend by 28 days the time for Defendant to respond to the
complaint, up to and including Jan. 10, 2025.
This action is one of several similar class action suits brought in
or removed to this Court in which plaintiffs assert similar claims
against Defendant. It appears these actions arise from a recent,
alleged cyberattack resulting in a data breach of sensitive
information in the possession and custody and/or control of
Defendant.
The parties represent the requested extension will allow time for
(a) other federal court actions filed against Defendant to be
consolidated and (b) the Court to rule upon Defendant's forthcoming
motion to substitute the United States in this case as a defendant
pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 233. The
parties represent that good cause exists to grant the requested
extension in the efficiencies from allowing consolidation to occur
and ruling on the pending motions to substitute.
The scheduling conference set for Feb. 5, 2025 vacated to be reset
as necessary following ruling on the pending motions to remand in
Abraham, et al. v. Omni Family Health, Case No. 1:24-cv-01456-CDB
and Scott Stevenson and Marcos Mantoya v. Omni Family Health, No.
1:24-cv-01459-CDB and resolution of the issue of consolidation.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iLO55s from PacerMonitor.com.
OMNI FAMILY: Has Until Feb. 14 to Oppose Stevenson Suit Remand
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California granted the stipulated
request of the parties in the case captioned as SCOTT STEVENSON, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. OMNI FAMILY HEALTH, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-01459 (E.D. Calif.) to extend the time for the defendant to
oppose the plaintiffs' pending motion to remand to Feb. 14, 2025.
On Oct. 25, 2024, Plaintiffs Scott Stevenson and Marcos Montoya
initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on behalf of
themselves and a putative class of others against Defendant Omni
Family Health in the Superior Court of the State of California,
Kern County, entitled Scott Stevenson, et al. v. Omni Family
Health, Case No. BCV-24-103675. On Nov. 29, 2024, Defendant removed
the action to the District Court.
On Dec. 27, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a pending motion to remand the
action to Kern County Superior Court.
This action is one of several similar class action suits brought in
or removed to the District Court in which Plaintiffs assert similar
claims against Defendant. It appears these actions arise from a
recent, alleged cyberattack resulting in a data breach of sensitive
information in the possession and custody and/or control of
Defendant.
The parties represent that the Consolidation Stipulation, among
other things, proposes:
(1) the consolidation of the federal court Omni actions
identified in the Notice of Related Cases;
(2) completion of the briefing on the pending motion to remand;
and
(3) a briefing schedule on the remand motion, which includes a
deadline of Feb. 14, 2025, for the filing of Defendant's opposition
to the remand motion.
The parties represent that consistent with the Consolidation
Stipulation, the parties agree, subject to the District Court's
approval, to extend Defendant's time to oppose the pending motion
to remand in the instant action to February 14, 2025, to allow for
the entry of the Consolidation Stipulation.
The parties represent that good cause exists in the efficiencies in
allowing time for consolidation and consolidated briefing on the
issue of remand.
The hearing on Plaintiffs' pending motion to remand is vacated.
A copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 13, 2025 is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LNYCw9 from PacerMonitor.com.
OXY USA: Rider Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERRY RIDER, trustee of
the Cherry Rider Family Trust, R.W. and Cathy Lucas, Co-trustees of
the R.W. Lucas and Cathy Lucas Living Trust, individually and as
representative plaintiffs on behalf of persons or concerns
similarly situated, v. OXY USA, INC.; MERIT ENERGY COMPANY, LLC;
and MERIT HUGOTON, L.P. Case No. 6:23-cv-01274-KHV-TJJ (D. Kan.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
(1) certifying the Plaintiff Class defined as;
"All persons or entities to whom Merit Energy Company, LLC,
Merit Hugoton LP, and/or any related or affiliated entity
has paid royalties at any time since Dec. 2, 2017, under
oil and gas leases in the Kansas Hugoton Field that were
assigned to Merit by OXY USA, Inc. in or about 2014, except
for those persons or entities who have received royalty
payments from Merit exclusively for interests now or
previously held by any of the 19 persons or entities who
opted out of the class action settlement approved by the
District Court of Stevens County, Kansas, on March 4, 2008,
in the case of Opal Littell, et. al v. OXY USA, Inc., Case
No. 98-CV-51, and excluding the United States of America
insofar as its mineral interests are managed by the Office
of Natural Resources Revenue";
(2) appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives;
(3) appointing Plaintiffs’ Counsel as Class Counsel; and
(4) directing that appropriate notice be given to all Plaintiff
Class Members, so that the case can proceed on the merits
of the claims.
The Plaintiffs contend that they have met the requirements of both
Rule 23(a) and (b)(3).
The Defendants assert that individual actions brought by each
member of the Plaintiff Class would be fairer and more efficient
that bringing a class action.
Individualized title opinions are not necessary to identify the
members of the Plaintiff Class. This attempt by Defendants to
fabricate individual issues to avoid class certification fails.
Finally, it must be emphasized that the existence of a single
common contract, affecting the rights of all members of the
Plaintiff Class in exactly the same way, ensures that this action
can be efficiently and economically litigated. Indeed, there could
hardly be a simpler class action than one such as this, for breach
of a prior class action settlement agreement, brought by the
members of the prior class and those who have replaced them as
royalty payees. As such, there should be no real concerns regarding
the manageability of this case as a class action.
The Plaintiffs have asserted two claims in this lawsuit: (1) breach
of contract against Merit; and (2) breach of contract against OXY.
OXY explores for, develops, produces, and markets crude oil and
natural gas.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 9, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=afqPAt at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David G. Seely, Esq.
Ryan K. Meyer, Esq.
Emily K. Arida, Esq.
FLEESON, GOOING, COULSON & KITCH, L.L.C.
301 N. Main, Ste. 1900
Wichita, KS 67201
Telephone: (316) 267-7361
Facsimile: (316) 267-1754
E-mail: dseely@fleeson.com
rmeyer@fleeson.com
earida@fleeson.com
- and -
Erick E. Nordling
KRAMER, NORDLING & NORDLING, LLC
209 E. 6th St.
Hugoton, Ks 67951
Telephone: (316) 544-4333
E-mail: erick.nordling@nordlinglaw.com
PALISADES LLC: New Jersey Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Lopez Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Esther Salas of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey grants two motions to dismiss the lawsuit entitled ANGEL
LOPEZ and KAZUE KOIZUMI, Plaintiffs v. EDWARD PEC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-23012-ES-CLW (D.N.J.).
Before the Court are two motions to dismiss: (i) Defendants Brandon
J. Broderick, Attorney at Law, Brandon J. Broderick, LLC, and
Christopher Karounos, Esq.'s (together, the "Broderick Defendants")
motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Angel Lopez and Kazue Koizumi's
Amended Complaint; and (ii) Defendants Edward Pec and The
Palisades, LLC's (together, the "Palisades Defendants") motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs filed a
joint opposition to both motions, and the Broderick Defendants and
the Palisades Defendants filed their respective replies.
The Plaintiffs are married individuals, who reside in Bergen
County, New Jersey, and are lessees of an apartment in a multi-unit
complex located at 227 13th Street, in Palisades Park, New Jersey
07650 (the "Complex"). Defendant The Palisades LLC is a domestic
limited liability corporation duly organized and existing under the
laws of the State of New Jersey, authorized to do business in the
State of New Jersey with a place of business address at 236-B Grant
Avenue, in Cliffside Park, New Jersey 07010, and at all relevant
times owned, designed, constructed and developed the Complex.
The Palisades LLC is the lessor of the Plaintiffs' apartment, and
its employees, agents, and/or servants operated, managed,
controlled and are responsible for maintaining, repairing and
cleaning the premises and Complex. Defendant Edward Pec was at all
relevant times the landlord, owner, and/or majority shareholder for
The Palisades LLC.
Defendant Brandon J. Broderick, LLC, is a New Jersey limited
liability company and was a law firm in River Edge, New Jersey
07661. Defendant Brandon J. Broderick, Attorney at Law was also law
firm in River Edge. Defendant Christopher Karounos, Esq., was the
attorney for the Palisades Defendants and was operating under the
authority of Brandon J. Broderick, Attorney at Law or Brandon J.
Broderick, LLC.
The Palisades LLC converted the basement of the Complex into an
extra living space (the "Apartment") and rented it to the
Plaintiffs. According to the Plaintiffs, the Apartment is
structurally defective wherein there are water leaks from every
place, including through cracks in the walls and from the ceiling
that make the Apartment permanently wet, unlivable, and
uninhabitable causing Angel Lopez to develop Asthma and Severe
COPD. The Plaintiffs' bedroom and bathroom walls are coated with
mold of various species and their living space is perpetually damp
and humid. Additionally, the electrical wiring in the Apartment is
faulty and the wires exist in a wet environment placing the
Plaintiffs at risk for electrocution and death.
The Plaintiffs allege that from September 2023 through the date
they filed their Amended Complaint, the Palisades Defendants have
refused to repair the water leaks and remediate the mold growth in
their Apartment in order to make the Plaintiffs uncomfortable and
force their eviction. These conditions are adversely affecting the
Plaintiffs' health and worsening Lopez's asthma and COPD, and the
Plaintiffs have made the Palisades Defendants aware of these
conditions on multiple occasions to no avail.
The Plaintiffs also separately allege that Pec has stalked,
tracked, and harassed Lopez, including video recording Lopez and
stealing one of Lopez's packages. Additionally, the Plaintiffs
generally state they originally filed their complaints against the
Defendants in the New Jersey Superior Court.
The Plaintiffs allege the Broderick Defendants invaded Koizumi's
privacy by allowing one of their staff members to eavesdrop and/or
record certain privileged conversations Koizumi had with her
attorney and subsequently asking Koizumi about those communications
during her deposition in one of the related state court actions.
The Plaintiffs also allege the Broderick Defendants invaded
Koizumi's privacy by obtaining and distributing her confidential
privileged communications with her attorney.
On Dec. 11, 2023, the Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing
the Complaint against the Defendants and fictitious defendants
"Brandon J. Broderick Staff Doe," "John Doe 1-10," "Jane Doe 1-10,"
"Company Doe 1-5," and "XYZ Corporation 1-10" (together, the
"Fictitious Defendants"), alleging various state and federal law
claims, including discrimination, denial of public accommodation,
harassment, invasion/violation of privacy, and intentional
infliction of emotional distress.
On Dec. 30, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint against
the Defendants and the Fictitious Defendants alleging several
causes of action, including Harassment, Stalking/Cyber Stalking,
Continued Violation of Privacy, Continued Discrimination in Housing
Based Upon Race, Disability and National Origin, and Invasion of
Privacy. The Plaintiffs seek relief in their Amended Complaint,
including a preliminary injunction, a temporary restraining order
("TRO"), and a judgment for monetary damages.
