/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250124.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, January 24, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 18 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Abbott Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Austin Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Burkiett Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Carter Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Clements Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: LeRoux Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Lindsey Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Miller Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Nacu Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Nielander Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Orr Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Pacheco Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Polanski Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foam 3M COMPANY: Reid Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ACTIVE PACKET: Vanderschoot Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Hossfeld Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ALSCO UNIFORMS: Rubalcava Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ASTRALS LLC: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval AUDI OF AMERICA: Sued Over Vehicles' Battery Defect, Fire Risk BERRY GLOBAL: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With AMCOR PLC BLOCK INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiffs Deadline Set March 18 BRIDGES PROFESSIONAL: Romero Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CAPRI HOLDINGS: Faruqi Investigates Potential Securities Claims CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Chavez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CINEMARK USA: Aviles Suit Removed to C.D. California DELOITTE CONSULTING: Morales Sues Over Compromised Clients' PII/PHI DETROIT TIGERS: Jones Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation DHALIWAL BROTHERS: Collins Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DHL EXPRESS: Hill Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation FEDERAL BAR: Day Appeals Case Dismissal to 8th Circuit FIAT CHRYSLER: Paris Sues Over Jeep Vehicles' Underhood Fire Risks FTAI AVIATION: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit GOODRX INC: Controls Prices Paid to Pharmacies, Pressman Claims HAILE GOLD: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Spencer Suit Says HIGHGATE HOTELS: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Oliver Suit Says INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit KANSAS CITY LIFE: McMillan Wins Bid forClass Certification KIA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Defective Fuel Systems LEHIGH UNIV: Neubert Seeks Class Settlement Prelim. Approval LEHIGH VALLEY: Talamonti Alleges Unlawful Tip Credit Practices LENDINGTREE LLC: Sapan Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action LGBCOIN LTD: Bid to Compel Discovery Denied w/o Prejudice LITTLE CAESAR: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 7 LYFT INC: Judge Dismisses Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit MARS PETCARE: Underpays Area Coordinators, Minn Suit Alleges MASTERCARD INC: Settles Employment Discrimination Claims for $26MM MDL 2873: Boucher Suit Alleges Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Faces Crosson Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Faces Feher Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Faces Green Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Faces Lamey Suit Over Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Film-Forming Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Kiley Says MDL 2873: Kinney Alleges Injury Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Lewis Suit Alleges Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Payne Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure MDL 2873: Preusz Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure MDL 2873: Simmons Suit Alleges Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Starcher Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure MICHAEL KORS: Waldner Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Settles 2023 Data Breach Class Action MONSANTO COMPANY: Kim Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: McDaniel Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Sechen Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Simon Suit Transferred to N.D. California NEW YORK LIFE: TikTok Software Collects Info, Mitchener Says NEW YORK, NY: Officers Sue Over Unpaid Off-Duty Security Jobs OTO ANALYTICS: Richardson Sues Over Stockholders' Buyout Damages PACIRA BIOSCIENCES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set March 14 PAPA JOHN'S: Faces Tucker Suit Over Online Store's Access Barriers PERMIAN RESOURCES: Artificially Inflates Crude Oil Price, Suit Says POLESTAR AUTOMOTIVE: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims PROCTER & GAMBLE: Perkins Sues Over Melatonin Products' False Label PRODIGAL COMPANY: Fiorito Appeals Ruling to 8th Circuit PUMP.FUN: Faces Class Action Over Breached Securities Regulations QUANTERIX CORP: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Radtke Sues Over Decline of Stock Price REPUBLIC SERVICES: CIS Communication Seeks Class Certification ROSE HILLS: Files 9th Cir. Appeal in Perez Labor Suit SKIL POWER: Faces Suit Over Defective Outdoor Power Products SMAO LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Henry Alleges ST. AGNES HEALTHCARE: Smith Suit Seeks Caregivers' Unpaid Wages SUPER ATV: Schallert Alleges Illegal Personal Info Collection TUNGRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims UNITED STATES: Settlement Reached in Discrimination Class Suit UNITED STATES: Trent Capital Petitions EPA's TCE Rule to 11th Cir. UTAH HIGH: Court Extends Class Cert-Related Deadlines WALGREENS BOOTS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims WESTECH SECURITY: Faces Rodriguez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. WHOLE FOODS MARKET: Lovera Suit Removed to S.D. New York WORKSTEPS INC: Ragland Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio WYCKOFF INN: Murrillo Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages [] CLASS ACTION MONEY & ETHICS CONFERENCE: Register Now! Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Risks UK Lawsuit Over Talcum Powder ********* 3M COMPANY: Abbott Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael F. Abbott, individually and as personal representative for Decedent, David Edwin Tipton, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P. as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-07066-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 6, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF and or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to it where it remains and persists over extended periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remains in the human body while contemporaneously 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 the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF 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. 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. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq. RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP 225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110 Atlanta, GA 30624 Phone: 404-381-2888 Email: buck@lawrsd.com 3M COMPANY: Austin Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Maurice Austin, 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.; 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.; 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; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE 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., Case No. 2:24-cv-07232-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 10, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by 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. 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 thyroid 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: James Ryan Ziminskas, Esq. THEMIS LAW, PLLC 7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 105 Austin, TX 78731 Phone: (737) 208-1636 Email: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com 3M COMPANY: Burkiett Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams -------------------------------------------------------------- Nathan Walker Burkiett, 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.; 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.; 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; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE 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., Case No. 2:24-cv-07184-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 10, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by 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. 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 thyroid disease. 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: James Ryan Ziminskas, Esq. THEMIS LAW, PLLC 7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 105 Austin, TX 78731 Phone: (737) 208-1636 Email: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com 3M COMPANY: Carter Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ------------------------------------------------------------ Wade Carter, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No. 2:24-cv-07531-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 20, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air, and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS, PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS. 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 man-made compounds that are persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and safety. 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. Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff, and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's service in the United States Navy. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Phone (305) 375-0111 Email: james@ferrarolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Clements Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------ David Clements, 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.; 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.; 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; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE 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., Case No. 2:24-cv-07186-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 10, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by 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. 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: James Ryan Ziminskas, Esq. THEMIS LAW, PLLC 7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 105 Austin, TX 78731 Phone: (737) 208-1636 Email: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com 3M COMPANY: LeRoux Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey LeRoux, 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-06514-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: Lindsey Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals --------------------------------------------------------- Edward Lindsey and Jesseca Lindsey, his wife, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE 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; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case No. 2:24-cv-06529-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 15, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio-persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Edward Lindsey regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career in the U.S. Army. and was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis and/or other medical related conditions as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq. John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq. KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC 2 Bridge Ave, Suite 623 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Phone: 732-224-9400 Facsimile: 732-224-9494 3M COMPANY: Miller Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Miller, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No. 2:24-cv-06737-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 21, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air, and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS, PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS. 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 man-made compounds that are persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and safety. 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. Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff, and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's service in the United States Marine Corp. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Phone (305) 375-0111 Email: james@ferrarolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Nacu Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ---------------------------------------------------------- Andresito Nacu, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No. 2:24-cv-06770-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 21, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air, and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS, PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS. 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 man-made compounds that are persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and safety. 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. Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff, and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's service in the United States Navy. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Phone (305) 375-0111 Email: james@ferrarolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Nielander Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ----------------------------------------------------------- Franklin Nielander, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No. 2:24-cv-06755-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 21, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air, and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS, PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS. 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 man-made compounds that are persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and safety. 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. Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff, and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's service in the United States Air Force. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Phone (305) 375-0111 Email: james@ferrarolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Orr Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ------------------------------------------------------------- Jessie Orr, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No. 2:24-cv-06743-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 21, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air, and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS, PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS. 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 man-made compounds that are persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and safety. 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. Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff, and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's service in the United States Marine Corp. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Phone (305) 375-0111 Email: james@ferrarolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Pacheco Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ------------------------------------------------------------- Frank Pacheco, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No. 2:24-cv-06756-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 21, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air, and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS, PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS. 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 man-made compounds that are persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and safety. 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. Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff, and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's service in the United States Air Force. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Phone (305) 375-0111 Email: james@ferrarolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Polanski Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foam ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dariusz Polanski, 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-06497-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: Reid Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams -------------------------------------------------------------- Deronte Reid, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No. 2:24-cv-06761-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 21, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air, and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS, PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS. 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 man-made compounds that are persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and safety. 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. Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff, and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's service in the United States Army. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Phone (305) 375-0111 Email: james@ferrarolaw.com ACTIVE PACKET: Vanderschoot Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------------ Loren Vanderschoot, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. ACTIVE PACKET, LLC., and CHAD LOWE, individually, Case No. 3:25-cv-00012-MJN-PBS (S.D. Ohio, Jan. 14, 2025), is brought for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid minimum wages, breach of agreement for unpaid expenses, liquidated damages, and all other applicable relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and state law. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees are/were non exempt employees and therefore entitled to overtime wages for any and all overtime hours worked and minimum wages. The Defendants failed to comply with the FLSA because Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees performed services for Defendants for which no provisions were made by Defendants to properly pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for all overtime hours worked and Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not paid full minimum wages in some weeks. The Defendants misclassified Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees as salaried employees and did not pay them overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work week during one or more work weeks, in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants since April 2023 as an Installer. ACTIVE operates as an information technology company that installs network and WiFi systems in hotels.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Corey Asay, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS, LLP 312 Walnut Street, Suite 1600 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: 513-318-4496 - and - C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 420-1414 Fax: (407) 245-3401 Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Hossfeld Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Robert Hossfeld, Wes Newman, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Allstate Insurance Company, Heap Inc., Case No. 5:24-mc-01369 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Jan. 14, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00388 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. The Allstate Corporation -- http://www.allstate.com/-- is an American insurance company, headquartered in Northfield Township, Illinois, near Northbrook, since 1967.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. The Defendant is represented by: James E. Rogers, Esq. AKERMAN LLP 1300 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 2300 Houston, TX 77056 Phone: (713) 623-0887 Email: james.rogers@akerman.com ALSCO UNIFORMS: Rubalcava Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ MARIA RUBALCAVA, as an individual and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. ALSCO UNIFORMS, a Nevada corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV00345 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 6, 2025) is a representative action brought against the Defendant for recovery of civil penalties under California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages for all hours worked; failure to pay all earned overtime compensation; failure to provide all legally required meal periods; failure to authorize and permit all legally required rest periods; failure to furnish with complete, accurate, itemized wage statements; failure to pay all earned wages at least twice during each calendar month; and failure to maintain accurate records. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in the non-exempt job position of "Sorter," which consists of moving and sorting linens. She has been employed by Defendants from approximately 2012 until the present. Alsco Uniforms provides uniform and linen laundry services for healthcare, industrial & hospitality businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Sean M. Blakely, Esq. Joel M. Gordon, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com sblakely@haineslawgroup.com jgordon@haineslawgroup.com ASTRALS LLC: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- The Moskowitz Law Firm, PLLC announces the preliminary approval of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers and legal title holders of Astrals Non-Fungible Tokens or Galaxy Tokens: On January 14, 2025, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida preliminarily approved a proposed settlement of a class action captioned Harper v. O'Neal, Case No. 23-CV-21912-MORENO. The settlement class includes persons and entities who, from May 24, 2022 to January 14, 2025, purchased Astrals NFTS and/or who, before January 14, 2025, purchased GLXY tokens. Claims for settlement benefits must be submitted by April 17, 2025. Objections to the settlement and requests for exclusion from the settlement must be received by March 3, 2025 in accordance with the instructions in the Class Notice, which is posted on the settlement website www.astralsnftsettlement.com. The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on April 1, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. For more information about the settlement and its terms please visit www.astralsnftsettlement.com. If you have questions about any matter in this Class Notice, please contact the following representative of Class Counsel, who can answer questions: Adam M. Moskowitz The Moskowitz Law Firm, PLLC P.O. Box 653409 Miami, FL 33175 (305) 740-1423 adam@moskowitz-law.com service@moskowitz-law.com [GN] AUDI OF AMERICA: Sued Over Vehicles' Battery Defect, Fire Risk -------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit has been filed over an alleged defect that can cause the batteries in certain Audi e-tron SUV electric vehicles (EVs) to lose power spontaneously or catch fire while driving. The 69-page lawsuit says the apparent battery defect poses an unreasonable safety risk to consumers and can be found in the following vehicle models: -- 2019-2022 Audi e-tron Quattro; -- 2020-2022 Audi e-tron Sportback Quattro; -- 2022-2024 Audi RS e-tron GT; and -- 2022-2024 Audi e-tron GT. The filing claims that several thousand affected Audi e-tron vehicles have been subject to piecemeal recalls beginning in December 2023 and most recently in September 2024. However, per the case, the recalls have failed to address the alleged defect's root cause or offer an adequate repair for the faulty part. Instead, the case says, the recalls instruct Audi e-tron drivers not to charge their vehicle past 80 percent capacity until a software update can be installed at an unknown date in 2025. "This limitation will result in a reduction of the advertised range and require owners to charge their Class Vehicles more frequently at inconvenient times and locations," the suit contends. The suit explains that the software update will apparently allow Audi and parent company Volkswagen Group of America to monitor data from the impacted EVs for any irregularities in the battery. If an anomaly is detected, the dashboard will display a warning message, the battery's charging capacity will be limited temporarily and Audi says it will replace the affected battery modules, the filing relays. "Apart from the failure to address the serious risk of fire posed by the Battery Defect now, there is no certainty as to when the diagnostic software update will be available and whether it will be sufficient," the case contends. "But even if the software update can successfully discover all data anomalies and predict a problem -- which is an open question that won't be answered, at best, for months -- Defendants admit that the batteries may have problems in the future by virtue of the monitoring that Audi dealers need to undertake." According to the case, the automakers have known of the apparent defect since at least April 2020, when they received the first of several reports from drivers whose high voltage lithium-ion batteries overheated and caused a fire. Despite this, the defendants have actively concealed the dangerous issue from owners and lessees in their advertisements and promotional materials, the complaint argues. The lawsuit claims Audi's deficient response to the alleged defect leaves drivers with a "ticking time bomb." "[The defendants] have left their customers with two terrible choices: owners can decide to stop driving their vehicles for which they paid approximately $70,000 or more, or they can continue driving the e-trons at the risk of losing power while driving on a highway or, even worse, experiencing a fire," the case says. The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in Georgia who has owned or leased one of the Audi e-tron EVs listed above as of January 3, 2024. [GN] BERRY GLOBAL: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With AMCOR PLC ------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Berry Global Group, Inc. (NYSE: BERY), relating to the proposed merger with AMCOR plc. Under the terms of the agreement, Berry shareholders will receive a fixed exchange ratio of 7.25 Amcor shares for each Berry share held upon closing, resulting in Amcor and Berry shareholders owning approximately 63% and 37% of the combined company, respectively. Click link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/berry-global-group-inc-bery/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Singular Genomics Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: OMIC), relating to the proposed merger with Deerfield Management Company, L.P. Under the terms of the agreement, Deerfield will acquire Singular Genomics in an all-cash transaction for $20.00 per share. Click link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/singular-genomics-systems-inc-omic/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- EMCORE Corporation (NASDAQ: EMKR), relating to its proposed merger with Velocity One Holdings, LP. Under the terms of the agreement, EMCORE stockholders will receive $3.10 per share of EMCORE common stock they own. Click link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/emcore-corporation-emkr/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- AMCOR plc (NYSE: AMCR), relating to the proposed merger with Berry Global Group, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Berry shareholders will receive a fixed exchange ratio of 7.25 Amcor shares for each Berry share held upon closing, resulting in Amcor and Berry shareholders owning approximately 63% and 37% of the combined company, respectively. Click link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/amcor-plc-amcr/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] BLOCK INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiffs Deadline Set March 18 --------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of Block, Inc. (NYSE: SQ) Class A common stock between February 26, 2020 and April 30, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until March 18, 2025 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Block class action lawsuit. Captioned Gonsalves v. Block, Inc., No. 25-00642 (N.D. Cal.), the Block class action lawsuit charges Block and certain of Block's top executive officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Block class action lawsuit, please provide your information here: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-block-class-action-lawsuit-sq.html You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at info@rgrdlaw.com. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Block is a financial technology conglomerate. Block's inaugural product is Square, a financial services platform for small and medium-sized businesses. Block later launched Cash App (f/k/a "Square Cash"), a mobile payment service that allows users to transfer money using a mobile phone. The Block class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Block had engaged in widespread and years-long compliance lapses at Square and Cash App, including by failing to conduct basic due diligence regarding its customers' identities or the nature of customer transactions so as to prevent the platforms from being used for illegal or illicit activities; (ii) Block had effectively created a haven for widespread illegal and illicit activities on its Square and Cash App platforms by imposing minimal obligations on customers seeking to open accounts, transact, and deposit or withdraw funds; encouraging the use of bitcoin; and pressuring Block's banking partners to forgo ordinary know your customer due diligence activities; (iii) thousands of transactions on Square and Cash App were made in connection with a wide variety of illegal and illicit activities, including, inter alia, money laundering, child sexual abuse, sex trafficking, drug trafficking, terrorism financing, contract killings, and illicit payments to entities and persons subject to economic sanctions; (iv) Block allowed its customers to withdraw funds even after the accounts had been flagged for potentially illegal or illicit activities; (v) Block customers could open up multiple accounts using fake identities in order to engage in illegal or illicit activities; (vi) Block's senior leadership and the Board of Directors had failed to correct identified compliance deficiencies despite numerous red flags, internal employee reports of deficiencies, and customer complaints; (vii) Block's Cash App user metrics had been artificially inflated through the use of fake accounts and the ability of criminals and other bad actors to open multiple accounts; and (viii) as a result of the above, Block was subject to a material, undisclosed risk of its conduct being exposed, thereby exposing Block to reputational harm, adverse regulatory actions, the loss of business activity, and adverse impacts to Block's operations and financial results. On March 23, 2023, Hindenburg Research published a damaging exposé on Block titled: "Block: How Inflated User Metrics and ‘Frictionless' Fraud Facilitation Enabled Insiders To Cash Out Over $1 Billion." On this news, the price of Block Class A common stock fell nearly 15%. Then, on August 3, 2023, Block disclosed that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice were investigating the allegations against Block and its employees contained in the Hindenburg Research report. On this news, the price of Block Class A common stock fell nearly 14%. Thereafter, on February 16, 2024, NBC News reported that federal regulators were probing allegations by two whistleblowers that Cash App performed inadequate due diligence on its users -- including "‘no effective procedure to establish the[ir] identity'" -- opening the door to potential money laundering, terrorism financing, and other illegal and illicit activities. On this news, the price of Block Class A common stock fell more than 5%. Finally, on May 1, 2024, NBC News reported that federal prosecutors were investigating Block due to allegations by a former employee that Block had engaged in widespread and years-long compliance lapses at its two main units, Square and Cash App. Reportedly, the employee had provided prosecutors with internal Block documents demonstrating that Block had failed to conduct basic due diligence on its customers, that Square had processed thousands of transactions involving countries subject to economic sanctions (including Cuba, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela), and that Block had processed multiple cryptocurrency transactions for terrorist groups. On this news, the price of Block Class A common stock fell more than 8%. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. You can view a copy of the complaint by clicking here. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Block Class A common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Block class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Block class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Block class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Block class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud cases. Our Firm has been #1 in the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for six out of the last ten years for securing the most monetary relief for investors. We recovered $6.6 billion for investors in securities-related class action cases -- over $2.2 billion more than any other law firm in the last four years. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contact: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP J.C. Sanchez, Jennifer N. Caringal 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101 (800) 449-4900 info@rgrdlaw.com [GN] BRIDGES PROFESSIONAL: Romero Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BRIDGES PROFESSIONAL TREATMENT SERVICES, et al. The case is styled as Rodrigo Romero, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BRIDGES PROFESSIONAL TREATMENT SERVICES, Does 1-100, Case No. 25CV000830 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 10, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Bridges Professional Treatment Services -- https://www.bridgesinc.net/ -- is dedicated to providing the highest quality individualized treatment in a caring and compassionate environment.