/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250212.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, February 12, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 31
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Cordeiro Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Driscoll Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Escamilla Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Feaster Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Firefighters Exposed to Toxic Chemicals, Blore Says
3M COMPANY: Glassford Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Treider Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
84 LUMBER: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Runciman Due March 3
AMAZON INC: Bid for Certification for Interlocutory Appeal Tossed
AMAZON: Filing for Class Cert. in Return Policy Suit Due Sept. 29
AMERICAN ADDICTION: Jay Sues Over Failure Secure PHI and PII
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Court OK's Citibank Bid to Quash Subpoena
AMERICAN HONDA: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert. by Jan. 5, 2026
APPLIED THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Feb. 18
BANK OF AMERICA: Parties Seek OK of Class Cert. Briefing Schedule
BETACOM HOLDINGS: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid
BREWDOG BREWING: Bid to Dismiss Popp Case Tossed w/o Prejudice
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Bid to Permanently Seal Materials OK'd
CARUSO BUILDER: Wins Bid to Dismiss Sullivan Disclosure Act Lawsuit
CENTENNIAL BANK: Court Reinstates Jinkins Class Suit
CLOSETS BY DESIGN: Vernon Must File Class Cert Bid by June 10
DAYTON CORRECTIONAL: Class Certification Denied in Terry Lawsuit
DICARLO SEAFOOD: Cendejas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DISCOUNT TIRE: Court Narrows Claims in Schlagel Lawsuit
DISCOVERY PRACTICE: Greene Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DOLE PACKAGED: Valle Jr. Sues Over Mislabeled Fruit Juice
DROP HOLDINGS INC: Tirado Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
E-BENEFIT SOLUTION: Monroe Files Suit in E.D. New York
ENVISION RADIOLOGY: Judge Grants Class Action Over Practice Sale
FHI LLC: Underpays Forklift Operators, Meneses Suit Claims
FIRST ADVANTAGE: Jones Seeks to Certify Putative Consumer Class
FLUX POWER HOLDINGS: Faces Kassam Securities Suit Over Disclosures
FLUX POWER HOLDINGS: Faces Labor Suits in California Courts
FTAI AVIATION: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set March 18
GROCERY OUTLET: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set March 31
INTEGRAL AD: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set March 31
IVY LEAGUE: Rejects Class Action Lawsuit Settlement
LENDING LOVE: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert. Bid
LIFE CHIROPRACTIC: Huber Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
LINKEDIN CORP: Cole Sues Over Disclosed Personal/Video Info to FB
LORETTO HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to June 5
LUCAS COUNTY, OH: Filing for Class Cert. in Colombaro Due June 30
LUCAS COUNTY, OH: Filing for Class Cert. in Upperco Due June 30
LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Class Settlement in Doyle Gets Final Nod
MANCINI'S SLEEPWORLD: Abrams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MARINE LAYER: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
MARK OF EXCELLENCE: Graham Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
MARTEN TRANSPORT: Court Stays Jackson Class Action
MAXLINEAR INC: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Failed Merger
MDL 2566: Bid to Seal Docs in Celluci v. Montalvo OK'd
MDL 2566: Bid to Seal Docs in Celluci vs Staten OK'd
MDL 2566: Bid to Seal Docs OK'd in Securities Suit
MDL 2992: Status Conference Set for Feb. 14
MDL 3062: Court Narrows Claims in Antitrust Litigation
MERCURY SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
MODIVCARE INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
MORGAN & MORGAN: Bid to Remand Walker Suit to State Court Tossed
MYLAN NV: Plaintiffs' Objections to Bill of Costs Sustained in Part
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due May 9
NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE: Cruz Sues Over Unpaid Wages
NISSAN NORTH: Stockley Must File Class Cert Bid by Dec. 6
NORTH CAROLINA: Faces Martin Suit Over Violations of Civil Rights
PATERSON, NJ: Arbitration Order Reversed in Evans, et al. Suit
PELTON-SHEPHERD INDUSTRIES: Moyses Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
POLESTAR AUTOMOTIVE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set March 31
PRIVATUS CARE: Lewis Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Live-In Caregivers
R. I. C. INC: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property
RADIUS GLOBAL: Hasenfeld Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
READING INT'L: Must Face VPPA, NYACAL Claims in Berryman Suit
RICHMOND UNIVERSITY: Counts Files Suit in E.D. New York
SYNGENTA CROP: Court Narrows Claims in Antitrust Lawsuit
TIARA YACHTS: Stodolak Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
TICKETMASTER LLC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Lozoya Says
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Oral Argument on Pending Bids Set for March 24
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Castellanos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
VSL PHARMACEUTICALS: Starr Wins Class Certification Bid
WALGREENS BOOTS: Court Approves Settlement in Clem Suit
WALGREENS BOOTS: Settlement in Clem Suit Gets Final Court Nod
[] Global Securities Class Action Settlements Soared in 2024
*********
3M COMPANY: Cordeiro Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Charles Cordeiro, 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-07713-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 30, 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 ulcerative colitis.