On March 22, 2024, the Defendants filed their respective motions to
dismiss the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). On July 26, 2024,
the Broderick Defendants filed a motion to stay all discovery
pending the Court's ruling on their motion to dismiss. On Aug. 1,
2024, the Plaintiffs filed a letter stating they did not object to
the Broderick Defendants' motion to stay. On Aug. 9, 2024, the
Honorable Cathy L. Waldor, U.S.M.J., granted the Broderick
Defendants' unopposed motion to stay all discovery pending the
Court's decision on Defendants' respective motions to dismiss, and
accordingly, discovery in this matter currently remains stayed.
In their Motion to Dismiss, the Broderick Defendants argue, among
other things, the Plaintiffs' claims against them in the Amended
Complaint should be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
Judge Salas notes that the Plaintiffs bear the burden of showing
this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Judge
Salas finds the Plaintiffs have failed to meet that burden as to
their claims against the Broderick Defendants. Indeed, the
Plaintiffs do not seem to dispute that the Court lacks both federal
question and diversity jurisdiction over their claims against the
Broderick Defendants. Rather, the Plaintiffs contend the Court
should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims based
on the principles of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and
comity and because those claims allegedly "arise from a 'common
nucleus of operate facts'" as the Plaintiffs' federal claims
against the Palisades Defendants.
However, Judge Salas says, the Plaintiffs do not explain how the
principles of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, or comity
apply to the facts of this action, nor do they convince the Court
why it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over purely state
law claims against nondiverse defendants. The Plaintiffs also do
not explain why these claims, stemming from alleged conduct during
a deposition that took place in a related state court action,
should be adjudicated in this Court. Thus, the Court declines to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the purely state law claims
asserted against the Broderick Defendants in Counts Six and Seven
of the Amended Complaint, and therefore, those counts are dismissed
without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
As to the Plaintiffs' "class action" claim in Count Eight of the
Amended Complaint, Judge Salas points out that the Plaintiffs do
not specify under which law or laws they are bringing this claim,
but to the extent they are bringing this claim under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23, that claim fails. Thus, to the extent the
Plaintiffs are bringing their "class action" claim in Count Eight
of the Amended Complaint under Rule 23, this count fails to state a
claim. Accordingly, the Court holds that Count Eight of the Amended
Complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a
claim.
As to the Plaintiffs' "punitive damages" claim in Count Nine of the
Amended Complaint, Judge Salas finds that count likewise fails to
state a claim. While the Plaintiffs are not prohibited from seeking
punitive damages as a remedy to the extent they can sufficiently
state a claim and punitive damages are available for that claim,
Judge Salas points out the Plaintiffs cannot assert punitive
damages as a standalone cause of action. As Count Nine of the
Amended Complaint does not (and cannot) state an independent cause
of action, that count is dismissed with prejudice.
Therefore, the Broderick Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted,
and accordingly, Counts Six and Seven of the Amended Complaint are
dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, Count Eight of the Amended Complaint is dismissed
without prejudice for failure to state a claim, and Count Nine of
the Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice for failure to
state a claim.
In their Motion to Dismiss, the Palisades Defendants argue the
Plaintiffs' claims against them in the Amended Complaint should be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to
state a claim.
Judge Salas notes that the Plaintiffs assert the same or similar
claims against the Defendants in their Amended Complaint in this
Court as they asserted (or could have asserted) against the
Defendants in their state court actions, and in particular, the
state court complaints dismissed with prejudice, those claims are
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as improper and
barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Moreover, it appears the
state appellate process for the Plaintiffs' related state court
actions is still ongoing, and it would be inappropriate and
improper for this Court to interfere with the state appellate
process.
Judge Salas also notes that it is clear that the gravamen of the
Plaintiffs' claims in the instant action relate wholly to and are
inextricably intertwined with the pending state court actions
involving the same or similar claims related to the landlord-tenant
disputes between the Plaintiffs and the Palisades Defendants.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs have not convinced the Court that it
has subject matter jurisdiction over this action or why it should
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' state law
claims.
Because Rooker-Feldman does not allow a plaintiff to seek relief
that, if granted, would prevent a state court from enforcing its
orders, Judge Salas opines that the Plaintiffs' claims against the
Defendants that are the same or similar claims (or claims that
could have been raised) that were dismissed in the state court
actions are barred under Rooker-Feldman and accordingly, are
dismissed.
The Court abstains from exercising jurisdiction over the
Plaintiffs' claims in the Amended Complaint to the extent those
same claims are currently being (or could be or could have been)
litigated against the Defendants in one or more related state court
actions, and accordingly, those claims are dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
To the extent any federal claims remain in the Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint that are not barred by Rooker-Feldman and/or dismissed
under the Younger and/or Colorado River abstention doctrines, Judge
Salas holds those claims are dismissed for failure to state a
claim, citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and Colo.
River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800
(1976).
Judge Salas also concludes, among other things, that the Plaintiffs
cannot sustain an independent claim for injunctive relief, and to
the extent they are seeking injunctive relief based upon the other
counts in the Amended Complaint, the Court denies such relief. The
Court also finds Plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief is
premature. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' claim for declaratory and
injunctive relief in Count Three of the Amended Complaint is
dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. To the
extent not already dismissed, the Plaintiffs' remaining state law
claims in the Amended Complaint are dismissed without prejudice for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Based on the foregoing, the Court grants the Broderick Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, and the
Palisades Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint. Accordingly, Counts One through Eight of the Amended
Complaint are dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and/or failure to state a claim, and Count Nine
of the Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice for failure to
state a claim.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mtf38tb7 from PacerMonitor.com.
PANERA LLC: Interim Co-Lead Counsel Named in Data Security Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Henry Edward Autrey of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, issued an Opinion,
Memorandum and Order appointing interim co-lead class counsel and
an executive committee in the lawsuit consolidated lawsuit entitled
IN RE: PANERA DATA SECURITY LITIGATION, Case No. 4:24-cv-00847-HEA
(E.D. Mo.).
The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion to Appoint
Interim Class Counsel. The Defendant has not responded to the
Motion. The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of M. Anderson
Berry and Ryan D. Maxey as interim co-lead class counsel and
appoint an executive committee consisting of Laura Van Note, Raina
Borrelli and Jessica Wilkes to a Plaintiffs' Leadership Committee
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).
Upon review of the Rule 23(g)(3) factors, the Court finds that the
now-consolidated actions would benefit from interim class counsel
for efficient case management prior to class certification. As
demonstrated by their brief and accompanying resumes, the
Plaintiffs' Counsel satisfy the requirements for such appointment
by the Court.
First, Judge Autrey explains, the Plaintiffs' Counsel have engaged
in sufficient identification and investigation regarding the
potential claims in this present action by analyzing the
circumstances surrounding the data breach, identifying a document
related to the Defendant's data security policies, investigating
reports on the Internet that the Defendant may have been the
subject of a ransomware attack.
Next, as demonstrated by the brief and accompanying resumes, the
Plaintiffs' Counsel are extremely experienced and qualified, and
each has knowledge of the applicable law, experience in managing
and prosecuting complex class action cases involving data security
and privacy, notable successes against large corporate defendants,
and resources they are willing to expend to litigate this case. It
is apparent that all counsel have knowledge and expertise in the
applicable law and have resources at their respective law firms
they are willing to expend to litigate these cases.
The Court finds that appointment of the Plaintiff's Counsel as
interim class counsel at this juncture is appropriate under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).
The Court will also create an Executive Committee. Laura Van Note,
Raina Borrelli, Jessica A. Wilkes, are appointed to serve on the
said Committee.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Appointment of Interim Class Counsel, and orders that M. Anderson
Berry and Ryan Maxey as the Proposed Interim Co-Lead Class
Counsel.
The Court also appoints Laura Van Note, Raina Borrelli and Jessica
A. Wilkes to the Executive Committee in this matter.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion, Memorandum and Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mu99aast from PacerMonitor.com.
PARKER PLASTICS: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Generose Due Nov. 12
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOLLY GENEROSE, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. PARKER PLASTICS,
INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01188-BHL (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Brett
Ludwig entered an order setting the following procedures and
deadlines:
1. The parties' initial disclosures as Feb. 13, 2025
required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)
must be exchanged on or before:
2. Amendments to the pleadings may be Feb. 13, 2025
filed without leave of Court on or
before:
3. All fact discovery must be completed Feb. 11, 2026
no later than:
4. Primary expert witness disclosures are Dec. 12, 2025
due on or before:
5. Rebuttal expert witness disclosures Jan. 12, 2026
are due on or before:
6. All expert discovery must be Feb. 11, 2026
completed no later than:
7. Motions for conditional certification May 14, 2025
of a collective action shall be served
and filed on or before:
8. Motions for class certification Nov. 12, 2025
and motions to decertify a collective
action shall be served and filed on
or before:
Parker is a privately-held, custom blow molder, delivering customer
driven packaging solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 3, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WTE7e9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
PAUL HESSE: Court Narrows Claims in White Suit
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MISTY WHITE, JERMAINE
BRADFORD, JANARA MUSGRAVE, LANDON PROUDFIT, BRADLEY BARBER, JR.,
and DAKOTA KAPPUS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. HON. PAUL HESSE, in his official capacity as Chief
Judge of the 26th Judicial District; and HON. KHRISTAN STRUBHAR, in
her official capacity as Special District Judge in the Canadian
County District Court, Case No. 5:19-cv-01145-JD (W.D. Okla.), the
Hon. Judge Jodi Dishman entered an order granting the Defendants'
motion to dismiss as to the Plaintiffs' substantive due process,
equal protection, and Sixth Amendment claims against both
Defendants:
-- These claims in the amended complaint are dismissed without
prejudice.
-- The Court denies motion as to the Plaintiffs' procedural due
process claim against both Defendants.
The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that
they are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief for their
procedural due process claim, but they have failed to do so for
their substantive due process, equal protection, and Sixth
Amendment claims.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cix7uW at no extra
charge.[CC]
PAYPAL INC: Steals Marketing Commissions, Young Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
CLAUDIA JAYNE YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAYPAL, INC. and PAYPAL HOLDINGS,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-00124 (N.D. Cal., January 3,
2025) is a class action for damages and injunctive relief, seeking
an immediate end to PayPal's abusive practices and for recompense
for the harm that has already been done.
According to the complaint, PayPal has, for years, been
systematically stealing affiliate marketing commissions from
individuals who have built businesses, online personas, and
advertising relationships to make a living.
Plaintiff Young is an affiliate marketer. She has a following on
the social media platform Instagram and occasionally promotes
certain products sold by a variety of Merchants, such as
Amazon.com. When one of Plaintiff's followers clicks a link --
typically a hyperlink on an Instagram "Story" -- and is redirected
to a Merchant and then completes a sale, the Plaintiff will receive
a commission for that sale.