[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 CAPRI HOLDINGS: Faruqi Investigates Potential Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- WGNO reports that Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against Capri Holdings Limited ("Capri" or the "Company") (NYSE: CPRI) and reminds investors of the February 21, 2025 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading national securities law firm with offices in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors since its founding in 1995. See www.faruqilaw.com. As detailed below, the complaint alleges that the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (i) the accessible luxury handbag market is a distinct and well-defined market within the overall handbag market and understood as such by the individual defendants, as well as by other Capri and Tapestry executives; (ii) Capri and Tapestry maintained analogous production facilities and supply chains for their accessible luxury handbags that were distinct from the production facilities and supply chains used to manufacture luxury or mass market handbags, confirming that the accessible luxury handbag market is distinct from the mass market and luxury handbag markets; (iii) Capri and Tapestry internally considered Coach and Michael Kors to be each other's closest and most direct competitors; (iv) that, conversely, Capri and Tapestry did not internally consider their handbag brands to be in direct competition with luxury handbags or mass market handbags; (v) a primary internal rationale for the Capri acquisition was to consolidate prevalent brands within the accessible luxury handbag market so as to reduce competition, increase prices, improve profit margins, and reduce consumer choice within that market; and (vi) as a result of the above, the risk of adverse regulatory actions and/or the Capri acquisition being blocked was materially higher than represented by defendants. The Capri class action lawsuit further alleges that after a seven-day hearing, on October 24, 2024, Judge Jennifer L. Rochon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's motion to preliminarily enjoin the Capri acquisition. In doing so, the court determined, among other things, that a "substantial body of compelling evidence" demonstrated that, in contrast to their public statements, defendants themselves believed that their brands were direct competitors in a well-defined "accessible luxury handbag market." On this news, the price of Capri stock fell by nearly 50%. The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Capri's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. To learn more about the Capri Holdings class action, go to www.faruqilaw.com/CPRI or call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your particular case. All communications will be treated in a confidential manner. A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/fde2fe7b-165f-4f25-b274-82a516dcf056 [GN] CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Chavez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Cheesecake Factory Bakery Incorporated. The case is styled as Cecilio Chavez, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Cheesecake Factory Bakery Incorporated, Case No. 25STCV00878 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 14, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." The Cheesecake Factory Bakery -- https://www.thecheesecakefactorybakery.com/ -- is a global brand dedicated to creating premium, indulgent cheesecakes, layer cakes and specialty items.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Jason W. Rothman, 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 Jason@tomorrowlaw.com CINEMARK USA: Aviles Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jerry Aviles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CINEMARK USA, INC., a Texas corporation, Case No. 24CV06538 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Barbara, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 10, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00268. The Plaintiff asserts a single claim for violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"). Plaintiff alleges that he is a "tester" who works to ensure that companies are abiding by CIPA and that he visited Defendant's website multiple times, most recently in "mid-2024." The Plaintiff claims Defendant installed "Tealium Software" ("Tealium") that, upon his visit to its website, "fingerprinted" his personal information to be shared with third parties. The Plaintiff contends that Tealium constitutes a "trap and trace" device. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's installation of Tealium without his consent violated the CIPA.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Joshua D. Lichtman, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 555 South Flower Street, Forty-First Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 892-9200 Facsimile: (213) 892-9494 Email: joshua.lichtman@nortonrosefulbright.com - and - Michael A. Swartzendruber, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600 Dallas, TX 75201-7932 Phone: (214) 855-8000 Facsimile: (214) 855-8200 Email: michael.swartzendruber@nortonrosefulbright.com DELOITTE CONSULTING: Morales Sues Over Compromised Clients' PII/PHI ------------------------------------------------------------------- LUCIANO MORALES, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00010-JJM-LDA (D.R.I., January 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence and negligence per se, third party beneficiary, breach of bailment, and invasion of privacy. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and the protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated clients stored within its network systems following a data breach. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Deloitte Consulting LLP is a management consulting company, with its principal place of business in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK 1307 Chalkstone Avenue Providence, RI 02908 Telephone: (401) 831-7730 Facsimile: (401) 861-6064 Email: pnwlaw@aol.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com DETROIT TIGERS: Jones Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------ Derron Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DETROIT TIGERS, INC., a Michigan corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-10136-BRM-APP (E.D. Mich., Jan. 14, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, he was eligible for and received various shift premiums and non-discretionary bonuses. As non-exempt employees, Defendant's hourly employees were entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times their "regular rate" of pay. The Plaintiff is entitled to overtime pay equal to 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff had regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week and have been paid some overtime for those hours but at a rate that does not include Defendant's shift premiums and other non-discretionary remuneration as required by the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed with Defendant from March 12, 2017 through August 6, 2024. The Defendant is a Michigan corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com - and - Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Laura Supanich, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 824-3828 Email: jm@melmedlaw.com lms@melmedlaw.com DHALIWAL BROTHERS: Collins Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dhaliwal Brothers Trucking, Inc. The case is styled as Aundreal Lakesia Collins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WM Corporate Services, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0016576 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Nov. 27, 2024). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Dhaliwal Brothers Trucking, Inc. is a Trucking company in Stockton, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jenny D. Baysinger, Esq. MAYALL HURLEY P.C. 112 S. Church St. Lodi, CA 95240-3501 Phone: 209-477-3833 Fax: 209-473-4818 Email: jbaysinger@mayallaw.com DHL EXPRESS: Hill Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation -------------------------------------------------------- Deshon Hill, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DHL EXPRESS (USA) INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00036-JLG-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Jan. 15, 2025), is brought challenging policies and practices of Defendant that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as well as the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA"), as a result of the Defendant violation of the FLSA and Ohio law by failing to pay Plaintiffs all overtime compensation earned. The Plaintiff and others similarly situated routinely worked through unpaid meal breaks, or were interrupted by work during the unpaid break, which resulted in unpaid compensable time, and therefore overtime violations in weeks when they worked 40 or more hours. The Defendant has a company-wide policy of deducting, or causing to be deducted, 30 minutes for unpaid meal breaks. These deductions are made regardless of whether the drivers, including Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated actually took their meal breaks at all or when the meal breaks were otherwise interrupted by work duties, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as hourly non-exempt delivery driver employees. The Defendant is a transportation and logistics services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 1360 East 9th Street, Ste. 808 Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher St NW, Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Phone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com FEDERAL BAR: Day Appeals Case Dismissal to 8th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------ ROGER J. DAY is taking an appeal from a court order denying his motion for reconsideration in the lawsuit entitled Roger J. Day, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cheryl Lynn Bailey, Federal Bar Association, Janet Silversmith and Elizabeth Cowan Wright, Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-04122-ECT, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). On Dec. 3, 2024, Judge Eric C. Tostrud entered an Order dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice. On Jan. 3, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider the Dec. 3 Order, which Judge Tostrud denied on Jan. 6, 2025. The appellate case is captioned Roger Day v. Cheryl Bailey, et al., Case No. 25-1023, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on January 6, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Roger J. Day, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appears pro se. FIAT CHRYSLER: Paris Sues Over Jeep Vehicles' Underhood Fire Risks ------------------------------------------------------------------ STAN PARIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIAT CHRYSLER AUTOMOBILES (FCA) US, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-10045-FKB-KGA (E.D. Mich., January 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's sale of defective 2020-2024 Jeep Wrangler, 2021-2023 Jeep Gladiator, and 2022-2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles. According to the complaint, the Class vehicles are at risk of vehicle fires due to a defect in the power steering pump electrical connector and/or the high voltage battery, that can cause underhood fires when the Class vehicles are parked, the ignition is in an "OFF" state or being driven. Had the Plaintiff and Class members known of the underhood fire risks, they would not have purchased or leased the Class vehicles or would have paid substantially less for them, asserts the suit. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) US, LLC is an automobile manufacturer based in Auburn Hills, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth R. Chadwell, Esq. MANTESE HONIGMAN, PC 1361 E. Big Beaver Road Troy, MI 48083 Telephone: (248) 457-9200 Facsimile: (248) 457-9201 Email: kchadwell@manteselaw.com FTAI AVIATION: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Shannahan v. FTAI Aviation Ltd., et al., Case No. 25-cv-541, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired FTAI Aviation Ltd. ("FTAI" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: FTAI) securities between July 23, 2024 and January 15, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have until March 18, 2025 to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. IF YOU SUFFERED A LOSS ON YOUR FTAI INVESTMENTS, CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT A CLAIM TO POTENTIALLY RECOVER YOUR LOSSES IN THE ONGOING SECURITIES FRAUD LAWSUIT. What Happened? On January 15, 2025, Muddy Waters Research published a report alleging, among other things, that "FTAI materially manipulates its financials" by "exaggerating the size of its aftermarket aerospace business", "misleading investors by presenting whole engine sales as individual module sales", "inflating Aerospace Products' EBITDA margins by means of over-depreciation in the leasing segment", and "engaging in channel stuffing". On this news, FTAI's stock price fell $37.21, or 24.3%, to close at $116.08 per share on January 15, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. What Is The Lawsuit About? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) the Company reported one-time engine sales as Maintenance Repair & Overhaul revenue when FTAI only performs limited repair and maintenance work on the engine assets sold; (2) FTAI presents whole engine sales as individual module sales, thereby overstating sales and demand; (3) the Company depreciates engines that are not on lease, which misleadingly lowers the reported cost of goods sold and inflates EBITDA; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired FTAI securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. Contact Us To Participate or Learn More: If you purchased FTAI securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact us at: Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz 212 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 Email: info@frankcruzlaw.com Visit our website at: www.frankcruzlaw.com This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.[GN] GOODRX INC: Controls Prices Paid to Pharmacies, Pressman Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- PRESSMAN, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOODRX, INC., GOODRX HOLDINGS, INC., CVS CAREMARK CORPORATION, EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDING COMPANY, MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC., and NAVITUS HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00115 (E.D.N.Y., January 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Sherman Act. The case arises from the Defendants' conspiracy to artificially suppress the rebates and reimbursement rates for generic prescription medications sold in the United States under the GoodRx's Integrated Savings Program program. The Defendants exert their market power by employing various anticompetitive tactics to restrain competition in the prescription drug dispensing market, forcing independent pharmacies out of business and thereby increasing the market share of the pharmacy benefit managers' affiliated pharmacies. As a result of the Defendants' conduct, pharmacies were injured by receiving decreased reimbursement for dispensing generic prescription drugs and paying increased fees to PBMs and GoodRx resulting from discount card transactions. Pressman, Inc. is a pharmacy operator, with its principal place of business located in Florida. GoodRx, Inc. is a prescription drug price comparison tool provider, with its principal place of business in Santa Monica, California. GoodRx Holdings, Inc. is a prescription drug price comparison tool provider, with its principal place of business in Santa Monica, California. CVS Caremark Corporation is a pharmacy benefit manager with its headquarters in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. Express Scripts Holding Company is a pharmacy benefit manager with its headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri. MedImpact Healthcare Systems, Inc. is a pharmacy benefit manager with its headquarters in San Diego, California. Navitus Health Solutions, LLC is a pharmacy benefit manager with its headquarters in Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Reese, Esq. Carlos F. Ramirez, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Email: mreese@reesellp.com cramirez@reesellp.com HAILE GOLD: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Spencer Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- BRADLEY SPENCER, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HAILE GOLD MINE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00075-MGL (D.S.C., January 6, 2025) is a collective action to recover unpaid wages and other damages from Haile Gold Mine under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and the other hourly employees at least one and a half times their regular rates of pay -- based on all remuneration -- for all hours they work in excess of 40 a workweek. Instead, Haile pays Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees non-discretionary safety and production bonuses that Haile fails to include in these employees' regular rates of pay for the purpose of calculating their overtime rate, says the suit. Plaintiff Spencer was employed by the Defendant as an equipment operator from approximately July 2020 to June 2024. Haile Gold Mine, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Kershaw, South Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: T. Christopher Tuck, Esq. T.A.C. Hargrove II, Esq. ROGERS, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC 1037 Chuck Dawley Blvd., Building A Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 727-6500 Facsimile: (843) 216-6509 E-mail: ctuck@rpwb.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com HIGHGATE HOTELS: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Oliver Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- RACHEL OLIVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HIGHGATE HOTELS, LP, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00137 (S.D.N.Y., January 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence/negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and invasion of privacy/intrusion upon seclusion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated clients stored within its network systems following a data breach discovered on March 26, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, alleges the suit. Highgate Hotels, LP is a hotel management, investment, technology and development firm in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven Sukert, Esq. Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Facsimile: (954) 525-4300 Email: sukert@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Robbins LLP informs investors that a class action was filed on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. (NYSE: IIPR) securities between February 27, 2024 and December 19, 2024. IIPR is an internally managed real estate investment trust ("REIT") purportedly focused on the acquisition, ownership, and management of specialized properties leased to state-licensed operators for their regulated medical-use cannabis facilities. For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that Innovative Industrial properties, Inc. (IIPR) Misled Investors Regarding its Business Prospects According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) IIPR was experiencing significant declines in rent and property-management fees in connection with certain customer leases; (ii) the foregoing would likely impair the Company's ability to maintain FFO and revenue growth; (iii) accordingly, IIPR's leasing operations were less profitable than the Company had represented to investors; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the truth was revealed, the price of IIPR's stock declined significantly harming investors. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. Shareholders who want to serve as lead plaintiff for the class should contact Robbins LLP for information. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, click here. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action against Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Cision View original content to download multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/shareholder-alert-robbins-llp-informs-stockholders-of-the-innovative-industrial-properties-inc-class-action-302354668.html [GN] KANSAS CITY LIFE: McMillan Wins Bid forClass Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARRY A. MCMILLAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, V. KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:22-cv-01100-BAH (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Brendan Hurson entered an order that: 1) Plaintiff's motion for class certification is granted; 2) Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied; 3) Defendant's motion to supplement its opposition to the motion for class certification, is granted; 4) The Court certifies the following class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3): "All persons who own or owned a Better Life Plan, LifeTrack, AGP, MOP, PGP, Chapter One, Classic, Rightrack (89), Performer (88), Perfonner (91), Competitor (88), Competitor (91), Executive (88), Executive (91), Protector 50, LewerMax, Ultra 20 (93), Competitor II, Executive II, Performer II, Ultra 20 (96), or Century II VUL life insurance policy issued in the state of Maryland, that was issued or administered by Defendant or its predecessors in interest, and that was active on or after Jan. 1, 2002." Excluded from the Class are: Defendant Kansas City Life Insurance Company ("KCL"); any entity in which KCL has a controlling interest; any of the officers, directors, or employees ofKCL; the legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns ofKCL; anyone employed with Plaintiffs counsel's firms; and any Judge to whom this case is assigned, and his or her immediate family. 5) Counsel for Plaintiff, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP and Schirger Feierabend LLC, are appointed Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g); and 6) The parties are directed to confer and jointly submit a proposed amended scheduling order within 14 days of this order, per the most recent amended scheduling order. Kansas City Life is a public insurance company established in 1895. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sMgOpV at no extra charge.[CC] KIA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Defective Fuel Systems ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jessy Edwards of Top Class Actions reports that Hyundai and Kia are facing a new class action lawsuit. Why: The automakers are accused of selling vehicles with defective fuel systems. Where: The Hyundai and Kia class action lawsuit was filed in a California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Hyundai and Kia sold vehicles with defective fuel systems that can cause engine problems. Plaintiffs Timothy Masters and Michelle Frank-Crowder filed the class action complaint against Hyundai Motor Co., Hyundai Motor America Inc., Kia Motors Corp. and Kia Motors America Inc. on Jan. 9 in California federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. The plaintiffs claim the automakers sold vehicles with defective fuel systems that can cause engine problems and pose a safety risk to drivers and passengers. The plaintiffs allege that the fuel systems in the affected vehicles, including the evaporative emissions control system and the Engine Control Module, were designed and manufactured in a way that prevents gas vapors and air from being properly directed towards the intake manifold. Instead, the vapors build up in the fuel tank and other areas of the fuel system, leading to issues like poor engine performance, misfires, rough idling, lack of motive power, a fuel cap that is hard to remove, a noticeable fuel odor in the interior compartment, difficulty filling the gas tank, expansion or distortion of the fuel tank, and increased emissions, the Kia and Hyundai class action claims. The plaintiffs claim that the distortion of the fuel tank can be so severe that it causes loud popping noises and damages other parts of the vehicle, including dislodging the backseat and bending the vehicle's frame. The plaintiffs argue that the fuel system defect presents a significant safety hazard, as drivers may be unable to properly fuel their vehicles, lose power while driving, be distracted while driving and inhale excess emissions while in the vehicle. The defect also increases the likelihood of accidents, particularly when the vehicle loses power and suddenly slows while in motion, the lawsuit claims. The plaintiffs allege that Hyundai and Kia were aware of the defect but failed to disclose it to consumers. They claim that the automakers sold the affected vehicles with warranties that purported to cover the fuel system, but owners and lessees often had to pay for repairs or alternative transportation even when the vehicle was still under warranty. They are looking to represent anyone in the United States who purchased or leased a Hyundai or Kia vehicle equipped with a T-GDI 1.6L Gamma II engine, including 2020-2024 Hyundai Sonata and 2021-2024 Kia K5 vehicles. The plaintiffs are suing for breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, fraud, and violations of California and Illinois consumer protection laws and are seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. In November, Hyundai recalled more than 145,000 electric vehicles over concerns that the batteries might not charge properly, leading to a loss of drive power. The plaintiffs are represented by Cody R. Padgett, Majdi Hijazin and Nate N. Kiyam of Capstone Law APC; Russell D. Paul and Amey J. Park of Berger Montague PC; Greg Coleman, Will Ladnier and Adam Edwards of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman; and Scott R. Jeeves and Roger L. Mandel of Jeeves Mandel Law Group PC. The Kia and Hyundai class action lawsuit is Timothy Masters et al. v. Hyundai Motor America Inc. et al., Case No. 2:25-at-00047, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. [GN] LEHIGH UNIV: Neubert Seeks Class Settlement Prelim. Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN NEUBERT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. LEHIGH UNIVERSITY, Case No. 5:24-cv-00831-JFL (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23: (1) Preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement on behalf of the Settlement Class Members according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement; (2) Provisionally certifying, for purposes of the Settlement only, the following Settlement Class: "All Lehigh University students—inclusive of undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral—who satisfied their payment obligations for the Spring Semester 2020 (tuition and/or mandatory fees, defined as Student Activity Fees and/or Technology Fees) who were enrolled in at least one in- person, on-campus class." Excluded from the Settlement Class is: (i) any person who withdrew from Lehigh on or before March 12, 2020, (ii) all students who received full Lehigh-funded scholarships for the Spring 2020 semester; and/or (iii) Defendant; Defendant’s officers, directors, agents, trustees, parents, children, corporations, trustees, representatives, employees, principals, servants, partners, joint venturers, and/or entities controlled by Defendant; and/or Defendant's heirs, successors, assigns, or other persons or entities related to or affiliated with Defendant and/or Defendant's officers. (3) Preliminarily appointing Named Plaintiff John Neubert as Settlement Class Representative; (4) Preliminarily appointing Nicholas A. Colella of Lynch Carpenter, LLP, and Michael A. Tompkins and Anthony M. Alesandro of Leeds Brown Law, P.C. as Class Counsel to act on behalf of the Settlement Class and the Settlement Class Representative with respect to the Settlement; (5) Approving the Parties' proposed settlement procedure, including approving the Parties' selection of RG/2 Claims Administration LLC as Settlement Administrator and approving the Parties' proposed schedule; (6) Entering the proposed Order Preliminarily Approving the Proposed Settlement and Provisionally Certifying the Proposed Settlement Class, attached as Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement, which is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Nicholas A. Colella; and (7) Granting such other and further relief as may be just and appropriate. Lehigh University is a private institution that was founded in 1865. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=60u8j2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: NickC@lcllp.com - and - Michael Tompkins, Esq. Anthony M. Alesandro, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com LEHIGH VALLEY: Talamonti Alleges Unlawful Tip Credit Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- EMILY TALAMONTI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEHIGH VALLEY RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00063 (E.D. Pa., January 6, 2025) is a class and collective action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and similarly situated tipped employees who work or have worked for Defendant and have been subjected to unlawful practices pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has systematically and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and Tipped Employees minimum wage and unlawfully took tip credits in violation of the state and federal laws. The Plaintiff and the members of the Classes bring this action for monetary damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and other equitable and ancillary relief, to seek redress for Defendant's willful, unlawful, and improper conduct. The Plaintiff began to work for Defendant as a restaurant server on June 1, 2018. She primarily worked at the Red Robin restaurant in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Lehigh Valley Restaurant Group, LLC operates approximately 20 Red Robin restaurant locations across Central, Northeastern, and Eastern Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Salvina, Esq. MARZZACCO NIVEN & ASSOCIATES 945 East Park Drive, Suite 103 Harrisburg, PA 17111 Telephone: (717) 231-1640 Facsimile: (717) 231-1650 E-mail: bsalvina@klnivenlaw.com LENDINGTREE LLC: Sapan Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL SAPAN, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. LENDINGTREE, LLC, Case No. 8:23-cv-00071-JWH-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of civil Procedure on April 9, 2025, for an order granting approval of class certification bid. The Plaintiff's motion seeks certification of the class since all requirements of subsections (a) and (b)(3) are met in this case. According to the complaint, the class numbers in the hundreds of thousands, the claims are common, the named plaintiff is typical, and the representation by the named plaintiff and counsel are more than adequate. LendingTree provides online tools to aid consumers in their financial decisions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3mXQ6G at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Reichman, Esq. Justin Prato, Esq. PRATO & REICHMAN, APC 3675 Ruffin Road, Suite 220 San Diego, CA 92123 Telephone: (619) 886-0252 E-mail: ChrisR@Parto-Reichman.com LGBCOIN LTD: Bid to Compel Discovery Denied w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC DE FORD, SANDRA BADER, SHAWN R. KEY, and, Individually on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. JAMES KOUTOULAS and LGBCoin, LTD., Case No. 6:22-cv-00652-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Daniel Irick entered an order denying without prejudice the Defendants' motion to compel discovery from Plaintiffs and Legal Memorandum in Support. The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs that the discovery sought is not relevant or proportional to the needs of the case considering the conclusion of class certification briefing. The Defendants have not provided any authority indicating that improper solicitation creates a Rule 23(g) challenge. However, Plaintiffs have cited a persuasive opinion from another court in this district suggesting that improper solicitation "neither create[s] serious doubt that counsel will represent the class loyally nor jeopardize[s] the Court's ability to reach a just and proper outcome in this case." Accordingly, Defendants have not met their burden in demonstrating that the information they seek is currently relevant and proportional to the needs of this case. On Nov. 6, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion seeking to compel discovery in response to three discovery requests. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BsHVLN at no extra charge.[CC] LITTLE CAESAR: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 7 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE CUEVAS, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, v. LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC.; and DOES through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-03166-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask that the Court extend the case schedule as follows. 1. Motion for Class Certification a. Motion due by: June 16, 2025 b. Responses due by: July 14, 2025 c. Replies due by: Aug. 4, 2025 d. Motion for Class Certification Oct. 7, 2025 Hearing set for: The motion is the Parties' fourth request to modify the class certification deadline, but the extraordinary circumstances merit an extension. The Plaintiff filed a class action Complaint on May 12, 2023, in Santa Clara County Superior Court and Defendant removed the action to the Northern District of California on June 26, 2023. On Oct. 10, 2023, after an initial Case Management Conference, the Court (J. Chhabria) scheduled dates related to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification. Little Caesar is an American multinational chain of pizza restaurants. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U3wHCm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Yablonovich, Esq. Monica Balderrama, Esq. Tony Roberts, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARK YABLONOVICH 9465 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 300 Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2511 Telephone: (310) 286-0246 Facsimile: (310) 407-5391 E-mail: Mark@Yablonovichlaw.com Monica@Yablonovichlaw.com Tony@Yablonovichlaw.com - and - Bevin Allen Pike, Esq. Daniel Jonathan, Esq. Trisha K. Monesi, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com Daniel.Jonathan@capstonelawyers.com Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Ellen M. Bronchetti, Esq. Lindsay E. Hutner, Esq. Priya E. Singh, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 12760 High Bluff Drive, Suite 240 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (619) 848-2523 E-mail: Ellen.Bronchetti@gtlaw.com Lindsay.Hutner@gtlaw.com Priya.Singh@gtlaw.com LYFT INC: Judge Dismisses Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Sirisha Bhogaraju, writing for TipRanks, reports that US District Judge Trina Thompson in San Francisco dismissed a shareholder class action lawsuit against Lyft (LYFT -1.83%) that accused the ride-sharing company of defrauding investors by failing to promptly correct a typo in its Q4 2023 earnings press release, causing volatile movements in the stock. Lyft, shares were up more than 1% in Friday's, January 17, 2025, pre-market trading as of writing. Lyft announced its results for the fourth quarter of Fiscal 2023 and the full year on February 13, 2024, at 4:05 p.m. EST. The company's press release initially stated that the Fiscal 2024 adjusted EBITDA margin (calculated as a percentage of gross bookings) is expected to expand by about 500 basis points year-over-year. However, the correct number was 50 basis points. Following the initial release, LYFT stock rallied 67% but pared most of the gains after the company's CFO mentioned the correct margin expansion estimate at 4:47 p.m. during the earnings call. The company then made a formal correction in the press release seven minutes later. Shareholders accused the company of being negligent and reckless and showing deliberate indifference to the truth. The lawsuit sought damages for investors who bought Lyft stock at allegedly inflated prices between 4:05 p.m. and 4:51 p.m. on February 13, 2024. However, the federal judge found no proof that the company or its top executives had the intention to defraud anyone by issuing an incorrect profit margin guidance. Nonetheless, Judge Thompson said that the shareholders could try to amend their complaint. Is Lyft Stock a Buy, Sell, or Hold? Wall Street has a Moderate Buy consensus rating on Lyft stock based on eight Buys and 23 Holds. The average LYFT stock price target of $19.04 implies 40% upside potential. Shares have advanced about 7% over the past year. [GN] MARS PETCARE: Underpays Area Coordinators, Minn Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ SOTHEARA MINN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARS PETCARE US, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00010-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, January 