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: Driscoll Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph William Driscoll, Jr., 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-07714-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 30, 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: Escamilla Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Encarnacion Escamilla, 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-07715-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 30, 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: Feaster Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Quinton Feaster, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.) UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.),
Case No. 2:24-cv-07711-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 30, 2024), is brought for
damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
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 was diagnosed with liver cancer as a result of
exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, and / or as a result of
Defendants' fluorochemical products in water.
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:
Michael J. Quillin, Esq.
O'LEARY, SHELTON, CORRIGAN, PETERSON, DALTON, & QUILLIN,
LLC
1034 S. Brentwood Blvd., 23rd Fl.,
PH 1-A, St. Louis, MO 63117
Phone: (314) 405-9000
Facsimile: (314) 405-9999
Email: quillin@osclaw.com
3M COMPANY: Firefighters Exposed to Toxic Chemicals, Blore Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARSHALL BLORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.;
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.;
and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:25-cv-00193-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 10, 2025) is an action resulting
from the Plaintiff's exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"),
which 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.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and
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 used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
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. Plaintiff's
consumption, inhalation and dermal absorption of PFAS from
Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious
medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
3M Company conducts operations in electronics, telecommunications,
industrial, consumer and office, health care, safety, and other
markets. The Company businesses share technologies, manufacturing
operations, marketing channels, and other resources. 3M serves
customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq.
MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP
101 West Elm St., Suite 520
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (803) 315-3357
Facsimile: (610) 941-9880
Email: jshenkar@bernllp.com
3M COMPANY: Glassford Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Barber, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:24-cv-07725-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 23, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of Decedent's exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of
Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further
seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from
the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and during his service in the United States
Marines and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of
exposure to Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tessa G. Cuneo, Esq.
Alexandra W. Robertson, Esq.
ASK LLP
2600 Eagan Woods Drive, Suite 400
St. Paul, MN 55121
Phone: (651) 406-9665
Facsimile: (651) 406
Email: tcuneo@askllp.com
arobertson@askllp.com
3M COMPANY: Treider Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------
Reginald Charles Treider, 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-07716-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 30, 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
84 LUMBER: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Runciman Due March 3
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGEL RUNCIMAN,
individually, on behalf of the Amended and Restated Savings Fund
Plan for Employees of 84 Lumber Company, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. 84 LUMBER COMPANY, ADMINISTRATIVE
COMMITTEE of the Amended and Restated Savings Fund Plan for
Employees of 84 Lumber Company, JOHN DOES 1-30 in their capacities
as members of the Administrative Committee, Case No.
2:24-cv-00852-MPK (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Maureen Kelly entered
an order granting the Parties' joint motion to extend deadlines in
the Court's scheduling order as follows:
-- Class certification discovery set for Jan. 31, 2025 is
extended to Mar. 30, 2025 .