Through the Honey browser extension, PayPal directly and
purposefully interfered and continues to interfere with the
economic relationship between merchants, on the one hand, and
Plaintiff and other Class members, on the other. PayPal
purposefully and unlawfully replaces the tracking tags necessary
for the Plaintiff and other Class members to be paid commissions
and in their place substitutes its own tracking tags to take the
commission for itself, the suit alleges.
PayPal Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and holds all
assets and liabilities of PayPal, Inc., a subsidiary Delaware
corporation. PayPal owns and operates Honey, aka the Honey Science
Corporation, which had originally developed the Honey browser
extension.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian O'Mara, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
4747 Executive Dr., Suite 240
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (619) 923-3939
E-mail: briano@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
Amy Keller, Esq.
Daniel R. Schwartz, Esq.
James A. Ulwick, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
Ten North Dearborn St., Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
akeller@dicellolevitt.com
dschwartz@dicellolevitt.com
julwick@dicellolevitt.com
PLASTIC OMNIUM: Filing for Class Cert in Dally Suit Due Oct. 14
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stephen Dally, v. Plastic
Omnium Auto Inergy (USA), L.L.C., Case No. 5:23-cv-10877-JEL-DRG
(E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Judith Levy entered a scheduling order
as follows:
Event Deadline
Discovery completed by: Sept. 12, 2025
Dispositive Motions and Motion for
Class Certification must be filed by: Oct. 14, 2025
Motions in Limine filed by: March 2, 2026
Joint Final Pretrial Order submitted by: March 30, 2026
Final Pretrial Conference: April 6, 2026 at
10:30 a.m.
Proposed Joint Jury Instructions &
Verdict Form submitted by: April 14, 2026
Trial Date: April 21, 2026 at
8:30 a.m.
Plastic Omnium provides fuel tanks, fuel-filer necks and caps,
refueling vapor recovery systems, fuel pumps and delivery modules,
and vapor canisters.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 8, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mNfg9A at no extra
charge.[CC]
PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 27
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYLER KUHK, v. PLAYSTUDIOS
INC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00460-TL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Tana
Lin entered an order setting case schedule through class
certification:
Event Date
Deadline for joining additional parties: Feb. 24, 2025
Deadline for filing amended pleadings: Mar. 25, 2025
Motion for Class Certification due: June 27, 2025
Opposition to Motion for Class July 25, 2025
Certification due:
Reply in support of Motion for Class Aug. 15, 2025
Certification due:
Discovery completed by Oct. 8, 2025
Playstudios is the developer and operator of award-winning
free-to-play casual games for mobile and social platforms.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XAZ55z at no extra
charge.[CC]
PLAYSTUDIOS US: Pilati Lawsuit Remanded to Alabama State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Liles C. Burke of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama granted the plaintiff's motion to
remand the case captioned as ANGEL DEANN PILATI Plaintiffs, v.
PLAYSTUDIOS US, LLC, Defendant, Case No.: 3:23-cv-1335-LCB (N.D.
Ala.). The case is remanded to the Circuit Court of Franklin
County, Alabama.
Angel Deann Pilati sued Playstudios US, LLC, in the Circuit Court
of Franklin County, Alabama. After Playstudios removed the case to
this Court, Pilati filed a motion to remand.
This case and four others currently pending before the District
Court raise the same allegations against various defendants. Each
case is nearly identical to a set of nine cases filed in early
2023. Five of those cases were assigned to Judge Burke, and four
were assigned to Judge Lynwood C. Smith.
As they did in the Original Cases, the individual plaintiffs have
sued various defendants, all providers of online casino-themed
games, under Ala. Code Sec. 8-1-150(b) (1975). That statute allows,
among other things, any person to file a lawsuit to recover money
lost on illegal gambling wagers for the use of the losing player's
wife, children, or next of kin.
Four plaintiffs, Gayla Mills, Amy Nicole Seal, Angel Deann Pilati,
and Sera Stancil Rice have sued several defendants in two state
courts under this statute to recover money allegedly lost by all
Alabama residents who have played the defendants' games for the use
of those players' wives, children, or next of kin. The defendants
in each case removed the action to this Court asserting
jurisdiction under various provisions of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332. The
plaintiffs have all filed motions to remand.
After the Original Cases were removed to the District Court, Judge
Burke remanded each of the cases assigned to him while the
plaintiffs in the cases assigned to Judge Smith voluntarily
dismissed their complaints a few days later. The plaintiffs in the
voluntarily dismissed cases assigned to Judge Smith refiled new
cases in state court in August of 2023. The plaintiffs in the
remanded cases filed amended complaints.
Pilati was one of the plaintiffs who voluntarily dismissed one of
her original cases and refiled a new case in state court. The only
relevant difference is that in her new complaint, Pilati
specifically excluded from recovery any Alabamian who lost more
than $75,000. Accordingly, the factual allegations and legal
theories are essentially the same.
In the present case, Playstudios has again argued that the District
Court has traditional diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1332. In its response to Pilati's motion to remand, it also argued
that this Court has jurisdiction over the case pursuant to the
Class Action Fairness Act, specifically 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1332(d)(2)
and 1453(b). However, that ground for removal was not raised in the
notice of removal.
In responding to the motions to remand in each of the cases now
pending, the defendants filed a consolidated response stating that
because of the strong similarities between this action and four
other actions pending before the District Court, the overlap
between Plaintiffs' arguments in each case, and the shared bases on
which this Court has jurisdiction over these matters, the
defendants in all five actions are all filing the same opposition
brief to promote efficient resolution of these issues.
The District Court agrees that the cases all share nearly identical
legal issues.
Playstudios argues that removal is proper because the District
Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1332(a). The defendant points out that it is a citizen of a
different state than Pilati and contends that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000. While Pilati does not dispute the
parties' geographical diversity, she does dispute the amount in
controversy. The central argument between the parties as to the
amount in controversy is whether the amounts lost by each player in
Alabama can be aggregated to reach the $75,000 threshold. In
arguing that the amount in controversy is satisfied, the defendants
candidly note that Judge Burke rejected this argument in a related
case last year, Rice v. Aristocrat Leisure, Ltd., 2023 WL 5198510
(N.D. Ala. 2023).
While the defendant notes its respectful disagreement with that
ruling, it does not explicitly argue that the District Court should
reconsider it in this case. Nevertheless, the District Court sees
no reason to depart from its analysis of this issue in Rice and
similarly finds that the amount in controversy is not met in this
case. The District Court similarly finds that the amount in
controversy is not met in this case. It finds that it does not have
subject-matter jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1332(a). Accordingly, the case is due to be remanded.
A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9QsmwIfrom PacerMonitor.com.
PLAYTIKA LTD: Mills Lawsuit Remanded to Alabama State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Liles C. Burke of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama granted the plaintiff's motion to
remand the case captioned as GAYLA HAMILTON MILLS, Plaintiff, v.
PLAYTIKA, LTD, et al., Defendants, Case No.: 3:23-cv-1289-LCB (N.D.
Ala.). The case is remanded to the Circuit Court of Franklin
County, Alabama.
Gayla Hamilton Mills sued Playtika, Ltd., and a related business
entity, Playtika Holding Corp. in the Circuit Court of Franklin
County, Alabama. After Playtika removed the case to the District
Court, Mills filed a motion to remand.
This case and four others currently pending before the Court raise
the same allegations against various defendants. Each case is
nearly identical to a set of nine cases filed in early 2023. Five
of those cases were assigned to Judge Burke and four were assigned
to Judge Lynwood C. Smith.
As they did in the Original Cases, the individual plaintiffs have
sued various defendants, all providers of online casino-themed
games, under Ala. Code Sec. 8-1-150(b) (1975). That statute allows,
among other things, any person to file a lawsuit to recover money
lost on illegal gambling wagers for the use of the losing player's
wife, children, or next of kin. Four plaintiffs, Gayla Mills, Amy
Nicole Seal, Angel Deann Pilati, and Sera Stancil Rice have sued
several defendants in two state courts under this statute to
recover money allegedly lost by all Alabama residents who have
played the defendants' games for the use of those players' wives,
children, or next of kin. The defendants in each case removed the
action to the District Court asserting jurisdiction under various
provisions of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332. The plaintiffs have all filed
motions to remand.
After the Original Cases were removed to the District Court, Judge
Burke remanded each of the cases assigned to him while the
plaintiffs in the cases assigned to Judge Smith voluntarily
dismissed their complaints a few days later. The plaintiffs in the
voluntarily dismissed cases assigned to Judge Smith refiled new
cases in state court in August of 2023. The plaintiffs in the
remanded cases filed amended complaints.
Mills was one of the plaintiffs who voluntarily dismissed her
original case and refiled a new case in state court. The only
relevant difference is that in her new complaint, Mills
specifically excluded from recovery any Alabamian who lost more
than $75,000. Accordingly, the factual allegations and legal
theories are essentially the same.
In the present case, Playtika has again argued that the District
Court has traditional diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1332. However, it has also argued that this Court has jurisdiction
over the case pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act,
specifically 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1332(d)(2) and 1453(b). In support of
that argument, Playtika attached to its notice of removal a
declaration of its Chief of Staff of the Chief Revenue Officer at
Playtika, Amir Yagil. Yagil declared that, after reviewing
Playtika's financial reporting system for the relevant period, the
total amount that Alabama citizens had spent on its games of chance
far exceeded $5 million, even when excluding players who spent more
than $75,000.
In responding to the motions to remand in each of the cases now
pending, the defendants filed a consolidated response stating that
because of the strong similarities between this action and four
other actions pending before the District Court, the overlap
between Plaintiffs' arguments in each case, and the shared bases on
which this Court has jurisdiction over these matters, Defendants in
all five actions are all filing the same opposition brief to
promote efficient resolution of these issues.
The District Court agrees that the cases all share nearly identical
legal issues.
The defendants argue that Mills's case is properly removable under
CAFA because they say it meets all the requirements of a class
action lawsuit as defined in the statute.
Judge Burke says, "Here, Mills does not allege that she lost money
playing the defendants' games. In fact, Mills alleges nothing about
herself other than to assert that she is an adult resident of
Franklin County, Alabama. She claims only to be the 'other person'
referenced in Sec. 8-1-150(b). Because Sec. 8-1-150(b) does not
require typicality, a mandatory prerequisite under Rule 23, it is
not analogous to Rule 23. Similarly, because there is only one
named plaintiff in this case and that plaintiff is not a
representative member of the alleged class, the requirements of
numerosity and commonality are not fulfilled."
Mills's case was not brought under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, and it was not brought under a similar state
statute. Accordingly, her case does not meet the definition of a
class action under CAFA, the District Court concludes.