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt employee in the position of area coordinator in Columbus, Ohio from approximately 2014 until January 2025. Mars Petcare US, Inc. is a manufacturer of pet care products, doing business in Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com MASTERCARD INC: Settles Employment Discrimination Claims for $26MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a $26 million settlement has been reached with Mastercard that, if approved by the court, will resolve a proposed class and collective action lawsuit over allegations of sex-, gender-, race- and ethnicity-based employment discrimination. The proposed class and collective action lawsuit was filed this month by former Mastercard employees who alleged the company has treated female, Black and Hispanic workers less favorably than male or white employees in comparable positions with respect to compensation, leveling and promotions. According to the Mastercard lawsuit, the defendant's allegedly discriminatory hiring practices violated the federal Equal Pay Act and Civil Rights Act and several city and state labor laws. First, the proposed class and collective action settlement aims to cover anyone who identifies as a woman, who has not signed a separation agreement that includes a release of sex- or gender-based employment discrimination claims, and who was employed by Mastercard in any position in career levels 4 through 10 in the United States from the following dates (based on employment location): -- New York, from September 30, 2016; -- Virginia, from September 30, 2020; -- California, from September 30, 2018; -- Massachusetts, Washington or Colorado, from September 30, 2019; and -- All other states, from December 4, 2019. Second, the proposed Mastercard settlement will cover anyone who identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic or Latino/a, who has not signed a separation agreement including a release of race- or ethnicity-based employment discrimination claims, and who was employed by the company in a position within the range listed above in the United States from the following dates: -- New York, from October 8, 2019; -- California, from September 30, 2018; -- Colorado, from September 30, 2019; and -- All other states, from December 4, 2019. The plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion and memo detailing the terms of the agreement with Mastercard on January 14, 2025. The parties now await preliminary approval of the terms of the deal from a United States district judge in New York. According to the plaintiffs' memo, the class consists of approximately 7,500 individuals. If the $26,000,000 Mastercard settlement is preliminarily approved by the court, class members will not need to take any action to receive a payout, the agreement relays. ClassAction.org will update this page when the official Mastercard settlement website is launched. As part of the deal, Mastercard will provide class members with a minimum payout of $100, the document says. After these payments are deducted from the settlement fund, the remaining amount will then be distributed based on a formula that accounts for the length of an individual's employment at Mastercard, the agreement shares. On top of issuing cash payments, the company has also agreed to take measures to review its hiring and promotion policies and ensure gender and race pay equity going forward, the settlement agreement adds. If the deal receives initial court approval, class members can expect to receive notice of the settlement by mail or email within 30 days of the approval date, the memo states. [GN] MDL 2873: Boucher Suit Alleges Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN BOUCHER, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06698-RMG (D.S.C., November 20, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, 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. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications and to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during his service in the United States Air Force. In or around January 20, 2022, the Plaintiff's doctors diagnosed him with kidney cancer. On or around December 1, 2023, the Plaintiff discovered that his cancer was caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, the suit asserts. The Boucher 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.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com MDL 2873: Faces Crosson Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ------------------------------------------------------------- STANLEY CROSSON, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06700-RMG (D.S.C., November 20, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, 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. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications and to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's service in the United States Army and Air Force. In or around January 21, 2013, the Plaintiff's doctors diagnosed him with thyroid disease. On or around December 1, 2023, the Plaintiff discovered that his illness was caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, says the suit. The Crosson 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.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com MDL 2873: Faces Feher Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ----------------------------------------------------------- SEAN FEHER, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06703-RMG (D.S.C., November 20, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, 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. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications and to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's service in the United States Army. In or around January 22, 2018, the Plaintiff's doctors diagnosed him with testicular cancer. On or around December 1, 2023, the Plaintiff discovered that his cancer was caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, says the suit. The Feher 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.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com MDL 2873: Faces Green Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ----------------------------------------------------------- RODNEY GREEN, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06714-RMG (D.S.C., November 20, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, 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. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications and to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during his service in the United States Navy. In or around January 1, 2015, the Plaintiff's doctors diagnosed him with kidney cancer. On or around December 1, 2023, the Plaintiff discovered that his cancer was caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, the suit alleges. The Green 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.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com MDL 2873: Faces Lamey Suit Over Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY LAMEY, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06679-RMG (D.S.C., November 20, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, 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. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications and to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's service in the United States Marine Corp. In or around February 18, 2011, the Plaintiff's doctors diagnosed him with thyroid disease. On or around December 1, 2023, the Plaintiff discovered that his illness was caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, says the suit. The Lamey 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.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com MDL 2873: Film-Forming Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Kiley Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- RONALD KILEY, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06709-RMG (D.S.C., November 20, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, 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. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications and to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's service in the United States Air Force, National Guard and Army. In or around January 1, 2019, the Plaintiff's doctors diagnosed him with thyroid disease. On or around December 1, 2023, the Plaintiff discovered that his illness was caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, says the suit. The Kiley 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.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com MDL 2873: Kinney Alleges Injury Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------------- TEDDY KINNEY, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06689-RMG (D.S.C., November 20, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, 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. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications and to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's service in the United States Army and Air Force. In or around January 1, 2018, the Plaintiff's doctors diagnosed him with kidney cancer. On or around December 1, 2023, the Plaintiff discovered that his cancer was caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, says the suit. The Kinney 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.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com MDL 2873: Lewis Suit Alleges Exposure to Toxic Chemicals -------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY LEWIS, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06685-RMG (D.S.C., November 20, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, 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. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications and to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during his service in the United States Air Force. In or around August 19, 2019, the Plaintiff's doctors diagnosed him with kidney cancer. He subsequently underwent radiation therapy to treat his cancer. On or around December 1, 2023, the Plaintiff discovered that his cancer was caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, the suit further asserts. The Lewis 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.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com MDL 2873: Payne Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure ------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN PAYNE, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06694-RMG (D.S.C., November 20, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, 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. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications and to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during his service in the United States Air Force. In or around January 12, 2022, the Plaintiff's doctors diagnosed him with kidney cancer. On or around December 1, 2023, the Plaintiff discovered that his cancer was caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, says the suit. The Payne 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.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com MDL 2873: Preusz Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure -------------------------------------------------------------- SAMUEL PREUSZ, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06706-RMG (D.S.C., November 20, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, 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. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications and to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's service in the United States Air Force. In or around April 13, 2022, the Plaintiff's doctors diagnosed him with thyroid cancer. On or around December 1, 2023, the Plaintiff discovered that his cancer was caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, says the suit. The Preusz 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.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com MDL 2873: Simmons Suit Alleges Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ---------------------------------------------------------- WILLIE SIMMONS, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06684-RMG (D.S.C., November 20, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, 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. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications and to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during his service in the United States Army. In or around January 1, 2017, the Plaintiff's doctors diagnosed him with kidney cancer. On or around December 1, 2023, the Plaintiff discovered that his cancer was caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, the suit further asserts. The Simmons 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.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com MDL 2873: Starcher Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROGER STARCHER, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06713-RMG (D.S.C., November 20, 2024) is a class action seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, 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. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately, caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications and to suffer severe personal injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress, says the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during his service in the United States Air Force. In or around March 1, 2020, the Plaintiff's doctors diagnosed him with liver cancer. On or around December 1, 2023, the Plaintiff discovered that his cancer was caused by exposure to Defendants' AFFF and AFFF-related fluorochemical products, says the suit. The Starcher 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.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone (305) 375-0111 E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com MICHAEL KORS: Waldner Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. -------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA WALDNER is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Demetra Binder, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Michael Kors (USA), Inc., Defendant, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendant for its alleged deceptive business practice of advertising fictitious "original" prices and corresponding phantom discounts on women's and men's apparel, accessories, shoes, fragrance, and other items sold in its Michael Kors outlet stores. On Aug. 4, 2023, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss on Sept. 11, 2023. On June 28, 2024, Judge Dale E. Ho entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. It was granted in part with regards to Plaintiffs Demetra Binder and Angela Waldner and denied in part with regards to Plaintiffs Jennifer McCall and JoEllen Barraclough. On Dec. 9, 2024, Judge Ho entered final judgment dismissing Plaintiff Waldner's claims and denying her leave to amend. Final judgment was entered in favor of the Defendant. The appellate case is captioned Binder v. Michael Kors (USA), Inc., Case No. 25-32, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on January 6, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ANGELA WALDNER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Scott G. Braden, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1234 Camino del Mar Del Mar, CA 92014 - and - James Saylor, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN, LLP 3 World Trade Center, 175 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Settles 2023 Data Breach Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Mondelez International and Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner agreed to pay $750,000 to resolve claims that a 2023 data breach compromised consumer information. The Mondelez settlement benefits individuals who received a data breach notification from Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, Mondelez or Chicago IVF informing them that their personal identifying information and/or personal health information may have been compromised in a data breach. In February 2023, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, a law firm that represents Mondelez, informed it that its systems may have been compromised by a data breach that reportedly compromised personal information, such as names, marital statuses, Social Security numbers, addresses, dates of birth, genders, employee identification numbers, retirement and/or thrift plan information and personal health information. According to a Mondelez data breach class action lawsuit, the defendants failed to protect consumer information from the data breach. Mondelez International is a food and beverage company that produces popular brands, such as Oreo, Triscuit, Wheat Thins, Toblerone, Sour Patch Kids, BelVita, Halls and more. Mondelez and Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner haven't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to the $750,000 class action settlement to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the Mondelez settlement, class members can receive up to $7,000 for out-of-pocket expenses related to the data breach. This includes credit monitoring costs, credit report fees, communication charges, bank fees, fraudulent charges, identity theft damages and more. Under this reimbursement total, class members can also claim up to five hours of lost time at a rate of $25 per hour for a maximum lost time payment of $125. Class members who did not experience any out-of-pocket losses or lost time can receive an alternative cash payment. These payments will vary depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement and the amount of funds remaining after other payments are distributed. No payment estimates are available at this time. All class members are eligible for three years of credit monitoring and identity theft protection services through Kroll. These services include three-bureau monitoring and at least $1 million of fraud and identity theft insurance. The deadline for exclusion and objection was Jan. 13, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Mondelez data breach settlement is scheduled for Jan. 21, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Feb. 10, 2025. Who's Eligible Individuals who received a notification from Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, Mondelęz and Chicago IVF informing them their personally identifying information and/or personal health information was or may have been compromised in the data security incident Potential Award Up to $7,000 in reimbursement Proof of Purchase Documentation of out-of-pocket expenses, such as receipts or bank statements Claim Form Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 02/10/2025 Case Name In re: Mondelez Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 1:23-cv-03999, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Final Hearing 01/21/2025 Settlement Website BCMDLZSettlement.com Claims Administrator Settlement Administrator – 83109 PO Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5391 (833) 627-8245 Class Counsel Gary M Klinger MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC Brooke Murphy MURPHY LAW FIRM Raina C Borrelli STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC William B Federman FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD Defense Counsel Daniel R Warren Casie D Collignon Dante A Marinucci BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Keara M Gordon Yan Grinblat DLA PIPER LLP (US) [GN] MONSANTO COMPANY: Kim Suit Transferred to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jessica Kim, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 1:24-cv-03792 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Jan. 14, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00494-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harris Lee Marks, Esq. BELLUCK & FOX LLP 546 Fifth Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 11241-1017 Phone: (212) 681-1575 Email: hmarks@belluckfox.com MONSANTO COMPANY: McDaniel Suit Transferred to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Anthony McDaniel, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 2:24-cv-00803 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Jan. 14, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00495-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bethany Dawn Williams, Esq. MORRIS BART, LLC 601 Poydras St., 24th Floor New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: (504) 526-1128 Email: bwilliams@morrisbart.