-- Plaintiff's motion for class certification, memorandum in
support, and all supporting evidence for Mar. 3, 2025, is
extended to May 15, 2025.
-- Defendants' memorandum in opposition to class certification
and all supporting evidence for Mar. 31, 2025, is extended to
June 12, 2025.
-- Plaintiff's reply memorandum in support of class
certification, due by Apr. 28, 2025, is extended to June 27,
2025.
-- Defendants' sur-reply, if necessary, due by May 13, 2025, is
extended to July 14, 2025.
84 Lumber is an operated American building materials supply
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EmZih4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON INC: Bid for Certification for Interlocutory Appeal Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNADEAN RITTMANN, et
al., v. AMAZON, INC., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-01554-JCC (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Coughenour entered an order denying the
Defendants' motion for certification for interlocutory appeal.
To summarize, Defendants fail to show that at least two of three
statutory factors are met to justify the exceptional relief they
seek.
Although Defendants do not challenge certification generally, they
submit that there are two issues with the scope of the class
appropriate for review:
(1) whether Plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims
could be equitably tolled on a class-wide basis, and
(2) whether notice should issue to certain class members who
have allegedly agreed to arbitration. On the first issue,
the Court found that the interests of justice weighed in
favor of class-wide tolling because of an eight-year stay
on Plaintiffs' original certification motion.
The third element for interlocutory review is "closely linked" to
the first. For similar reasons to those stated above, the Court
does not find an appeal of its conditional order would advance the
termination of this litigation. Both the equitable tolling and
arbitration issues could be mooted at the decertification stage.
Interlocutory appeal could just as well delay the litigation here,
especially in light of the remaining claims. Defendants would
only be correct that an appeal will advance the litigation if a
raft of assumptions come to pass. That is not enough for this Court
to certify the order.
The Plaintiff delivery drivers sued the Defendants in a putative
class action on various grounds, including FLSA.
Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hNyrVw at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON: Filing for Class Cert. in Return Policy Suit Due Sept. 29
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Amazon Return Policy Litigation,
Case No. 2:23-cv-01372-JNW (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Jamal
Whitehead entered an order granting the stipulated motion re case
schedule as follows:
Event Deadline
Report to the Court on the Status of March 3, 2025
Discovery:
Deadline for Filing Any Motion to June 2, 2025
Compel Discovery Related to Class
Certification:
End of Fact Discovery: Sept. 8, 2025
Deadline for Motion for Class Certification: Sept. 29, 2025
Deadline for Disclosure of Any Expert Report(s)
Supporting Class Certification:
Deadline for Depositions of Plaintiffs' Nov. 21, 2025
Experts:
Deadline for Opposition to Class Dec. 22, 2025
Certification:
Deadline for Depositions of Amazon's Experts: Jan. 23, 2026
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vfAmJs at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alicia Cobb, Esq.
Andrew H. Schapiro, Esq.
Adam Wolfson, Esq.
Justin C Griffin, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL
URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
1109 First Avenue, Suite 210
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 905-7075
Facsimile: (206) 905-7100
E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com
andrewschapiro@quinnemanuel.com
adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
justingriffin@quinnemanuel.com
- and -
Aaron M. Zigler, Esq.
Lawrence Ashe, Esq.
Nidya S Gutierrez, Esq.
ZIGLER LAW GROUP, LLC
308 S. Jefferson Street | Suite 333
Chicago, IL 60661
Telephone: (312) 673-8427
E-mail: aaron@ziglerlawgroup.com
larry@ziglerlawgroup.com
nidya@ziglerlawgroup.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Brian D. Buckley, Esq.
Deena J.G. Feit, Esq.
Jedediah Wakefield, Esq.
Mary Griffin Sims, Esq.
Samantha Ong, Esq.