The defendants also argue that removal is proper because the
District Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 1332(a). They point out that they are citizens of a different
state than Mills and contend that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000. While Mills does not dispute the parties' geographical
diversity, she does dispute the amount in controversy. The central
argument between the parties as to the amount in controversy is
whether the amounts lost by each player in Alabama can be
aggregated to reach the $75,000 threshold. In arguing that the
amount in controversy is satisfied, the defendants candidly note
that Judge Burke rejected this argument in a related case last
year, Rice v. Aristocrat Leisure, Ltd., 2023 WL 5198510 (N.D. Ala.
2023).
While the defendants note their respectful disagreement with that
ruling, they do not explicitly argue that the District Court should
reconsider it in this case. Nevertheless, the District Court sees
no reason to depart from its analysis of this issue in Rice and
similarly finds that the amount in controversy is not met in this
case. It finds that it does not have subject-matter jurisdiction
over this case under CAFA or Sec. 1332(a).
A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FlrA9w from PacerMonitor.com.
PORT IMPERIAL: S.D. New York Grants Bid to Stay Mayors Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ronnie Abrams of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York issued a Memorandum Opinion & Order staying
the lawsuit styled NELSON MAYORS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PORT IMPERIAL FERRY CORP.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-06815-RA-GS (S.D.N.Y.).
On Nov. 11, 2024, Defendant Port Imperial Ferry Corporation moved
for an order staying this action pending the potential resolution
of a case-dispositive issue by the New York Court of Appeals or the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, or, in the
alternative, dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim.
The Plaintiff opposes.
Having considered the relevant factors for deciding whether to stay
an action pending resolution of an appeal on a dispositive issue,
the Court finds that a limited stay is appropriate here.
Accordingly, the Court rules that the Defendant's motion to stay is
granted and its motion to dismiss is held in abeyance.
The Plaintiff brings this putative class action against his former
employer for underpayment pursuant to New York Labor Law ("NYLL")
Section 191, seeking to recover liquidated damages and attorneys'
fees pursuant to NYLL Section 198(1-a). In particular, the
Plaintiff alleges that, as a manual worker under NYLL Section 191,
he should have received his paychecks on a weekly rather than
biweekly basis and that these late payments constituted
underpayment that is recoverable under NYLL Section 198(1-a).
The Defendant responds that the Plaintiff, who received all of his
paychecks, has not been "underpayed" and thus, is not entitled to
recover under NYLL. A dispositive issue in this case is whether
NYLL Section 198(1-a) provides an express or implied right of
action to a manual worker, who received all of his paychecks, but
on an untimely basis. New York State appellate divisions have
recently split on this issue. Compare Vega v. CM & Assocs. Constr.
Mgmt., LLC, 107 N.Y.S.3d 286, 288–89 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't
2019) (concluding that NYLL Section 198(1-a) "expressly provides a
private right of action for a violation of Labor Law Section 191,"
and, even if it did not, a remedy may be implied), with Grant v.
Glob. Aircraft Dispatch, Inc., 223 A.D.3d 712, 719 (App. Div. 2d
Dep't 2024) (concluding that NYLL Section 198(1-a) did not provide
an express or implied right of action). The Grant plaintiff filed a
motion for reargument and leave to appeal on Feb. 15, 2024, which
is currently pending before the Second Department.
The Defendant argues that this action should be stayed pending the
New York Court of Appeals' resolution of this split of authority.
In the alternative, the Defendant asks this Court to dismiss the
Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim on the basis
that NYLL Section 198(1-a) does not provide an express or implied
right of action to a worker such as the Plaintiff.
In deciding whether a stay is appropriate, Judge Abrams says courts
consider "(1) the private interests of the plaintiffs in proceeding
expeditiously with the civil litigation as balanced against the
prejudice to the plaintiffs if delayed; (2) the private interests
of and burden on the defendants; (3) the interests of the courts;
(4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation;
and (5) the public interest."
The Court has considered these factors and finds that a stay is
warranted here, at least until such time as the Second Department
rules on the pending motion for reargument and leave to appeal. In
this case, only the first three factors are pertinent to this
analysis. Judge Abrams explains, among other things, that neither
the Plaintiff nor the putative class would be unduly prejudiced by
a stay, given that the Plaintiff seeks only monetary damages and
does not dispute that he was already paid all of his outstanding
wages.
If the Court of Appeals issues a decision in Grant, Judge Abrams
points out that its decision would be binding on this Court. Judge
Abrams explains that a stay may avoid unnecessary litigation,
including the burden of discovery, on a question that may yet be
resolved in the Defendant's favor. Accordingly, the Defendant's
motion for a stay is granted and its motion to dismiss is held in
abeyance.
The Plaintiff correctly notes, however, that it is uncertain when,
if ever, the Court of Appeals will hear an appeal in Grant, Judge
Abrams says. In order to avoid unnecessary inefficiencies in the
litigation of this case, Judge Abrams holds that the stay is
granted pending the Second Department's ruling on the pending
motion for reargument and leave to appeal, at which time the Court
will reconsider the motion to stay. The parties will file a letter
within 72 hours of any material developments in Grant.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yp2bjn4b from PacerMonitor.com.
PRIME HYDRATION: Heaven WESCA Suit Remanded to State Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nitza I. Quiñones of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the plaintiff's motion
to remand the case captioned as SHANTAY HEAVEN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PRIME
HYDRATION LLC, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 24-4754 (E.D. Pa.) to
the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.
Plaintiff Shantay Heaven commenced this putative class action in
the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, on behalf of herself and
all other individuals, residents of Pennsylvania, who are similarly
situated, against Defendant Prime Hydration LLC, under the
Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act,
18 Pa. C.S. Secs. 5701, et seq. The Plaintiff asserted that
Defendant enabled Meta Platforms, Inc. and Google LLC to collect
various communications of visitors to Prime's website. Defendant
timely removed this matter to the District Court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Secs. 1441, 1446, and 1453, and the Class Action Fairness
Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d).
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss arguing, inter alia, that
Plaintiff lacks Article III standing. Defendant's motion to dismiss
and Plaintiff's motion to remand are largely intertwined. Defendant
moves to dismiss for, inter alia, lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1),
arguing that Plaintiff lacks an injury in fact sufficient to confer
Article III standing.
In response, Plaintiff takes no position on whether the District
Court has Article III standing. Instead, in the motion to remand,
Plaintiff argues that Defendant has failed to meet its burden to
establish that this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction because
Defendant argues in its motion to dismiss that Plaintiff lacks
Article III standing.
The District Court finds that:
(1) Plaintiff's complaint fails to plead facts sufficient to
establish Article III standing -- consequently, the District Court
lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter;
(2) as such, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(c), the appropriate
remedy is to remand this matter to the state court from which it
was removed; and
(3) Plaintiff is not entitled to fees and costs incurred for
bringing the motion to remand.
Consistent with these findings, Plaintiff's motion to remand is
granted, in part. Plaintiff's motion is denied in so far as it
seeks fees and costs. Additionally, Defendant's motion to dismiss
is denied as moot.
A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mqUS45 from PacerMonitor.com.
QUANEX HOMESHIELD: Washington Files Suit in California State Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quanex Homeshield
LLC. The case is captioned as ELOISE MARIE WASHINGTON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. QUANEX
HOMESHIELD LLC, Case No. 24CV024013 (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty.,
November 25, 2024).
A case management conference is set for July 11, 2025, before Judge
Richard K. Sueyoshi.
Quanex Homeshield LLC is a building products company doing business
in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
KOUL LAW
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 761-5484
Facsimile: (818) 561-3938
RIVERSIDE, CA: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Two Classes
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RIVERSIDE ALL OF US OR
NONE et al., v. CITY OF RIVERSIDE et al., Case No.
5:23-cv-01536-SPG-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Feb. 19, 2025,
will seek an order certifying case as a class action under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and Local Rule 23-3:
The motion seeks certification of a damages class and an injunctive
relief class, as set forth in the accompanying memorandum of points
and authorities.
The Plaintiffs will also seek an order appointing the undersigned
counsel as class counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(g).
The Plaintiffs seek to certify two classes defined as follows:
The Injunctive Relief Class:
"all persons who are or will be unhoused in the City of
Riverside and keep their possessions on public property in the
City, making it subject to seizure and summary destruction by City
employees and/agents and not stored as required by California Civil
Code section 2080."
The Plaintiffs Riverside All of Us or None and Jade Anderson are
the proposed class representatives; and
The Damages Class:
"all persons who were homeless and staying on public property in
the City of Riverside between Jan. 1, 2022 and continuing to the
present, and whose personal property was seized by City of
Riverside employees and/or agents and summarily destroyed."
The Plaintiffs Anderson, Bryan Yost, and Shawn Yost are the
proposed class representatives
Riverside is a city in and the county seat of Riverside County,
California, in the Inland Empire metropolitan area.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 6, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kP0Ugg at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brooke Weitzman, Esq.
Allison Greenberg, Esq.
Andrea Smith, Esq.
ELDER LAW AND DISABILITY RIGHTS CENTER
1535 E. 17th Street, Ste. 110
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Telephone: (714) 617-5353
Facsimile: (714) 754-1306
E-mail: bweitzman@eldrcenter.org
agreenberg@eldrcenter.org
asmith@eldrcenter.org
- and -
Carol A. Sobel, Esq.
Weston Rowland, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL
2632 Wilshire Boulevard, #552
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Telephone: (310) 393-3055
E-mail: carolsobellaw@gmail.com
rowland.weston@gmail.com
ROZLIN FINANCIAL: Faces Mazucyk Debt Collection Suit in D. Nevada
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rozlin Financial
Group, Inc. The case is captioned as HENRY MAZUCYK, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ROZLIN FINANCIAL
GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02258-GMN-DJA (D. Nev., December 5,
2024).
The suit is brought over the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Fair Debt Collection Act.
Rozlin Financial Group, Inc. is a debt collection agency doing
business in Nevada. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gustavo E. Ponce, Esq.
Mona Amini, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
6940 S. Cimarron Rd., Suite 210
Las Vegas, NV 89113
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
Email: gustavo@kazlg.com
mona@kazlg.com
SAMARIA BEAUTY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Toledo Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
BLANCA M. TOLEDO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAMARIA BEAUTY SUPPLY INC.;
ROSARIO MENRRI; and AROLDY J. MEJIA, Defendants, Case No.
1:25-cv-20090 (S.D. Fla., Jan. 7, 2025) 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 Toledo was employed by the Defendants as a staff.
Samaria Beauty Supply Inc. is a supplier of hair care, skincare,
and cosmetic products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
SIMS GROUP: Vallin Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as ISAI VALLIN individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SIMS GROUP USA
CORPORATION; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
24-CIV-07168, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Mateo to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on January
3, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00111 to the
proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code.