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Sechen Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Debra Sechen, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Charles Sechen, deceased, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:24-cv-01626 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Jan. 14, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00480-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Product Liability. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tara K. King, Esq. THE WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 376-6360 Email: tking@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Simon Suit Transferred to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Deannie Simon, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Michael Simon, deceased, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:24-cv-01627 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Jan. 14, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00482-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Product Liability. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tara K. King, Esq. THE WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 376-6360 Email: tking@wagstafflawfirm.com NEW YORK LIFE: TikTok Software Collects Info, Mitchener Says ------------------------------------------------------------ COURTNEY MITCHENER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-00179 (N.D. Cal., January 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants seeking statutory damages for violations of the California Trap and Trace Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant installed on its Website software created by TikTok in order to identify website visitors. The Plaintiff visited Defendant's website after the TikTok Software was installed and within the limitations period established by statute. The TikTok Software gathers device and browser information, geographic information, referral tracking, and url tracking by running code or "scripts" on the Website to send user details to TikTok. Further, the Defendant did not obtain Class Members' express or implied consent to be subjected to data sharing with TikTok for the purposes of fingerprinting and de-anonymization, says the suit. New York Life Insurance Company is the proprietor of www.newyorklife.com, an online platform that provides life insurance, wealth management, retirement planning and investment services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. Narain Kumar, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: robert@taulersmith.com nkumar@taulersmith.com NEW YORK, NY: Officers Sue Over Unpaid Off-Duty Security Jobs ------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Senzamici, writing for New York Post, reports that some 6,000 NYPD cops have been stiffed out of millions of dollars in unpaid details for places like The New York Times and Target, according to a new class action lawsuit. The scores of officers were trying to earn a little extra dough through the NYPD's paid detail program -- which allows cops to take off-duty security jobs in uniform -- are suing businesses who owe them possibly millions in wages or paid them months after their shifts ended. "If I'm working and busting my butt, I expect to get paid," one NYPD sergeant involved in the case, Mohamed Monasar, told The Post. "It makes me feel horrible," Monasar said. Both Target and the New York Times owe him for paid detail shifts, with some of Target's debts dating back to 2023, Monasar said. Although the Grey Lady only owes him for one shift from last year, Monasar says it's well known in the paid-detail community that the paper of record also pays reputably late, with cops not collecting cash for services tendered until between 4-6 months after. "The safety and security of our people are a top priority for us," said Danielle Rhoades Ha, a New York Times Company spokesperson. "We rely on the NYPD and their police officers to augment our security program, and we appreciate their work. We've just received this complaint and are reviewing it." One of the plaintiffs in the class action, NYPD Captain Gabrielle Walls, contends that several Brooklyn Target stores owe her for 121 hours of paid detail work -- or $10,500. Court documents say that at least 100 officers have worked paid details with the Times and 1,000 with various Target stores. Other stores, like Primark which was named in a suit filed January 8, will soon be added to the class action. The suit, filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, also names the NYPD as a defendant, since they administer the paid detail program, and are responsible for enforcing the contracts participating business ink with the department -- a responsibility they have allegedly failed to uphold. "These corporations rely on police officers to provide protection and security but then refuse to compensate them for their services," attorney John Scola told The Post. "In effect, these multi-billion-dollar companies are exploiting the very officers they hire, effectively stealing their labor by failing to pay them what they are owed." "With paid detail -- they're supposed to enforce it. They're making money off it," added Monasar, who makes $105,000 annually without overtime. In addition to the wages for the paid detail, businesses are also charged an hourly 10% "administrative fee" based on the rates police officials set for each rank, bringing in between $4.10 to $8.70 an hour of scratch for 1 Police Plaza. "If I don't show up to a paid detail, my account is suspended and I can't work," Monasar said. "When the vendor makes these mistakes, there's no penalty for them." And when Monasar went to try to find his missing wages, he says officials told him to take it or leave it. "Anytime you complain about it, they tell you: 'It's a voluntary program. If you don't want to be a part of it, you don't have to,'" he said. But his options are limited, now that his paid detail rate has increased since becoming a police sergeant, and the more reliable vendors -- like banks and hospitals -- typically opt for more affordable lower ranked officers. "This is time I could spend with my family," Monasar said. "I'm working for eight hours a day on my off days -- and I expect to get paid." This isn't the first time paid detail has been subject to class action litigation -- in 2023, TD Bank settled a 5,000-member class action over paid detail for $8.7 million. After publication, Target sent The Post a statement declining to comment on pending litigation and thanking officers for their work. "We follow all labor and pay standards, and we are dedicated to honoring all contracts with security personnel," said Target spokesperson Emily Bisek. The NYPD did not respond to requests for comment. [GN] OTO ANALYTICS: Richardson Sues Over Stockholders' Buyout Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- JEREMY RICHARDSON, on behalf of himself and a class of former common stockholders of Oto Analytics, Inc., Plaintiff v. OTO ANALYTICS, INC., OTO ANALYTICS, LLC, TOBY SCAMMELL, SEAN DEMPSEY, DEAN NELSON, and NASEER MANDOZAI, Defendants, Case No. 2024-1351-JTL (Del. Ch., December 27, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, violation of 8 Del. C. Sec. 262, declaratory judgement of invalidity of consents, joinder agreements and releases and conversion by merger, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of their fiduciary duties to Oto Analytics' shareholders in connection with the company's management buyout. According to the complaint, the company's stockholders were coerced into executing Support and Joinder Agreements and written consents to the buyout in multiple ways. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated former common stockholders suffered damages including rescissory damages or the highest value their shares would have achieved, because of the invalidity of the consents, joinder agreements, releases and merger, says the suit. Oto Analytics, Inc. is a provider of software solutions in California. Oto Analytics, LLC is a provider of software solutions in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Hanrahan, Esq. Bruce E. Jameson, Esq. Kevin H. Davenport, Esq. Brianna V. Manobianco, Esq. PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A. 1310 N. King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 888-6500 PACIRA BIOSCIENCES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set March 14 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, a nationally recognized law firm, notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacira BioSciences, Inc. ("Pacira" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: PCRX) and certain of its officers. Class Definition This lawsuit seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Pacira securities between August 2, 2023 and August 8, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/PCRX. Case Details The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, prospects and performance. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was overstating the efficacy of its Exparel drug; (2) the Company was improperly promoting its Exparel drug by touting its ability to be effective for up to 72 hours, when in fact, it is only approved for 24 hours of pain relief; (3) the Company improperly claimed that Exparel is safe for use in cholecystectomy and colectomy procedures, when in fact, approved labeling does not provide instructions for, or indicate that Exparel will be safe and effective for postsurgical pain, if used in surgical procedures other than hemorrhoidectomy or bunionectomy; (4) a substantial portion of the Company's revenues were derived from off label marketing; and (5) and as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. What's Next? A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, you can visit the firm's site: bgandg.com/PCRX. or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Client Relations Manager, Nathan Miller, of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 332-239-2660. If you suffered a loss in Pacira you have until March 14, 2025, to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. There is No Cost to You We represent investors in class actions on a contingency fee basis. That means we will ask the court to reimburse us for out-of-pocket expenses and attorneys’ fees, usually a percentage of the total recovery, only if we are successful. Why Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a nationally recognized firm that represents investors in securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits. Our firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors nationwide. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contacts Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Nathan Miller (332) 239-2660 | info@bgandg.com [GN] PAPA JOHN'S: Faces Tucker Suit Over Online Store's Access Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------------ HENRY TUCKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00149 (S.D.N.Y., January 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.papajohns.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text) or a text equivalent, empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Papa John's International, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [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 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal PERMIAN RESOURCES: Artificially Inflates Crude Oil Price, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- HEATHER PATTERSON D/B/A PRESTIGE TOWING; KATHLEEN BYRNES; and WAYPOINT RESIDENTIAL, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PERMIAN RESOURCES CORP. f/k/a CENTENNIAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, INC.; EXPAND ENERGY CORPORATION f/k/a CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION; CONTINENTAL RESOURCES INC.; DIAMONDBACK ENERGY, INC.; EOG RESOURCES, INC.; HESS CORPORATION; OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION; PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES COMPANY; SCOTT D. SHEFFIELD; and JOHN B. HESS, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00016 (D.N.M., January 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Sherman Act and numerous state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The case arises from the Defendants' conspiracy to coordinate, and ultimately constrain, domestic shale oil production, which has had the effect of fixing, raising, and maintaining the price of crude oil, and thereby the price paid by end-users of oil-derivative products, in and throughout the United States. The Defendants agreed to limit their respective domestic shale production growth, which in turn fixed and/or stabilized crude oil prices in the United States at an artificially high level. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiffs and the Classes suffered substantial harm from the supracompetitive prices they paid for crude oil for personal use, the suit says. Prestige Towing is a towing services provider doing business in New Mexico. Waypoint Residential, LLC is a real estate investment firm based in Florida. Permian Resources Corporation, known as Centennial Resource Development, is an oil and gas production company, headquartered in Midland, Texas. Expand Energy Corporation, formerly known as Chesapeake Energy Corporation, is an oil and gas production company, headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Continental Resources Inc. is an oil and gas production company, headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Diamondback Energy, Inc. is an oil and gas production company, headquartered in Midland, Texas. EOG Resources, Inc. is an oil and gas production company, headquartered in Houston, Texas. HESS Corporation is an oil and gas production company, headquartered in New York, New York. Occidental Petroleum Corporation is an oil and gas production company, headquartered in Houston, Texas. Pioneer Natural Resources Company is an oil and gas production company, headquartered in Irving, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher A. Dodd, Esq. DODD LAW OFFICE, LLC 500 Marquette Avenue NW, Suite 1330 Albuquerque, NM 87102 Telephone: (505) 475-2932 Email: chris@doddnm.com - and - Vincent J. Ward, Esq. THE WARD LAW FIRM P.O. Box 7940 Albuquerque, NM 87194 Telephone: (505) 944-9454 Email: vincent@wardlawnm.com - and - Gregory P. Hansel, Esq. Michael S. Smith, Esq. PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS, LLP One City Center P.O. Box 9546 Portland, ME 04112 Telephone: (207) 791-3000 Email: ghansel@preti.com msmith@preti.com - and - Joseph C. Kohn, Esq. KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, PC 1600 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 238-1700 Email: jkohn@kohnswift.com - and - Paul J. Kennedy, Esq. Jessica M. Hernandez, Esq. KENNEDY HERNANDEZ & HARRISON, PC 201 12th St. NW Albuquerque, NM 87102 Telephone: (505) 842-8662 Email: pkennedy@kennedyhernandez.com jhernandez@kennedyhernandez.com - and - Stewart H. Lapayowker, Esq. LAPAYOWKER JET COUNSEL, P.A. 501 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 300 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 202-9600 Email: Stewart@JetCounsel.Law - and - Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq. Carmen Medici, Esq. Daniel J. Brockwell, Esq. Isabella De Lisi, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-4565 Email: pcoughlin@scott-scott.com cmedici@scott-scott.com dbrockwell@scott-scott.com idelisi@scott-scott.com - and - Patrick McGahan, Esq. Michael Srodoski, Esq. Zachary Kranc, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 156 S. Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 Email: pmcgahan@scott-scott.com msrodoski@scott-scott.com zkranc@scott-scott.com - and - Karin E. Garvey, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 230 Park Ave., 24th Floor New York, NY 11069 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Email: kgarvey@scott-scott.com - and - Warren T. Burns, Esq. Daniel H. Charest, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 900 Jackson Street, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (469) 904-4550 Email: wburns@burnscharest.com dcharest@burnscharest.com - and - Korey Nelson, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 365 Canal Street, Suite 1170 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 799-7845 Email: knelson@burnscharest.com POLESTAR AUTOMOTIVE: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Polestar Automotive Holding UK PLC (NASDAQ: PSNY) resulting from allegations that Polestar may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Polestar securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=33703 for information on the class action. What is this about: On January 16, 2025, before the market opened, Polestar filed a current report on Form 6-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In this current report, Polestar announced that it had been concluded that "the Company's previously issued audited financial statements included within Annual Reports on Form 20-F for the years ended December 31, 2022 and December 31, 2023 (the "Audited Affected Financials") and the unaudited interim financial information included within Current Reports on Form 6-K for the quarterly periods ending on and falling between September 30, 2022 and June 30, 2024 (the "Unaudited Affected Financials" and together with the Audited Affected Financials, the "Affected Financials") contain errors that warrant restatement of the Audited Affected Financials and the interim financial information for the six-month periods ended June 30, 2023, and June 30, 2024." On this news, Polestar Class A American Depositary Shares fell over 11% in intraday trading on January 16, 2025. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] PROCTER & GAMBLE: Perkins Sues Over Melatonin Products' False Label ------------------------------------------------------------------- VALERIE PERKINS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00035-JO-VET (S.D. Cal., January 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act and California's Unfair Competition Law. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of line of "ZzzQuil PURE Zzzs" melatonin products. The Defendant labeled the products with the tagline "HELPS YOU FALL ASLEEP NATURALLY" on the front of the label in all caps and bolded green lettering. However, the Defendant's "naturally" advertising and marketing is false, deceptive, and misleading because the products contain several artificial and synthetic ingredients, including the primary ingredient in the products, melatonin. The Plaintiff and the members of the Class have suffered injury in fact, lost money or property, and suffered economic damages as a result of the Defendant's wrongful conduct, says the suit. The Procter & Gamble Company is a consumer goods manufacturer based in Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig W. Straub, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 Email: craig@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com - and - George V. Granade, Esq. REESE LLP 8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515 Los Angeles, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 393-0070 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 Email: ggranade@reesellp.com - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 PRODIGAL COMPANY: Fiorito Appeals Ruling to 8th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL FIORITO has filed an appeal in his lawsuit entitled Michael Fiorito, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Prodigal Company, Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-03757-PJS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. On Nov. 7, 2024, Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz entered an Order dismissing the Plaintiff's all federal claims and class-action allegations. On Nov. 25, 2024, the Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, which Judge Schiltz denied on January 3, 2025. The Court ruled that the Plaintiff is ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis. The appellate case is captioned Michael Fiorito v. The Prodigal Company, Case No. 25-1025, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on January 6, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Michael Fiorito, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appears pro se. PUMP.FUN: Faces Class Action Over Breached Securities Regulations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Oluwapelumi Adejumo, writing for CryptoSlate, reports that a United States legal firm has filed a class action lawsuit against Pump.fun, according to a Jan. 17 announcement. The law firm claims the platform caused financial losses for investors who traded the PNUT token. So, its suit seeks to represent all affected individuals who purchased PNUT and suffered damages. The lawsuit alleges Pump.fun breached securities regulations by failing to register PNUT with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). According to the filing: "Pump.Fun creates an ecosystem where every token, including the PNUT Token, shares identical characteristics that qualify them as securities under federal law. Pump.Fun's uniform infrastructure ensures that all tokens, regardless of their nominal creators, are fundamentally controlled and managed by Pump.Fun and the Defendants in a manner that satisfies the elements of the Howey test." It further accuses the platform of neglecting essential investor safeguards, such as Know Your Customer (KYC) checks, anti-money laundering protocols, and risk disclosures. These lapses reportedly allowed users to open accounts and buy tokens in under five minutes, regardless of age or other restrictions. The company's blockchain-focused website states, We believe in the transformative power of law, especially in the complex arenas of digital assets and securities. As a leading litigation firm, our focus is on navigating these intricate legal landscapes with unmatched precision, delivering tailored strategies that empower our clients to overcome challenges and achieve their objectives." Legal implications Crypto lawyer Gabriel Shapiro has commented on the case, stating that Pump. fun's reliance on closed-source, centralized systems would make it difficult for the platform to dismiss the lawsuit. He contrasts this with Uniswap's class action defense, which succeeded partly due to its decentralized and transparent structure. Shapiro also notes potential weaknesses in Burwick's case, such as its arguments on horizontal commonality and the interpretation of "investment of money." According to him, the legal outcome could hinge on whether Pump.fun's operators are considered issuers of securities or merely brokers or promoters. This distinction is crucial, as identifying the platform as an issuer could result in a larger judgment. Shapiro concludes that platforms like Pump.fun could mitigate legal risks by adhering to crypto principles like open-source transparency and decentralization. He added: "Even if you have these, you will still face legal risks, but your defenses will certainly be stronger, as Uniswap's were, and I think pump would have a much easier time getting this case dismissed -- or possibly would not be facing it at all -- if it was decentralized/autonomous like Uniswap's AMM pools are." [GN] QUANTERIX CORP: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Quanterix Corporation (NASDAQ: QTRX) resulting from allegations that Quanterix may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Quanterix securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=31441 call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On November 12, 2024, after market hours, Quanterix filed a current report on Form 8-K with the SEC. In this current report, the Company announced that on "November 11, 2024, the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company, based on the recommendation of the Company's management and after discussion with the Company's independent registered public accounting firm, Ernst & Young LLP ("EY"), concluded that the Company's previously issued audited consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2023 and 2022 and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2023, and its unaudited consolidated financial statements for the quarterly and year-to-date (as applicable) periods ended March 31, 2022, June 30, 2022, September 30, 2022, March 31, 2023, June 30, 2023, September 30, 2023, March 31, 2024, and June 30, 2024 (collectively, the "Non-Reliance Periods"), should no longer be relied upon." On this news, Quanterix's stock price fell 18.3% on November 13, 2024. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Radtke Sues Over Decline of Stock Price ------------------------------------------------------------------ JEFFREY RADTKE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., LEONARD S. SCHLEIFER, CHRISTOPHER FENIMORE, and ROBERT E. LANDRY, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00145 (S.D.N.Y., January 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Regeneron's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade Regeneron common stock at artificially inflated prices between November 2, 2023, and October 30, 2024. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) that Regeneron paid credit card fees to distributors on the condition that distributors did not charge Eylea customers more to use a credit card; (2) that these payments subsidized the prices that customers paid when using credit cards to purchase Eylea; (3) that, as a result, Regeneron offered a price concession that lowered Eylea's selling price; (4) that, because retina practices were sensitive to higher prices when using credit cards to purchase anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) medications, Regeneron's price concessions provided a competitive advantage; (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Regeneron misleadingly boosted reported Eylea sales; (6) that, by failing to report its payment of credit card fees as price concessions, Regeneron overstated the Average Sales Price (ASP) reported to federal agencies, thereby violating the False Claims Act; and (7) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the truth emerged, Regeneron's stock price fell $84.59, or 9.2 percent, to close at $838.20 per share on October 31, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biotechnology company based in Tarrytown, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca Dawson, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave, Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 Email: rdawson@glancylaw.com - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 REPUBLIC SERVICES: CIS Communication Seeks Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CIS COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00359-JAR (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order authorizing the filing of Plaintiff's Motion for class certification and memorandum in support, expert report of Mr. Kilbourne, and any related exhibits under seal. The Defendants have designated as confidential several documents, deposition transcripts and testimony, and other evidence, such as Allied's Fourth Supplemental Answers and Objections to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories. The Plaintiff finds it necessary to attach and cite these confidential materials throughout its Motion for Class Certification, Memorandum in Support, Expert Report of Mr. Kilbourne, and as Exhibit(s) in support of same. In short, the Plaintiff believes this evidence strengthen its position and serve as valuable evidence for the Court's consideration. Plaintiff further believes Defendants' confidentiality designations are best honored by filing the necessary materials under seal, and that this will not result in prejudice to any party. Republic Services is a provider of recycling processes and non-hazardous solid waste management services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CQbPBX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan A. Keane, Esq. Tanner A. Kirksey, Esq. KEANE LAW LLC 7711 Bonhomme Ave, Suite 600 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 391-4700 Facsimile: (314) 244-3778 E-mail: ryan@keanelawllc.com tanner@keanelawllc.com - and - Michael C. Seamands, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL C. SEAMANDS, LLC 1401 S. Brentwood Blvd, Suite 825 St. Louis, MO 63144 Telephone: (314) 802-7730 Facsimile: (314) 260-9645 E-mail: mcs@mcs-legal.com ROSE HILLS: Files 9th Cir. Appeal in Perez Labor Suit ------------------------------------------------------ ROSE HILLS COMPANY has filed an appeal in the lawsuit entitled Elizabeth Perez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rose Hills Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-04827-JLS-PVC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The suit, which was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, is brought against the Defendant for alleged violations of the California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code. On July 3, 2024, the Court ordered the Defendant to show cause why this case should not be remanded to state court. On July 25, 2024, Judge Josephine L. Staton remanded the case to state court. The Court held that the Defendant's failure to respond with any evidence supporting its violation-rate assumptions deprived the Court of subject-matter jurisdiction; even if the Court were persuaded by the Defendant's arguments, the Court would be unable to retain a case over which it lacked jurisdiction simply because remand might cause "problems from a practical perspective" for one of the parties. The appellate case is captioned Perez v. Rose Hills Company, Case No. 25-68, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 6, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief was due January 16, 2025; and -- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief was due January 16, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee ELIZABETH PEREZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: John G. Yslas, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US, LLP 555 S. Flower Street, 41st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 - and - Andrew Sandoval, Esq. Aram Boyadjian, Esq. Eugene Zinovyev, Esq. Jeffrey Bils, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Defendant-Appellant ROSE HILLS COMPANY is represented by: Carrie Marie Francis, Esq. STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP 1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100 Phoenix, AZ 85004 SKIL POWER: Faces Suit Over Defective Outdoor Power Products ------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Adams, writing for About Lawsuits, reports that after reports of more than 100 incidents of SKIL lawnmower and power tool batteries overheating, melting, smoking and catching fire, an Illinois man has filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer, alleging that he never would have bought the product if he'd known of the potential danger. SKIL outdoor power equipment is sold at retail locations such as Lowe's, as well as online at Amazon.com and elsewhere. Most of the company's tools are powered by lithium-ion batteries that are manufactured in China. Lithium-ion batteries are a type of rechargeable battery used in cell phones, electric vehicles and other electronic devices. In recent years, they have been linked to a number of explosion risks, including in modified vaping kits and in certain hybrid electric vehicles. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced a SKIL lawnmower and outdoor tool lithium-ion battery recall in December 2024, following reports of at least 49 incidents of property damage and eight burn injuries due to battery-related thermal events. Anthony Desparrois of Illinois filed the complaint (PDF) in the U.S. District for the Northern District of Illinois earlier this month, alleging that Chervon North America, Inc., the manufacturer of SKIL equipment, is liable for damages that he and others received as a result of the company's defective batteries. The SKIL power tool lawsuit claims that the manufacturer marketed the lithium-ion batteries in their products as safe, despite the risk of overheating and exploding, which could result in property damage or injuries to users and those nearby. Desparrois argues that other manufacturers have successfully produced non-defective lithium-ion batteries for similar applications as those intended for SKIL products, demonstrating that Chervon had the capability to do the same but failed to meet this standard. "The Products are not fit for their intended use by humans as they expose consumers to a fire hazard," the lawsuit states. "Plaintiff is further entitled to damages for the injury sustained in being exposed to such danger, damages related to Defendant's conduct, and injunctive relief." Desparrois' lawsuit raises allegations of unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent concealment, failure to warn, design defect and negligence, seeking compensatory, statutory and punitive damages on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. Lithium-Ion Battery Concerns Lithium-ion batteries have been involved in numerous recalls in recent years. In October 2024, the CPSC issued a recall of certain lithium-ion battery chargers sold on Amazon.com, due to their risk of thermal runaway, which can cause property damage, severe injuries or death. The CPSC also warned consumers to stop using universal lithium-ion e-bike and e-scooter chargers in September 2024, after federal regulators became aware of at least 156 reports of fires and overheating incidents. Issues with lithium-ion batteries have also been connected to electronic cigarette and vape products overheating and exploding, which can lead to fires, severe burns and even deaths. These issues are often tied to low-quality devices or products that have been modified beyond their original design. [GN] SMAO LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Henry Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- CONSTANCE HENRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. SMAO, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00094 (N.D. Ill., January 6, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://alabamaoutdoors.