FENWICK & WEST LLP
401 Union Street, 5th Floor
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 389-4510
Facsimile: (206) 389-4511
E-mail: bbuckley@fenwick.com
dfeit@fenwick.com
jwakefield@fenwick.com
mgriffin@fenwick.com
song@fenwick.com
AMERICAN ADDICTION: Jay Sues Over Failure Secure PHI and PII
------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Lee Jay, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. AMERICAN ADDICTION CENTERS, INC., Case No.
3:24-cv-01513 (M.D. Tenn., Dec. 31, 2024), is brought against
Defendant for failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's
and Class Members' protected health information ("PHI") and
personally identifiable information ("PII") stored within
Defendant's information network.
AAC knowingly obtains sensitive patient PHI/PII and has a resulting
duty to securely maintain such information in confidence. AAC
breached its duty to protect the sensitive PHI/PII entrusted to it
and failed to abide by its own Privacy Policy (as discussed infra).
As such, Plaintiff brings this Class action on behalf of herself
and the approximately 422,424 other patients whose PHI/PII was
accessed and exposed to unauthorized third parties during a data
breach of Defendant's system on September 23, 2024, which AAC
announced on or about December 23, 2024 (the "Data Breach").
AAC did not inform Plaintiff of the Data Breach until December 23,
2024, even though it became aware of the data breach on or about
November 22, 2024. Based on the public statements of AAC to date,
a wide variety of PHI/PII was implicated in the breach, including
but not limited to, names, physical addresses, phone numbers, dates
of birth, health insurance account information, Social Security
numbers, provider taxpayer identification numbers, and clinical
information (e.g., medical history, diagnoses, treatment, dates of
service, and provider names).
As a direct and proximate result of AAC's inadequate data security,
and its breach of its duty to handle PHI/PII with reasonable care,
Plaintiff's PHI/PII has been accessed by hackers, posted on the
dark web, and exposed to an untold number of unauthorized
individuals, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a patient of AAC and her information was stored
with and handled by Defendant as a result of her dealings with
Defendant.
AAC provides addiction treatment and mental health services at
numerous locations nationwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Grayson Wells, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 254-8801
Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
gwells@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street, Suite N300
Newtown, PA 18940
Phone: (215) 867-2399
Email: medelson@edelson-law.com
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Court OK's Citibank Bid to Quash Subpoena
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANNA NACHISON, et al.,
v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 5:24-cv-00530-PCP (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Virginia DeMarchi entered an order re non-party
Citibank's motion to quash deposition subpoena:
The Court grants Citibank's motion to quash Ms. Nachison's
deposition subpoena, with the exception of topic 2, which the Court
has construed, and subject to the condition that Ms. Nachison
identify the relevant time period.
Citibank must identify a corporate representative who is prepared
to testify regarding this topic (as construed by the Court) no
later than March 4, 2025, the close of fact discovery, unless
Citibank and Ms. Nachison agree otherwise and Ms. Nachison obtains
the presiding judge's approval for the deposition to proceed after
the close of fact discovery. The Court denies Citibank's motion to
quash on this ground, as it has not shown that its document
production is (or will be) sufficient to address any relevant
deposition topic.
Ms. Nachison filed an original complaint in this putative class
action on Jan. 29, 2024, and an amended complaint on Feb. 14, 2024.
She alleges that defendant American Airlines, Inc. ("AA")
wrongfully terminated her AAdvantage program account, resulting in
the loss of airlines miles awarded after she obtained and used
multiple, co-branded Citi-AAdvantage credit cards.
American Airlines provides scheduled air transportation services
for passengers and cargo.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=n8icsC at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMERICAN HONDA: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert. by Jan. 5, 2026
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Geddis-Wright v. American
Honda Motor Company, Inc., Case No. 5:24-cv-04886 (D.S.C., Filed
Sept. 6, 2024), the Hon. Judge Mary Geiger Lewis entered an order
denying the Parties' motion for an amended scheduling order.