Sims Group USA Corp. is in engaged in assembling, breaking up,
sorting, and wholesale distribution of scrap and waste
materials.[BN]
Defendant Sims Group USA is represented by:
Tracie Childs, Esq.
Cameron Davila, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK &
STEWART, P.C.
4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (858) 652-3100
Facsimile: (858) 652-3101
E-mail: tracie.childs@ogletree.com
cameron.davila@ogletree.com
SMITH GAMBRELL: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Owens Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES OWENS and FELICIA LIVINGSTON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SMITH, GAMBRELL &
RUSSELL INTERNATIONAL, LLP; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
CV-24-009989 (Cal. Super., Stanislaus Cty., December 5, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per
se, declaratory judgment, violations of the California Consumer
Privacy Act, the California Customer Records Act, the California
Unfair Competition Law, and the Right to Privacy, breach of implied
contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals stored within its
systems following a data breach on or around July 19, 2021, through
July 28, 2021. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the data
breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiffs and
Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and
disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties.
Smith, Gambrell & Russell International, LLP is an international
law firm headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Laura Van Note, Esq.
Mark T. Freeman, Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th Street, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 891-9800
Email: lvn@colevannote.com
mtf@colevannote.com
- and -
Jason M. Wucetich, Esq.
Dimitrios V. Korovilas, Esq.
WUCETICH & KOROVILAS LLP
222 N. Pacific Coast Hwy., Suite 2000
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (310) 335-2001
Email: jason@wukolaw.com
dimitri@wukolaw.com
STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: January 22 Deadline Set for Scheduling Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Gary Stein of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York in set a deadline of Jan. 22,
2025 for the parties in the case captioned as GLENN BRUNO,
derivatively on behalf of STRONGHOLD DIGITAL MINING, INC.,
Plaintiff, -against- GREGORY A. BEARD, WILLIAM B. SPENCE, RICARDO
R.A. LARROUDE, SARAH P. JAMES, THOMAS J. PACCHIA, MATTHEW J. SMITH,
AND THOMAS R. TROWBRIDGE, IV., Defendants, -and- STRONGHOLD DIGITAL
MINING, INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-00798 (S.D.N.Y.) to
provide a proposed scheduling order governing further proceedings
in this consolidated action, including the date by which defendants
must answer, move, or otherwise plead, and the date for a case
management conference.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sHbFzP from PacerMonitor.com.
TOMS RIVER, NJ: Smit's Bids for Reconsideration & Sanctions Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Georgette Castner of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey denies the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and
motion for sanctions in the lawsuit styled GERALD SMIT, Plaintiff
v. TOWNSHIP OF TOMS RIVER NJ, et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-02594-GC-RLS (D.N.J.).
The matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Gerald Smit's Motion
for Reconsideration of the Court's June 25, 2024 Order dismissing
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (SAC), or alternatively, to
accept Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint (TAC). Defendants County
of Ocean and Toms River opposed, and Smit replied. Smit also moves
for sanctions against Toms River.
The premise of this case is that Toms River repeatedly overvalues
properties for tax-assessment purposes, including Smit's secondary
property in Barrier Island. Toms River also allegedly denied Smit's
application for a building permit to replace his roof, which Smit
contends will effectively coerce him to demolish his structure
rather than repair it.
Mr. Smit brought this class action against Ocean County and Toms
River in a 19-count Second Amended Complaint (SAC), challenging the
Defendants' tax assessment methods, building-permit denials, and
temporary prevention of homeowners from accessing their homes in
the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. Smit claimed that this
conduct violates federal and state law, including the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, the Takings Clause
under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the
Due Process Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution, and federal and state criminal extortion
statutes.
On June 25, 2024, the Court granted Toms River's motion to dismiss
the SAC and denied the County of Ocean's motion as moot. The Court
held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the tax issues
that formed most of Smit's claims under the Tax Injunction Act.
Next, the Court dismissed Smit's remaining federal claims under
RICO, Fifth Amendment Takings, and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process
for failure to state a claim, as well as Smit's claim for extortion
under 18 U.S.C. Section 875, which does not authorize a private
right of action.
Finally, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over Smit's remaining non-federal claims. The Court closed the
matter and ordered that Smit may have the case reopened if, within
30 days, he filed an amended complaint curing the deficiencies set
forth in the Court's June 25, 2024 Memorandum Opinion.
On July 26, 2024, Smit filed the present Motion for
Reconsideration, or alternatively, to accept the TAC attached to
his Motion. On Sept. 6, 2024, Smit moved for Rule 11 sanctions
against Toms River, accusing it of "false and misleading
assertions" when it argued that if Smit had followed existing
administrative procedures, he would have received the required fair
due process.
In his Motion for Reconsideration, Smit does not ask or assert any
basis for reconsideration of the Court's dismissal of his RICO,
Fifth Amendment Takings, Fourteenth Amendment Due Process, and
federal extortion claims. Instead, he challenges only the Court's
conclusion that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the tax
issues that form the basis of his case under the Tax Injunction
Act.
Judge Castner opines that Smit does not present any intervening
change in relevant law or evidence, but argues that the Court erred
when holding that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. In arguing
that the Court erred, Smit cites no legal authority other than an
unnamed case from 1985, in which Smit claims that his father-in-law
successfully argued that New Jersey's entire controversy doctrine
precluded a hospital from asserting a claim that it had failed to
bring in the father-in-law's previous lawsuit against the hospital
for negligence.
Even accepting Smit's purported authority at face value, the Court
finds his argument unavailing. Having been presented no error of
fact or law that, if left uncorrected, would result in manifest
injustice, the Court denies Smit's Motion for Reconsideration.
Judge Castner notes that Smit's proposed TAC incorporates the SAC
in its entirety with the exception that all stated claims and
remedies therein are included only for the facts presented and are
not included or carried in this document as actual claims or
remedies. As such, claims one through eighteen are no longer
included as claims within the Third Amended Complaint.
The Court had ordered that the case may be reopened only to the
extent Smit can cure the deficiencies identified in the June 25,
2024 Memorandum Opinion. But Smit has not attempted to replead
Counts One through Eighteen and appears to have abandoned them,
Judge Castner says. By not repleading within the 30 days granted by
the Court, Smit has elected to "stand on his complaint," and the
Court's June 25, 2024 Order has been rendered final for claims
dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) and for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction, Judge Castner holds. Any state-law claims remain
dismissed without prejudice.
Judge Castner notes that Smit's only new claim for relief in the
TAC is labeled as Count Nineteen: "Unlawful FEMA Substantially
Damaged Determinations," in which Smit challenges FEMA's
"substantially damaged" determinations regarding Smit's property
under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and state and federal
criminal extortion statutes. But Smit pled the same purported cause
of action in Count Five of his SAC, Judge Castner points out.
Judge Castner opines that allowing Smit to file the TAC would be
futile because his claims remain legally insufficient on their
face. Accordingly, the Court denies Smit's motion to the extent he
seeks to file his proposed TAC.
Finally, the Court denies Smit's request for sanctions against Toms
River under Rule 11 for making alleged "false legal contentions"
that if he had merely followed existing administrative procedures,
both for the recent revaluation assessment appeal and for the
Hurricane Sandy structural substantially damaged determinations,
that he would receive the required fair due process.
Judge Castner opines that Smit's arguments amount to his
disagreement with Toms River's positions and do not identify any
frivolous legal filings, much less a filing where the evident
frivolousness of a claim or motion amounts to an "abuse of the
legal system.
For these reasons, and other good cause shown, the Court denies
Smit's Motions. The Clerk is directed to TERMINATE the Motions
pending at ECF Nos. 62 and 73. The matter will remain closed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yewarcvs from PacerMonitor.com.
TOYOTA MOTOR: Settlement in Salas, et al. Suit Gets Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Hernan D. Vera of the United States District Court
for the Central District of California entered a final order
approving the class action settlement in the case captioned as
ALFRED SALAS and GLORIA ORTEGA, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. TOYOTA
MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., a California Corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 2:15-cv-08629-HDV-E (C.D. Calif.).
The Court confirms the certification of the following Class for
settlement purposes only:
All individuals in California who, at any time prior to the
occurrence of the Initial Notice Date own(ed), purchase(d), and/or
lease(d) a model year 2012 to 2015 Toyota Camry XV50. Excluded from
the Class are: (a) Toyota, its officers, directors and employees;
its affiliates and affiliates' officers, directors and employees;
its distributors and distributors' officers, directors and
employees; and Toyota Dealers and Toyota Dealers' officers and
directors; (b) Plaintiffs' Counsel and Class Counsel; and (c)
judicial officers and their immediate family members and associated
court staff assigned to this case. In addition, persons are not
Class Members once they timely and properly exclude themselves from
the Class as provided for in this Settlement Agreement, once the
exclusion request has been
finally approved by the Court.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have adequately represented the
Class for purposes of entering into and implementing the Settlement
Agreement.
The Court appoints Tarek H. Zohdy of Capstone Law APC and Paul
Kiesel of Kiesel Law LLP as Class Counsel.
The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement resulted from
extensive arm's length good faith negotiations between Plaintiffs
and Toyota, through experienced counsel, with the assistance and
oversight of Settlement Special Master Patrick A. Juneau.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), the Court finally approves in
all respects the Settlement as set forth in the Settlement
Agreement and finds that the Settlement, the Settlement Agreement,
and all other parts of the Settlement are, in all respects, fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interest of the Class and
are in full compliance with all applicable requirements of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Constitution
(including the Due Process Clause), the Class Action Fairness Act,
and any other applicable law.
The Court has considered all objections, timely and proper or
otherwise, to the Settlement and denies and overrules all of them
as without merit.
The Action is dismissed with prejudice on the merits and without
costs to any party, except as otherwise provided herein or in the
Settlement Agreement.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PW3k6k from PacerMonitor.com.
TURNBULL & ASSER: Riley Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMANIE RILEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Turnbull & Asser (USA), LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-00052 (S.D.N.Y., January 3, 2025) is a civil rights
action against Turnbull & Asser for their failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website,
https://www.turnbullandasser.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
The complaint asserts that Turnbullandasser.com contains access
barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind
persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers
are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate
landmark structure, changing of content without advance warning,
unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccurate alt-text on
graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, ambiguous link texts, and
the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse,
says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Turnbull & Asser's policies, practices, and procedures so that its
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.
Turnbull & Asser (USA), LLC operates the commercial website that
offers menswear.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN PLLC
2377 56th Dr.,
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Telephone: (718) 914-9694
E-mail: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com
VERDE ENERGY: Fitzgerald Sues Over Unwanted Robocalls
-----------------------------------------------------
KRYSTINA R. FITZGERALD, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VERDE ENERGY USA, INC., and JOHN
DOES 1-10, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-05131 (S.D. Tex., December
31, 2024) seeks redress for Defendant's violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension
Uniformity Act, and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law.