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 Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a jacket on Alabamaoutdoors.com. Despite her efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. Unless Defendant remedies the numerous access barriers on its website, the Plaintiff and Class members will continue to be unable to independently navigate, browse, use, and complete a purchase on Alabamaoutdoors.com, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in SMAO'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. SMAO, LLC operates the website that provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view bags, gloves, sunglasses, watches, sandals, jackets, shorts, tops, dresses, skirts, pants, footwear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Reyes, Esq. ASHER COHEN LAW PLLC 2377 56th Dr. Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (630)-478-0856 E-mail: dreyes@ashercohenlaw.com ST. AGNES HEALTHCARE: Smith Suit Seeks Caregivers' Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL SMITH, individually and for others similarly situated v. ST. AGNES HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00044 (S.D. Tex., January 6, 2025) is a collective action to recover Plaintiff's unpaid wages and other damages from St. Agnes Healthcare Professionals, Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant knew or should have known that Smith and the Putative Class Members were regularly working "off the clock" because St. Agnes expected and required these employees to do so. Plaintiff Smith and the Putative Class Members even made multiple complaints to St. Agnes that its Vesta Timekeeping Policy resulted in the underpayment and/or outright denial of their overtime. But St. Agnes never paid Smith and the Putative Class Members for the "unapproved" overtime they worked "off the clock," says the suit. Plaintiff Smith was employed by St. Agnes as a caregiver from approximately February 2024 until present. St. Agnes Healthcare Professionals, Inc. provides home healthcare services throughout Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl A. Fitz, Esq. FITZ LAW PLLC 3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 766-4000 E-mail: carl@fitz.legal SUPER ATV: Schallert Alleges Illegal Personal Info Collection ------------------------------------------------------------- LAWRENCE SCHALLERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUPER ATV, LLC an Indiana corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00108 (C.D. Cal., January 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants seeking statutory damages for violations of the California Trap and Trace Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant installed on its Website a software created by TikTok in order to identify website visitors. The Plaintiff visited Defendant's website after the TikTok Software was installed and within the limitations period established by statute. The TikTok Software gathers device and browser information, geographic information, referral tracking, and url tracking by running code or "scripts" on the Website to send user details to TikTok. The Defendant did not obtain Class Members' express or implied consent to be subjected to data sharing with TikTok for the purposes of fingerprinting and de-anonymization, says the suit. Super ATV, LLC is the proprietor of www.superatv.com, an online platform that sells off-road vehicles and gear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. Narain Kumar, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: robert@taulersmith.com nkumar@taulersmith.com TUNGRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Tungray Technologies Inc (NASDAQ: TRSG) resulting from allegations that Tungray Technologies may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Tungray Technologies securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=32968 for information on the class action. What is this about: On December 31, 2024, Tungray Technologies filed a current report with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 6-K. The current report stated that on "December 30, 2024, the Board of Directors of Tungray Technologies Inc (the "Company"), upon recommendation of the Audit Committee and following discussions with management, determined that the Company's financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2023, 2022 and 2021 included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2024 (the "20-F"), should no longer be relied upon. Similarly, related reports, press releases, earnings releases, and investor communications describing the Company's financial statements for these periods should no longer be relied upon." Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] UNITED STATES: Settlement Reached in Discrimination Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- On Jan. 3, the United States reached a settlement in Farrell v. Department of Defense, a class action lawsuit filed in 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs in Farrell alleged that the Department of Defense's files for military veterans discharged under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and earlier policies barring lesbian, gay and bisexual people from serving openly in the military violate the Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process. Under the proposed settlement, veterans will have the opportunity to request changes to aspects of their discharge paperwork relating to sexual orientation under more streamlined procedures than currently available. The proposed settlement agreement is subject to final approval by the district court after notice to the class and an opportunity to object. UNITED STATES: Trent Capital Petitions EPA's TCE Rule to 11th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ TRENT CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC is filing a petition for the Court to review and set aside certain provisions of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Trichloroethylene (TCE) Rule published in the Federal Register in the lawsuit entitled Trent Capital Partners, LLC, Petitioner, v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al., Respondents. The appellate case is captioned Trent Capital Partners, LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al., Case No. 25-10033, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on January 6, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner TRENT CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC is represented by: Brandon O. Moulard, Esq. PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN LLP 1075 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 1500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (678) 690-5750 Email: brandonmoulard@parkerpoe.com Defendants-Respondents ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al. are represented by: Jane Nishida, Esq. Office of the Administrator (1101A) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460 - and - Todd Kim, Esq. Department of Justice Environmental and Natural Resources Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20530 - and - Merrick Garland, Esq. U.S. Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 UTAH HIGH: Court Extends Class Cert-Related Deadlines ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZACHARY SZYMAKOWSKI, an individual, and JOHANNA A. URIBE, on behalf of FELIPE A. URIBE, a minor, on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of similarly situated F-1 students, v. UTAH HIGH SCHOOL ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATION, INC.; ROBERT CUFF, an individual; MARILYN RICHARDS, an individual; AMBER SHILL, an individual; BURKE STAHELI, an individual; DAVID WARREN, an individual; DAVID LUND, an individual; ZACK MCKEE, an individual; PAUL SWEAT, an individual; LUKE RASMUSSEN, an individual; JERRE HOLMES, an individual; JASON SMITH, an individual; MIKE MEES, an individual; DEVIN SMITH, an individual; BRYAN DURST, an individual; and BRENT STRATE, an individual, Case No. 2:24-cv-00751-RJS-CMR (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Cecilia Romero entered an order granting the parties' Stipulated Motion to Extend Deadlines Related to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification as follows: Current Date Proposed Date Plaintiffs' Opening Brief Jan. 14, 2025 Jan. 21, 2025 and supporting materials: Defendants' Opposition Brief Feb. 11, 2025 Feb. 18, 2025 and supporting materials: Plaintiffs' Reply Brief and Feb. 25, 2025 Mar. 4, 2025 supporting materials: Utah High School is an organization for high school athletic and fine arts activities in Utah. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iX7M4S at no extra charge.[CC] WALGREENS BOOTS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. (NASDAQ: WBA) resulting from allegations that Walgreens may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Walgreens securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=27235 for information on the class action. What is this about: On January 17, 2025, the United States Department of Justice issued an announcement entitled "Justice Department Files Nationwide Lawsuit Alleging Walgreens Knowingly Filled Millions of Prescriptions that Lacked a Legitimate Medical Purpose." The announcement further stated that "[t]he government's complaint alleges that, from approximately August 2012 through the present, Walgreens knowingly filled millions of prescriptions for controlled substances that lacked a legitimate medical purpose, were not valid, and/or were not issued in the usual course of professional practice." On this news, the price of Walgreens stock fell in aftermarket trading on January 17, 2025. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] WESTECH SECURITY: Faces Rodriguez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- KEITH RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESTECH SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION INC., WILLIAM VASSELL, and "JOHN DOE #1" through "JOHN DOE #10," Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00123 (S.D.N.Y., January 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to pay employees after the paychecks issued to them for the pay periods leading up to the office closure bounced, reissued, and failed to clear again. Additionally, the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were terminated with no notice, in violation of both the federal WARN Act and New York WARN Act, says the suit. Westech Security and Investigation Inc. is a security firm in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew L. Berman, Esq. VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP 600 Old Country Road, Suite 519 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7180 Facsimile: (516) 706-0248 Email: mberman@vkvlawyers.com - and - Alex Rissmiller, Esq. RISSMILLER PLLC 5 Pennsylvania Plaza, 19th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (646) 664-1412 Email: arissmiller@rissmiller.com WHOLE FOODS MARKET: Lovera Suit Removed to S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- The case is styled as Edward Lovera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., Case No. 619353/2024 was removed from the Supreme Court, County of Bronx, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Jan. 17, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00508 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Whole Foods Market, Inc. -- https://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/ -- owns and operates a chain of natural and organic foods supermarket.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Nicholas Anthony Norden, Esq. ABRAMS FENSTERMAN LLP One Metrotech Center, Suite 1701 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (718) 215-5300 Fax: (212) 715-5304 Email: nnorden@abramslaw.com WORKSTEPS INC: Ragland Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Herman Ragland, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. WORKSTEPS, INC., Case No. CV-23-990433 was removed from the Court of Common for Cuyahoga County, Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on Jan. 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00075-PAB. On December 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant in State Court. On December 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed the Class Action Complaint, amending the original Complaint.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ronald I. Frederick, Esq. Jacquelyn S. Frederick, Esq. FREDERICK & BEDER, LLC 767 East 185th Street Cleveland, OH 44119 Email: ronf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com jacquelynf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Craig C. Dilger, Esq. Benjamin M. Fiechter, Esq. STOLL KEALON OGDEN, PLLC 500 West Jefferson Street, Suite 2000 Louisville, KY 40202 Phone: (502) 3334,000 Email: craig.dilger@skofim.com benjamin.fiechter@skofirm.com WYCKOFF INN: Murrillo Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ FERNANDO ESQUIVEL MURRILLO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WYCKOFF INN LTD, and ALDO CASCIO, individually, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00106 (D.N.J., January 6, 2025) is a civil action for damages and equitable relief over Defendants' violations of Plaintiff's rights to overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff the wages lawfully owed to him under the FLSA and the WHL, as Defendants failed to compensate him at the statutorily required overtime rate of pay for any of the hours that he worked beyond 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiff was hired to work for Defendants as a kitchen helper on June 14, 2024 and terminated his employment in February 2024. Wyckoff Inn Ltd., d/b/a The Brick House, is a New Jersey corporation that owns and operates a restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J.R. Stevenson, Esq. STEVENSON MARINO LLP 445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 1500 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (212) 939-7588 [] CLASS ACTION MONEY & ETHICS CONFERENCE: Register Now! -------------------------------------------------------- Registration is now open for the 9TH ANNUAL CLASS ACTION MONEY & ETHICS CONFERENCE, to be held in-person Thurs., May 8, 2025, at The Harmonie Club, New York City. Once a year, the top industry experts gather together to discuss the latest topics and trends in class action. This value-packed event features special presentations from keynote speakers and live panel discussions with industry experts, and provides networking opportunities with other professionals. Register at https://www.classactionconference.com Breakfast and lunch included. Videos of last year's conference are available on-demand at https://www.classactionconference.com/2024-video-replays.html For sponsorship opportunities, contact: Will Etchison Tel: 305-707-7493 E-mail: will@beardgroup.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Risks UK Lawsuit Over Talcum Powder -------------------------------------------------------- france24.com reports that Johnson & Johnson (J&J) risks UK court action for the first time over the allegations, having faced a series of similar lawsuits in North America. KP Law, the firm representing about 2,000 claimants, said "women who have been diagnosed with life-changing and life-limiting cancers were exposed to asbestos contained within the company's talcum powder". In response Erik Haas, J&J's worldwide vice president of litigation, said "Johnson & Johnson takes the issue of talc safety incredibly seriously and always has". Haas added that J&J's own analysis found an absence of asbestos contamination in its products and said "independent science makes clear that talc is not associated with the risk of ovarian cancer nor mesothelioma". J&J has until the end of the year to respond to a letter sent on behalf of KP Law's clients, following which documents will be filed in the UK's High Court. The law firm is representing predominantly women regarding the case, and says it has been contacted by thousands more, adding that some have died of their cancers. Lawyers claim that the US-based corporation knew "as early as the 1970s that asbestos in its talc products was dangerous but failed to warn consumers and carried on producing and selling the products in the UK until as recently as 2022". J&J said that Kenvue, its former consumer-health division that it separated out in 2023, is responsible for "any alleged talc liability that arises outside the US or Canada". "Decades of testing by experts... demonstrates that the product is safe, does not contain asbestos, and does not cause cancer," Kenvue said in a statement. However, in September, J&J increased its offer to settle talc claims relating to ovarian cancer in the United States to around $8 billion to be paid over 25 years. Earlier this year, the company agreed to pay $700 million to settle allegations it misled customers about the safety of its talcum-based powder products in North America. The company did not admit wrongdoing in its settlement but withdrew the product from the North American market in 2020. The World Health Organization's cancer agency in July classified talc as "probably carcinogenic" for humans. A summary of studies published in 2020 covering 250,000 women in the United States did not find a statistical link between the use of talc on the genitals and the risk of ovarian cancer. ********* 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 ***