-- Not later than February 6, 2025, the parties shall confer,
draft, and present to the Court a proposed consent scheduling
order
-- With a deadline of not later than Jan. 5, 2026, for the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and
-- A subject to being called for jury selection and/or trial
deadline of not later than Jan. 4, 2027.
The Court may insert dates for events if they are left blank.
The suit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.[CC]
APPLIED THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Feb. 18
------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of securities of Applied Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:
APLT) between January 3, 2024 and December 2, 2024, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important February 18, 2025
lead plaintiff deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Applied Therapeutics securities during
the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without
payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency
fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Applied Therapeutics class action, go
to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=32500 or call
Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 18, 2025.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.
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, but are merely
middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that
actually litigate the cases. 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.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, statements made
during the class period were false and/or materially misleading
because they concealed and misrepresented the clinical trial
protocols and procedures that Applied Therapeutics had in place.
Therefore, defendants provided investors with the false impression
that protocol and good clinical practices were being properly
followed. The lawsuit alleges that, in truth, Applied Therapeutics
was not adhering to trial protocol and good clinical practices
which, in turn, created an exceedingly severe risk that the trial
data would be rejected by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") in the context of a New Drug Application. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
To join the Applied Therapeutics class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=32500 call Phillip Kim,
Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for
information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
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
E-mail: case@rosenlegal.com [GN]
BANK OF AMERICA: Parties Seek OK of Class Cert. Briefing Schedule
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEAN LU, GIOVANNA BOLANOS,
and CLAUDE GRANT individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 3:23-cv-04027-JCS
(N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting
their joint motion for class certification briefing schedule and to
modify page limits.
The Plaintiffs have conferred with Defendant regarding their intent
to file an early motion for class certification. The Parties
thereafter agreed that the following class certification briefing
schedule would be appropriate:
Motion by Jan. 31, 2025
Opposition by Mar. 5, 2025
Reply by Mar. 26, 2025
Hearing on Apr. 2, 2025
The Parties have further agreed to—and request the Court to
approve—an extension of the page limits for class certification
briefing.
Under Local Rules 7-2 and 7-3, the motion and opposition brief are
limited to 25 pages in length, and the reply is limited to 15
pages. Due to the volume of evidence and complexity of issues to be
addressed, the Parties have stipulated to limitations of 35 pages
each for the motion and opposition, and 20 pages for the reply.
Bank of America is the second-largest banking institution in the
United States and the second-largest bank in the world by market
capitalization.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 29, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V5RqHX at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
Jason M. Lindner, Esq.
HARTLEY LLP
101 West Broadway, Suite 820
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 400-5822
E-mail: hartley@hartleyllp.com
lindner@hartleyllp.com
- and -
George A. Hanson, Esq.
Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
Caleb J. Wagner, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
ricke@stuevesiegel.com
wagner@stuevesiegel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Adam P. KohSweeney, Esq.
Chelsea E. Espiritu, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3823
Telephone: (415) 984-8700
Facsimile: (415) 984-8701
E-mail: akohsweeney@omm.com
cespiritu@omm.com
BETACOM HOLDINGS: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LMAR LAY, individually and
for other similarly situated, v. BETACOM HOLDINGS INC., Washington
for profit corporation; BETACOM INCORPORATED, a Florida for profit
corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-01195-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff
and the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the
time for the Plaintiff to file his motion for conditional
certification and motion for class certification.
Under the extended schedule, Plaintiff's deadline to file his
motion for conditional certification will be extended to March 28,
2025. The Plaintiff's deadline to file his class certification
motion will be extended to May 16, 2025.
Betacom is a telecommunications equipment service provider.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 30, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8U4Gi5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael C. Subit, Esq.
FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS, LLP
705 Second Ave., Suite 1200
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 682-6711
E-mail: msubit@frankfreed.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Alyssa J. White, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
awhite@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
James E. Breitenbucher, Esq.
Nikki H. Howell, Esq.