Despite Plaintiff's request that the robocalls cease, the Defendant
continued placing robocalls to Plaintiff's cellular phone. In
total, the Defendant placed no less than 48 robocalls calls to
Plaintiff's cellular phone after Plaintiff initially requested that
the calls cease, says the suit.
Headquartered in Houston, TX, Verde Energy USA, Inc. is an energy
supply company that purchases gas and electric energy on the
wholesale market and resells it to consumers to power their homes,
charging them monthly for its services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Ave, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Telephone: (630) 575-8180
E-mail: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
VGW LTD: Seal Lawsuit Remanded to Alabama State Court
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Liles C. Burke of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama granted the plaintiff's motion to
remand the case captioned as AMY NICOLE SEAL, Plaintiff, v. VGW
LTD, et al., Defendants, Case No.: 3:23-cv-1295-LCB (N.D. Ala.).
The case is remanded to the Circuit Court of Franklin County,
Alabama.
Amy Nicole Seal sued VGW, Ltd., and three related business
entities, VGW Holdings US, Inc., VGW US, Inc., and VGW Luckyland,
Inc. in the Circuit Court of Franklin County, Alabama. After VGW
removed the case to the District Court, Seal filed a motion to
remand.
This case and four others currently pending before this Court raise
the same allegations against various defendants. Each case is
nearly identical to a set of nine cases filed in early 2023. Five
of those cases were assigned to Judge Burke and four were assigned
to Judge Lynwood C. Smith.
As they did in the Original Cases, the individual plaintiffs have
sued various defendants, all providers of online casino-themed
games, under Ala. Code Sec. 8-1-150(b) (1975). That statute allows,
among other things, any person to file a lawsuit to recover money
lost on illegal gambling wagers for the use of the losing player's
wife, children, or next of kin.
Four plaintiffs, Gayla Mills, Amy Nicole Seal, Angel Deann Pilati,
and Sera Stancil Rice have sued several defendants in two state
courts under this statute to recover money allegedly lost by all
Alabama residents who have played the defendants' games for the use
of those players' wives, children, or next of kin. The defendants
in each case removed the action to the District Court asserting
jurisdiction under various provisions of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332. The
plaintiffs have all filed motions to remand.
After the Original Cases were removed to the District Court, the
undersigned remanded each of the cases assigned to him while the
plaintiffs in the cases assigned to Judge Smith voluntarily
dismissed their complaints a few days later. The plaintiffs in the
voluntarily dismissed cases assigned to Judge Smith refiled new
cases in state court in August of 2023. The plaintiffs in the
remanded cases filed amended complaints.
Seal was one of the plaintiffs who voluntarily dismissed her
original case and refiled a new case in state court. The only
relevant difference is that in her new complaint, Seal specifically
excluded from recovery any Alabamian who lost more than $75,000.
Accordingly, the factual allegations and legal theories are
essentially the same.
In the present case, VGW has again argued that the District Court
has traditional diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332.
However, it has also argued that this Court has jurisdiction over
the case pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, specifically 28
U.S.C. Secs. 1332(d)(2) and 1453(b). In support of that argument,
VGW attached to its notice of removal a declaration from its
General Counsel, Michael Thunder. Thunder declared that, after
reviewing VGW's financial reporting system for the relevant period,
the total amount that Alabama citizens had spent on VGW's games of
chance far exceeded $5,000,000, even when excluding players who
spent more than $75,000.
In responding to the motions to remand in each of the cases now
pending, the defendants filed a consolidated response stating that
because of the strong similarities between this action and four
other actions pending before the District Court, the overlap
between Plaintiffs' arguments in each case, and the shared bases on
which this Court has jurisdiction over these matters, the
defendants in all five actions are all filing the same opposition
brief to promote efficient resolution of these issues.
The District Court agrees that the cases all share nearly identical
legal issues.
The defendants argue that removal is proper because the District
Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1332(a). They point out that they are citizens of a different state
than Seal and contend that the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000. While Seal does not dispute the parties' geographical
diversity, she does dispute the amount in controversy. The central
argument between the parties as to the amount in controversy is
whether the amounts lost by each player in Alabama can be
aggregated to reach the $75,000 threshold. In arguing that the
amount in controversy is satisfied, the defendants candidly note
that Judge Burke rejected this argument in a related case last
year, Rice v. Aristocrat Leisure, Ltd., 2023 WL 5198510 (N.D. Ala.
2023).
While the defendants note their respectful disagreement with that
ruling, they do not explicitly argue that the District Court should
reconsider it in this case. Nevertheless, the District Court sees
no reason to depart from its analysis of this issue in Rice and
similarly finds that the amount in controversy is not met in this
case. It concludes the present case does not meet the definition of
a class action as described in Sec. 1332(d). Hence, the District
Court finds that it does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over
this case under CAFA or Sec. 1332(a).
A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uwxIQ8 from PacerMonitor.com.
WAKEFERN FOOD: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Gaspa Says
------------------------------------------------------------
VERONICA GASPA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Wakefern Food Corp., Defendant, Case No.
3:25-cv-00070 (D.N.J., January 3, 2025) arises from the Defendant's
failure to make its digital properties accessible to legally blind
individuals, which violates the effective communication and equal
access requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Upon visiting Defendant's website, Shoprite.com, the Plaintiff
quickly became aware of Defendant's failure to maintain and operate
its website in a way to make it fully accessible for herself and
for other blind or visually-impaired people. The website contains
access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff
using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include
but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, ambiguous
link texts, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of
descriptive alt-text on graphics, inaccurate drop-down menus, the
denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Wakefern Food Corp. operates the website that provides consumers
with access to an array of goods including information about
purchasing fresh grocery products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (718) 705-8706
Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
WALMART INC: Court Directs Filing Discovery Plan in Eskridge Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Eskridge v. Walmart, Case
No. 1:24-cv-01480-MMM (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan Hawley
entered a temporary 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 y 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.
Walmart operates discount stores, supercenters, and neighborhood
markets.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 8, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rXNm9i at no extra
charge.[CC]
WALMART INC: Golikov Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDIE GOLIKOV, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WALMART INC.,
Case No. 2:24-cv-08211-RGK-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Feb.
10, 2025, will move the Court to certify this case as a class
action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and
23(b)(3).
The Plaintiff seeks to certify a California class for her
California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), express warranty, intentional and
negligent misrepresentation, and quasi-contract claims as defined
in the memorandum of law.
The Plaintiff also moves for their appointment as the class
representatives and for the appointment of Richard Lyon and Stephen
Andrews of Dovel & Luner as class counsel. The motion is based on
the attached memorandum of law, declarations, and exhibits.
The Plaintiff does not seek to certify a nationwide class. She
seeks to certify a California class comprising:
"All persons who, while in the state of California and within
the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased Great Value
Avocado Oil. She seeks to certify a Rule 23(b)(3) damages class and
a Rule 23(b)(2) injunction class."
Because of Walmart's misleading labels, reasonable consumers like
Plaintiff Edie Golikov are misled into buying Great Value Avocado
Oil, believing it contains only premium avocado oil, and not a mix
of cooking oils. Had Plaintiff and class members known the truth,
they would not have purchased it or would have paid less.
The Plaintiff alleges that he paid for Avocado Oil, but received a
cheaper blend of cooking oils.
Walmart operates discount stores, supercenters, and neighborhood
markets.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 8, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HYZM9S at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Lyon, Esq.
Stephen D. Andrews, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: rick@dovel.com
stephen@dovel.com
WALMART INC: Golikov Suit Seeks Certify California Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDIE GOLIKOV, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WALMART INC.,
Case No. 2:24-cv-08211-RGK-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Feb.
10, 2025, will move the Court to certify a California class for her
Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL),
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), express warranty,
intentional and negligent misrepresentation, and quasi-contract
claims as defined as:
"All persons who, while in the state of California and within
the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased Great Value
Avocado Oil."
The Plaintiff also moves for their appointment as the class
representatives and for the appointment of Richard Lyon and Stephen
Andrews of Dovel & Luner as class counsel.
Counsel for the Plaintiff and Defendant have conferred many times
concerning this motion over the past several months, including over
Zoom on Dec. 19, 2024, and Jan. 2, 2025.
Most recently, Stephen Andrews on behalf of Plaintiff reached out
to Defendant's counsel on January 9, 2025. Jacob Harper on behalf
of Defendant confirmed that Defendant opposes this motion.
Walmart operates discount stores, supercenters, and neighborhood
markets.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 9, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=40kOJJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Lyon, Esq.
Stephen D. Andrews, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: rick@dovel.com
stephen@dovel.com
WELTMAN WEINBERG: Class Cert Bids in Andrews Due Jan. 31, 2026
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOANNE ANDREWS,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
WELTMAN WEINBERG & REIS CO., LPA, Case No. 2:24-cv-01282-WED (E.D.
Wis.), the Hon. Judge William Duffin entered a scheduling order as
follows:
1. The parties shall make their initial disclosures to
the opposing party in accordance with Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(a) no later than Jan. 22, 2025.
2. The parties may join other parties and amend the
pleadings without leave of court no later than March
7, 2025.
3. The plaintiff shall disclose expert witnesses in
accordance with Civil L.R. 26(b) no later than
Aug. 1, 2025.
4. The defendant shall disclose expert witnesses
in accordance with Civil L.R. 26(b) no later
than Sept. 1, 2025.
5. The plaintiff shall disclose rebuttal experts
with reports no later than Oct. 1, 2025.
6. All discovery is to be completed by Jan. 2, 2026.
7. Any motion by the plaintiff for class certification
must be filed no later than Jan. 31, 2026.
Weltman is a full-service collection law firm which represents
businesses and financial institutions in the collection of debt
throughout the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gvSizs at no extra
charge.[CC]
WHITE SPACE: Faces Tucker Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY TUCKER, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WHITE SPACE GROUP NEW YORK LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00083 (S.D.N.Y., January 3, 2025) is a civil
rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://vondutch.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York
State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff visited the website and attempted to purchase a
Purple Gold Trucker Hat but was unable to locate pricing and was
not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures
without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's
website, which prevented him from doing so. The access barriers
Plaintiff encountered have caused a denial of his full and equal
access in the past, and now deter him on a regular basis from
accessing the website, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
White Space Group New York LLC operates the Von Dutch online retail
store, as well as the Von Dutch interactive Website and advertises,
markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
WILSON LOGISTICS: Phase I Class Certification Sched Order Entered
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONYA ORTEGA, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. WILSON
LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00676-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Hon.
Judge Beth Phillips entered a scheduling order for Phase I class
certification as follows:
-- Any motion to join additional parties or amend the pleadings
shall be filed on or before April 30, 2025.
-- All Phase I discovery authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure shall be completed on or before Aug. 29, 2025.