Nicholas J. Walker, Esq.
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4400
Seattle, WA 98154
Telephone: (206) 624-3600
Facsimile: (206) 389-1708
E-mail: jbreitenbucher@foxrothschild.com
nhowell@foxrothschild.com
nwalker@foxrothschild.com
BREWDOG BREWING: Bid to Dismiss Popp Case Tossed w/o Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORDAN POPP, v. BREWDOG
BREWING COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00338-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Judge Edmund Sargus, Jr. entered an order denying without
prejudice Brewdog's motion to dismiss, and, alternatively, denying
Brewdog's motion to strike.
Accordingly, the case remains open, the Court says.
The Court finds that Brewdog's challenge to Ms. Popp's ability to
bring her state-law claims under the REA are premature. At this
time, Ms. Popp's class action allegations in Count Two can be
properly maintained under Article II, section 34a of the Ohio
Constitution and need not be dismissed. Brewdog's motion to
dismiss, or in the alternative, to strike the class action
allegations is denied, but Brewdog may later challenge class
certification on these grounds.
The case is about whether Brewdog failed to properly compensate its
tipped employees.
Ms. Popp worked as a server at one of Brewdog's locations from May
2022 to August 2022.
Brewdog owns and operates a chain of six restaurants in Ohio.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XXc4b9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Bid to Permanently Seal Materials OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martin v. Brighthouse Life
Insurance Company et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02923-MMG (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Margaret Garnett entered an order granting the
Defendant's motion to seal:
On Oct. 8, 2024, the Court ordered a sealing protocol in this
action. Under the sealing protocol, the parties are permitted to
provisionally file materials concerning a motion or application
under seal and may seek to permanently seal such materials within
21 days following the conclusion of briefing on the relevant motion
or application.
The Defendant's motion to permanently seal materials is timely with
respect to materials concerning the parties' Daubert motions, which
were fully briefed on Jan. 10, 2025.
While the Defendant's motion is not timely with respect to the
materials concerning the motion for class certification which were
not identified in the Defendant's Jan. 3 motion to seal, the Court
acknowledges that the oversight was inadvertent.
Brighthouse offers income and fixed annuities, retirement, and
health care products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IdyXSi at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Stacey J. Rappaport, Esq.
MILBANK
55 Hudson Yards
New York, NY 10001-2163
Telephone: (212) 530-5347
E-mail: srappaport@milbank.com
CARUSO BUILDER: Wins Bid to Dismiss Sullivan Disclosure Act Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Caruso Builder Belle Oak, LLC v. RONALDA
SULLIVAN, No. 2 (Md.), Judge Angela M. Eaves of the Supreme Court
of Maryland affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court for Prince
George's County that granted Caruso Builder Belle Oak, LLC's motion
to dismiss the class action.
On July 17, 2015, Petitioner, Caruso Builder Belle Oak, LLC, a
residential real estate builder, and Respondent, Ronalda Sullivan,
a homebuyer, entered into a contract for Ms. Sullivan to purchase a
home in Prince George's County. Along with the contract, Caruso
provided Ms. Sullivan with a disclosure for deferred water and
sewer assessments, and the parties went to settlement on the
contract in February 2016.
Ms. Sullivan filed her initial class action complaint on Feb. 22,
2019. In the operative Second Amended Class Action Complaint, filed
in October 2021, Ms. Sullivan and all others similarly situated
alleged that Caruso violated the Disclosure Act because Caruso did
not include a good-faith estimated payoff amount when it listed
$20,700 as both the present value owed and the amount remaining on
the assessment, including interest. By disclosing the same dollar
amount for both options, Ms. Sullivan alleged that Caruso
affirmatively misrepresented that there would be no financial
benefit to her to pay off the entire water and sewer assessment at
settlement. Ms. Sullivan and the class members sought damages
pursuant to RP Sec. 14-117(b)(2)(i).
That same month, Caruso filed a motion to dismiss and request for
hearing, arguing that Ms. Sullivan's claim was barred by CJP Sec.
5-101's three-year statute of limitations. It argued that Ms.
Sullivan's claim accrued on the date she entered into the Contract
with Caruso—July 17, 2015—because that is the date on which the
sole element for a violation of the Disclosure Act was met. Because
Ms. Sullivan's claim was filed outside that three-year window, on
Feb. 22, 2019, her claim was barred.
In her opposition, Ms. Sullivan asserted that her claim for damages
under RP Sec. 14-117(b)(2)(i) accrued—at earliest—on the date
of settlement because that is the date on which she became
obligated to pay the deferred water and sewer charges.
In a January 2022 order, the circuit court denied Caruso's motion
without a hearing.
Ms. Sullivan opposed the motion to alter or amend, but the circuit
court, in a one-page, February 2022 order, granted Caruso's motion
to alter or amend and dismissed Ms. Sullivan's Second Amended Class
Action Complaint. Ms. Sullivan timely appealed.
In an unreported opinion, the Appellate Court of Maryland reversed
the circuit court.
Judge Eaves concludes that the parties entered into the Contract on
July 17, 2015, and Caruso allegedly violated its obligation under
the Disclosure Act to provide a compliant notice on that date. Ms.
Sullivan had sufficient information on the date of contract to
maintain a successful cause of action against Caruso. Thus, that is
when CJP Sec. 5-101's three-year statute of limitations commenced.
Because Ms. Sullivan filed her suit in February 2019, she was
beyond the three-year statute of limitations, and the circuit court
was correct to dismiss her Second Amended Class Action Complaint.
The Court holds that Ms. Sullivan's cause of action for Caruso's
Disclosure Act violation accrued at the time the parties entered
into the contract because that is the date on which (1) the single
element of Ms. Sullivan's cause of action was complete and (2) Ms.
Sullivan knew or should have known of Caruso's noncompliance,
permitting her to maintain a successful action against Caruso. In
so holding, it reverses the judgment of the Appellate Court of
Maryland and remands to that court with instructions to affirm the
judgment of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, which
granted Caruso's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ehByKl
CENTENNIAL BANK: Court Reinstates Jinkins Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEAH N. JINKINS, et al.,
v. CENTENNIAL BANK f/k/a HAPPY STATE BANK, Case No. 2:22-cv-00100-M
(N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Lynn entered an order granting
Plaintiffs' motion to reinstate the case filed by Plaintiffs Leah
N. Jinkins, Heather Morgan, and Victor Martinez.
The parties are ordered to file an updated Joint Scheduling Order
by Feb. 15, 2025, including the parties' proposed schedule for
addressing class certification.
The Clerk of Court is directed to reinstate the case to the Court's
docket. In its response, the Defendant contends that the Amarillo
Court of Appeals' decision in Williams affirming the dismissal of
Plaintiffs' insufficient funds fee claim is binding in this case.
The Plaintiffs are ordered to respond to that argument by Feb. 15,
2025, with a brief not exceeding ten pages.
Application of the Colorado River factors demonstrates the absence
of exceptional circumstances that overcome the strong presumption
in favor of federal jurisdiction. Accordingly, abstention is
unwarranted.
On May 10, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
against Centennial Bank f/k/a Happy State Bank ("HSB"), asserting
claims of breach of contract arising from Defendant's alleged
improper fee practices.
On Aug. 21, 2023, the Court denied Defendant's Motions to Dismiss.
Centennial offers businesses, investors, and municipalities a wide
range of commercial, retail banking, and related financial
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nOKGfF at no extra
charge.[CC]
CLOSETS BY DESIGN: Vernon Must File Class Cert Bid by June 10
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORLIS VERNON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CLOSETS BY DESIGN, INC. and CBD FRANCHISING, INC., Case No.