-- In the event Plaintiff or Defendant believe expert witnesses
are needed in relation to the certification briefing, such
experts shall be disclosed on or before July 18, 2025.
Wilson was founded in 1998. The Company's line of business includes
the arranging of transportation of freight and cargo.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zO0ntv at no extra
charge.[CC]
WINIX GLOBAL: Court Narrows Claims in Debari
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORY DEBARI, et al., v.
WINIX GLOBAL LLC, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-06596-JSC (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order regarding
defendants' motion to dismiss or strike portions of the complaint
Conclusion:
1. The motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is denied.
2. The motion to dismiss for lack of standing as to the eight
products Plaintiffs did not purchase is denied.
3. The Nationwide Class is dismissed with leave to amend.
4. The Injunctive Relief claim is dismissed with leave to amend.
5. The Punitive Damages claim is dismissed with leave to amend.
Any amended complaint shall be filed no later than Feb. 10, 2025.
The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants falsely advertised their air
purifiers as True HEPA-grade filters.
The Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class and a
California subclass.
The nationwide class is defined as:
"All natural persons in the United States who purchased a Winix
6300, P300, 5300, 5500, 5300-2, 6300-2, AM90, C909, 9800, C535 and
C545 air purifier or replacement filter during the applicable
statutory period."
The California subclass is defined as:
"All natural persons who in California purchased a Winix
6300,P300, 5300, 5500, 5300-2, 6300-2, AM90, C909, 9800, C535 and
C545 air purifier or replacement filter during the applicable
statutory period."
Winix is a manufacturer of electronic products that offer air
purifiers, filters, and humidifiers for clean water and air.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zDSfaI at no extra
charge.[CC]
WISCONSIN: Washington et al. Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge J.P. Stadtmueller of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Washington ruled that the case captioned as
JAMES R. WASHINGTON, HECTOR CUBERO, JR., DERRICK JONES, LORENZO
JOHNSON, and DEYONTAE CORNAIL STINSON, Plaintiffs, v. WISCONSIN
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, KEVIN A. CARR, JARED HOY, MELISSA
ROBERTS, CHRISTOPHER STEVENS, and JOHN KIND, Defendants, Case No.
24-CV-391-JPS (E.D. Wis.) will not proceed as a class action.
The original plaintiffs James R. Washington, Hector Cubero, Jr.,
Derrick Jones, Lorenzo Johnson, Deyontae Cornail Stinson, Willie
McDougle, and Mohamed Elmhdati, who are incarcerated at Green Bay
Correctional Institution and representing themselves, filed a
complaint under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 alleging that their civil
rights were violated.
On May 24, 2024, the Court entered orders for Plaintiffs to pay
their initial partial filing fees on or before June 24, 2024. On
July 29, 2024, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs Washington, Jones,
and McDougle for the failure to pay their IPFFs. Following their
dismissal, these Plaintiffs sought reinstatement into the case and
the Court allowed them an additional opportunity to pay their
IPFFs. Plaintiffs Washington and Jones have all now paid their
IPFFs.
The Court therefore considers them as plaintiffs for the remainder
of its analysis. Plaintiff McDougle's deadline to pay the IPFF was
on November 21, 2024. On November 18, 2024, McDougle filed a letter
regarding a disbursement request for the IPFF; however, to date,
McDougle has not paid the IPFF or otherwise sought an extension. As
such, McDougle is not reinstated in the case and the Court does not
consider McDougle for the remainder of this Order. The Court will
deny McDougle's motion to proceed without prepayment of the filing
fee, as moot. Should McDougle wish to pursue his claims, he must
file a new case.
Class Action
The Court previously informed Plaintiffs that this case could
likely not go forward as a class action lawsuit without class
counsel. After denying a motion to appoint counsel, the Court
provided Plaintiffs with several months to locate class counsel. To
date, no counsel has appeared. The Court therefore considers the
propriety of this case moving forward as a class action without
counsel.
The Court does not find that Plaintiffs can adequately represent a
class action case with multiple claims for all the inmates at GBCI.
The Seventh Circuit has noted in the past that "it is generally not
an abuse of discretion for a district court to deny a motion for
class certification on the ground that a pro se litigant is not an
adequate class representative."
Recently, one district court found that it would be plain error to
allow an unrepresented inmate to represent his fellow inmates in a
class action. The Court cannot see how Plaintiffs, who were unable
to comply with Rule 11's signature requirement, would be able to
navigate the legal and administrative complexities of a class
action lawsuit while incarcerated. As such, the Court will not
allow this case to proceed as a class action, and the remainder of
this Order screens the complaint and considers whether Plaintiffs
may jointly proceed going forward.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qRMQv7 from PacerMonitor.com.
WL GENERAL SERVICES: Hernadez Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Juan Manuel Hernadez, and all other similarly
situated v. WL GENERAL SERVICES, CORP., MSB TOTAL SERVICES, CORP.
and LUCIMARA HELGERT, was removed from the 11th Clerk of the Court
for the Circuit Court of the Judicial Circuit, in and for
Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on Jan. 9, 2025, and assigned Case No.
1:25-cv-20120-XXXX.
The Complaint alleges that "This is an action arising under the
Fair Labor Standards Act." Further, the sole Count of the Complaint
alleges a cause of action for unpaid overtime under the FLSA
against the two Defendants.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Adi Amit, Esq.
ADI AMIT, P.A.
101 NE 3rd Ave., Suite 300
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Phone: (954) 533-5922
Fax: (954) 302-4963
Email: adi@defenderofbusiness.com
YARDI SYSTEMS: Time to Respond to Duffy's 1st Amended Suit Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, grants the parties' Stipulated
Motion to Stay Deadline to Respond to First Amended Class Action
Complaint in the lawsuit styled MCKENNA DUFFY, et al., Plaintiffs
v. YARDI SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-01391-RSL (W.D. Wash.).
The matter comes before the Court on the parties' Stipulated Motion
to Stay Deadline to Respond to First Amended Class Action Complaint
pending resolution of the forthcoming motion to consolidate this
matter with Shewmaker v. Yardi Systems, Inc., No.
2:24-cv-01948-RSL, and Frank v. Yardi Systems, Inc., No.
2:24-cv-02053-RSL.
Judge Lasnik holds that the deadline for responding to the First
Amended Complaint in this case is stayed pending resolution of the
forthcoming motion to consolidate. The Plaintiffs will file the
anticipated motion to consolidate within ten days of the date of
this Order; the Defendants do not intend to oppose consolidation.
Should the Court grant consolidation, the Defendants will have 45
days from the filing of a consolidated complaint to answer,
dismiss, or otherwise respond. Should the Court deny the motion to
consolidate, the Defendants will have 45 days from the denial to
answer, dismiss, or otherwise respond to the First Amended
Complaint.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4n2ty7rh from PacerMonitor.com.
YELLOW SOCIAL: Pilati Lawsuit Remanded to Alabama State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Liles C. Burke of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama granted the plaintiff's motion to
remand the case captioned as ANGEL DEANN PILATI Plaintiff, v.
YELLOW SOCIAL INTERACTIVE, LTD., Defendant, Case No.:
3:23-cv-1349-LCB (N.D. Ala.). The case is remanded to the Circuit
Court of Franklin County, Alabama.
Angel Deann Pilati sued Yellow Social Interactive, Ltd. in the
Circuit Court of Franklin County, Alabama. After Yellow Social
removed the case to the Distict Court, Pilati filed a motion to
remand.
This case and four others currently pending before the District
Court raise the same allegations against various defendants. Each
case is nearly identical to a set of nine cases filed in early
2023. Five of those cases were assigned to Judge Burke, and four
were assigned to Judge Lynwood C. Smith.
As they did in the Original Cases, the individual plaintiffs have
sued various defendants, all providers of online casino-themed
games, under Ala. Code Sec. 8-1-150(b) (1975). That statute allows,
among other things, any person to file a lawsuit to recover money
lost on illegal gambling wagers for the use of the losing player's
wife, children, or next of kin. Four plaintiffs, Gayla Mills, Amy
Nicole Seal, Angel Deann Pilati, and Sera Stancil Rice have sued
several defendants in two state courts under this statute to
recover money allegedly lost by all Alabama residents who have
played the defendants' games for the use of those players' wives,
children, or next of kin. The defendants in each case removed the
action to the District Court asserting jurisdiction under various
provisions of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332. The plaintiffs have all filed
motions to remand.
After the Original Cases were removed to the District Court, Judge
Burke remanded to state court each of the cases assigned to him
while the plaintiffs in the cases assigned to Judge Smith
voluntarily dismissed their complaints a few days later. The
plaintiffs in the voluntarily dismissed cases assigned to Judge
Smith, refiled new cases in state court in August of 2023. The
plaintiffs in the remanded cases filed amended complaints.
Pilati was one of the plaintiffs who filed an amended complaint
after the District Court granted her motion to remand when deciding
the Original Cases. The only relevant difference is that in her
amended complaint, she specifically excluded from recovery any
Alabamian who lost more than $75,000. Accordingly, the factual
allegations and legal theories are essentially the same.
In the present case, Yellow Social has again argued that the
District Court has traditional diversity jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. Sec. 1332. However, it has also argued that the District
Court has jurisdiction over the case pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act, specifically 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1332(d)(2) and 1453(b).
In responding to the motions to remand in each of the cases now
pending, the defendants filed a consolidated response stating that
because of the strong similarities between this action and four
other actions pending before the District Court, the overlap
between Plaintiffs' arguments in each case, and the shared bases on
which this Court has jurisdiction over these matters, the
defendants in all five actions are all filing the same opposition
brief to promote efficient resolution of these issues.
The District Court agrees that the cases all share nearly identical
legal issues. However, it notes that there is a relevant difference
between the cases that were dismissed and refiled and the remanded
cases in which the plaintiffs filed amended complaints. Pilati's
case falls into the latter category.
In addition to arguing that the case is due to be remanded because
the District Court lacks diversity jurisdiction -- under CAFA or
otherwise -- Pilati also argues that remand is appropriate for an
additional reason. According to Pilati, the present motion to
remand is essentially a motion to reconsider the prior remand
order. Because 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(d) prohibits reconsideration of
a prior remand order, the case is due to be remanded on that basis,
the District Court concludes.
A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=arpmcu from PacerMonitor.com.
YESCARE CORP: Darpoh Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Henrietta Darpoh and Virginie Masseh, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. YESCARE CORP. and CHS TX, INC.
D/B/A YESCARE, Case No. 1:25-cv-00072-ABA (D. Md., Jan. 9, 2025),
is brought against the Defendants seeking any and all available
relief under the Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL") and the
Maryland Wage Payment Collection Law ("MWPCL") for: unpaid wages;
unpaid overtime premium compensation; liquidated damages;
attorneys' fees and costs; and/or any such other relief as this
Court may deem appropriate.
The Defendants have contracted with the State of Maryland and/or
the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services to
provide medical care to prisoners at all detention facilities
within the State of Maryland.
The Defendants had uniform timekeeping policies for their hourly
employee workforce, including Plaintiffs and the members of the
proposed class, which included, inter alia, clocking in at a
timeclock in a specific section of their worksites.
The Defendants routinely failed or refused to compensate their
hourly employee workforce, including Plaintiffs and the members of
the proposed class, for hours of work which included, inter alia,
walking from the parking lot of their respective worksites to the
timeclock within the worksite, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants.
The Defendants provide medical care for incarcerated individuals in
the custody of the Department of Public Safety and Correctional
Services ("DPSCS") for the State of Maryland.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edith K. Thomas, Esq.
Thomas J. Eiler, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Ave., Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: (301) 587-9373
Email: ethomas@zagfirm.com
teiler@zagfirm.com
ZILLOW GROUP: Court Allows Distribution of Class Settlement Funds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, grants Lead Plaintiffs Jo Ann
Offutt, Raymond Harris and Johanna Choy's Motion for Distribution
of Class Settlement Funds in the lawsuit titled In re Zillow Group,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:17-cv-01387-JCC (W.D.
Wash.).
Judge Coughenour holds that the administrative determinations of
the Claims Administrator, Strategic Claims Services ("SCS"), in
accepting and rejecting Claims are approved. Specifically, the
administrative determinations of the Claims Administrator accepting
those Claims are approved, and the administrative determinations of
the Claims Administrator rejecting those Claims are approved.
Judge Coughenour notes that unless otherwise defined, capitalized
terms take the same meaning provided in the Stipulation of
Settlement, filed on March 31, 2023 ("Settlement" or
"Stipulation").
According to Judge Coughenour, any person asserting claims filed
after Aug. 9, 2024, the date SCS used as the latest date to file a
claim in order to avoid delaying finalization of the
administration, is forever barred from asserting a claim. Any
response to a rejected claim received after Oct. 30, 2024, the date
SCS used as the latest date to respond to a rejection notice in
order to avoid delaying finalization of the administration, is
forever barred from asserting a claim.
The funds that are currently in the Net Settlement Fund (less any
necessary amounts to be withheld for payment of potential tax
liabilities and related fees and expenses) will be distributed on a
pro rata basis to the Authorized Claimants. The funds will be
distributed pursuant to the Stipulation and the Plan of Allocation
of the Net Settlement Fund set forth in the Notice.
The distribution plan for the Net Settlement Fund is approved. The
balance of the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed to
Authorized Claimants. The checks for distribution to Authorized
Claimants will bear the notation "CASH PROMPTLY, VOID AND SUBJECT
TO RE-DISTRIBUTION 180 DAYS AFTER ISSUE DATE." The Plaintiffs'
Counsel and SCS are authorized to locate and/or contact any
Authorized Claimant, who has not cashed his, her, or its check
within said time. Authorized Claimants, who fail to deposit or cash
a distribution check within the time allotted or consistent with
the terms outlined, will irrevocably forfeit all recovery from the
Settlement.
Pursuant to Section 7.3 of the Stipulation, the Net Settlement Fund
will be distributed to Authorized Claimants in accordance with the
terms of the Plan of Allocation set forth in the Notice and any
orders of the Court. Furthermore, pursuant to section 7.6 of the
Stipulation, "If any funds remain in the Net Settlement Fund by
reason of uncashed checks or otherwise, then, after the Claims
Administrator has made reasonable and diligent efforts to have
Authorized Claimants who are entitled to participate in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund cash their distribution
checks, any balance remaining in the Net Settlement Fund six (6)
months after the initial distribution of such funds shall be used:
(i) first, to pay any amounts mistakenly omitted from the initial
distribution to Authorized Claimants who receive at least a $10.00
payment; (ii) second, to pay any additional Administrative Costs
incurred in administering the Settlement; and (iii) finally, to
make a second distribution to Authorized Claimants who cashed their
checks from the initial distribution and who would receive at least
$10.00 from such second distribution, after payment of the
estimated costs or fees to be incurred in administering the Net
Settlement Fund and in making this second distribution, if such
second distribution is economically feasible. If any funds shall
remain in the Net Settlement Fund six months after such second
distribution, then such balance shall be contributed to a
non-sectarian charity or any not-for-profit successor of it chosen
by Class Counsel."
The Court approves Class Counsel's choice of the Howard University
Investor Justice & Education Clinic for the distribution of such
funds that remain in the Net Settlement Fund six months after such
second distribution.
All persons involved in the review, verification, calculation,
tabulation, or any other aspect of the processing of claims, or
otherwise involved in the administration or taxation of the
Settlement Fund or the Net Settlement Fund, are released and
discharged from any and all claims arising out of such involvement,
and all Class Members, whether or not they are to receive payment
from the Net Settlement Fund, are barred from making any further
claim against the Net Settlement Fund or the released person beyond
the amount allocated to them pursuant to this Order.
SCS is authorized to destroy the paper copies of the Claim Forms
and all supporting documentation (i) in no less than one (1) year
after the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, and (ii) in no
less than one (1) year after all funds have been distributed, SCS
is authorized to destroy the electronic copies of the Claim Forms
and all supporting documentation.
The Court retains jurisdiction over any further application or
matter which may arise in connection with this action.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yrz8wrhh from PacerMonitor.com.
[*] Class Action Settlements Exceed $40-BB for Third Year in a Row
------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk & Insurance reports that Class action lawsuit settlements hit
record levels for the third consecutive year in 2024, with emerging
trends like PFAS-related claims and reverse discrimination suits
likely to shape the litigation landscape, according to a review by
Duane Morris LLP.
"With a robust pro-plaintiff litigation environment, it is clear
that class action litigation represents an increased financial risk
for companies," said Duane Morris partner Gerald L. Maatman Jr.,
co-author of the review and chair of the firm's class action
defense practice team. "Plus, we are seeing the class action
landscape as increasingly plaintiff-friendly in key areas,
including data privacy and data breaches, and diversity and ESG
initiatives."
In 2024, class action settlements totaled $42 billion, solidifying
a trend of massive payouts, according to the report. While
significant, this figure actually represents a slight decline from
the previous two years. In 2023, class action settlements totaled
$51.4 billion, while 2022 saw an even more remarkable $66 billion
in settlements.
"Combined, the class action settlement total for the past three
years of $159.4 billion reflects use of the class action mechanism
to redistribute wealth at an unprecedented level," the report
stated.
In 2024, parties agreed to resolve 10 class actions for $1 billion
or more, the report found. The number of billion-dollar settlements
in 2024 surpassed the number in 2023 (9), falling short only of the
number of billion-dollar settlements in 2022 (15).
In 2024, rich settlement numbers spanned nearly every area of class
action litigation, Duane Morris found. The cumulative value of the
10 highest settlements in each of the five largest areas of class
action litigation last year were:
-- Products liability class actions: $23.40 billion (down from
$25.82 billion in 2023).
-- Antitrust class actions: $8.412 billion (down from $11.14
billion).
-- Securities fraud class actions: $2.55 billion (down from $5.40
billion).
-- Consumer fraud class actions: $2.44 billion (down from $3.29
billion).
-- Privacy class actions: $2.01 billion (up from $1.32 billion).
Among 10 class action trends detailed in the report, Duane Morris
highlighted four key areas of concern:
PFAS Litigation
The legal landscape in 2024 saw a significant surge in PFAS-related
class actions, with these "forever chemicals" inspiring some of the
most attention-grabbing headlines across the industry, the report
noted.
PFAS litigation generated the largest class action settlement of
the year, 3M Co.'s offer of $10.3 billion to settle PFAS claims of
public water systems across the U.S. This record-breaking case
resulted in an unprecedented attorneys' fee award of nearly $1
billion. Such staggering figures are likely to fuel a continued
wave of PFAS class actions, as plaintiffs target more companies
with claims related to products or packaging containing these
chemicals, according to the report.
Reverse Discrimination Claims
The aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Students
for Fair Admission, which struck down affirmative action in college
admissions, has sparked a flood of claims targeting diversity,
equity, and inclusion programs, per the report. Over the past year,
headlines were replete with cases of employees and applicants
accusing employers of prioritizing diversity over merit and
improperly using protected characteristics in decision-making
processes.
A rare class action trial in California, Palmer, et al. v.
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp., resulted in a jury finding a
technology firm liable for engaging in a pattern of intentional
discrimination against Caucasian and non-Indian employees in its
termination and deployment decisions. The legal community is now
closely watching a pending Supreme Court decision that could
resolve a federal circuit split over whether members of a majority
group alleging "reverse discrimination" must meet a higher burden
of proof, potentially opening the courthouse doors to more such
claims, the report stated.
Data Privacy and Breach Claims
Data breach litigation reached new heights in 2024, with more class
actions filed than in any previous year. The number of class action
filings reached 1,488 in 2024, more than double 604 filings in
2022, reflecting the growing concern over data security and
privacy.
Despite this surge, courts issued only five class certification
decisions in 2024, suggesting that many motions are still in the
pipeline or that plaintiffs are opting to settle their claims
before reaching this crucial juncture, according to Duane Morris.
The continued willingness of defendants to settle is likely to fuel
further growth in this area.
As technology continues to permeate daily life, the focus of
privacy claims has shifted, according to the report. While
biometric information privacy claims have plateaued, new theories
inspired by internet use have gained traction. Lawsuits alleging
improper sharing of users' private information through website
activity tracking tools, such as tracking pixels, have become
increasingly common across various industries.
Although some of these cases have been dismissed early, others have
resulted in sizable settlements, signaling continued investment in
this area by the plaintiffs' bar, the report noted.
In addition, in the absence of a federal comprehensive privacy law,
there are currently 19 states that have passed comprehensive
privacy laws.
California's Unique Class Action Environment
The Golden State continues to be at the forefront of class action
litigation, with the California Private Attorneys General Act
(PAGA) playing a pivotal role in shaping the legal landscape,
according to the report. Recent statistics reveal a staggering
growth in PAGA notices, highlighting California's distinctive
position in the realm of employment law.
In 2024, plaintiffs filed a record 9,464 PAGA notices, a 22%
increase from the previous year. This surge becomes even more
notable when compared to a mere 11 notices filed in 2006,
representing an astronomical 85,936% increase over an 18-year
period, the report noted. These figures underscore the growing
popularity of PAGA as a legal tool for employees seeking to address
workplace violations.
Despite the passage of PAGA reform legislation in 2024, the impact
on curbing the influx of cases appears minimal. The new law has
seemingly done little to dampen the enthusiasm for PAGA claims,
which continue to serve as a viable workaround to workplace
arbitration agreements, the report stated. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2025. 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 ***