2:23-cv-01180-JNW (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Jamal Whitehead
entered an order as follows:
1. Affirmative class certification expert disclosures and
reports shall be due no later than April 8, 2025;
2. Rebuttal class certification expert disclosures and reports
shall be due no later than May 6, 2025;
3. Completion of depositions of Plaintiff's class certification
experts shall be done by May 6, 2025;
4. Completion of depositions of Defendant's class certification
experts shall be done by June 3, 2025;
5. Plaintiff shall file a motion for class certification no
later than June 10, 2025;
6. Defendants shall file an opposition to Plaintiff's class
certification motion no later than July 22, 2025; and
7. Plaintiff shall file a reply to Defendant's opposition to
Plaintiff's class certification motion no later than Aug.
26, 2025.
Closets By Design designs, builds and installs custom closets,
garage cabinets, home offices, laundries, pantries, wardrobe mirror
doors and much more.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e3hIM5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Simon C. Franzini, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: simon@dovel.com
- and -
Wright A. Noel, Esq.
CARSON & NOEL, PLLC
20 Sixth Ave. NE
Issaquah WA 98027
Telephone: (425) 395-7786
Facsimile: (425) 837-5396
E-mail: wright@carsonnoel.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Duncan McCreary, Esq.
Christopher S. Reeder, Esq.
REEDER MCCREARY, LLP
11766 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1470
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 861-2470
E-mail: duncan@reedermccreary.com
chris@reedermccreary.com
- and -
Zachary E. Davison, Esq.
Byron C. Starkey, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: (206) 359-8000
Facsimile: (206) 359-9000
E-mail: ZDavison@perkinscoie.com
ByronStarkey@perkinscoie.com
DAYTON CORRECTIONAL: Class Certification Denied in Terry Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as CAMILIA T. TERRY, Plaintiff, vs. M. ALLEN,
U.M.A. DAYTON CORRECTIONAL, et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:24-cv-176 (S.D. Ohio), Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman of
the United States District for the Southern District of Ohio
recommended that:
(i) the plaintiff's motion seeking class certification be
denied; and
(ii) all of plaintiff's claims be dismissed for failure to
state a claim.
Plaintiff is an inmate at DCI, which is operated by the Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections. On June 17, 2024, she
initiated the instant action against several prison employees
alleging violations of her constitutional rights.
On July 30, 2024, plaintiff filed a thirteen-page Amended
Complaint. As defendants, plaintiff names N. Grant, R. Battles, M.
Allen, and Mark Foreman -- who all appear to have been employees of
DCI at the times relevant to the claims brought against them, as
well as Annette Chambers-Smith, Director of ODRC, and John/Jane
Doe, unnamed supervisory staff at DCI. All defendants are sued in
their individual capacities.
On Sept. 9, 2024, the State of Ohio, as an interested party on
behalf of all putative Defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint on the basis that it is frivolous, malicious,
and/or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Because the Judge Bowman agrees that plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint should be dismissed upon the initial screen as frivolous,
malicious or failing to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, she recommends that the State of Ohio’s motion to
dismiss be granted.
Motion to Certify as Class Action
Plaintiff characterizes this case as a class action and seeks to
challenge the practice of random cell assignments and hazardous
living conditions on behalf of every inmate ever housed at DCI from
2017 through 2024. Her allegations are conclusory in nature, and to
the extent plaintiff seeks to formally be named a class
representative, her request should be denied.
Plaintiff asserts that she is well aware of the rights of prisoners
as a whole and has adequate knowledge and wisdom of the laws
surrounding civil rights to be able to effectively partner with
counsel who has the legal credentials.
Although plaintiff states she can adequately represent the proposed
class, she has also acknowledged that she lacks legal experience
and legal credentials and has no formal legal training outside of
self-education. Simply put, plaintiff presents no basis for
departing from the general rule that pro se plaintiffs are
inadequate class representatives. Hence, Judge Bowman recommends
that the Court deny the motion to certify a class action.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nj0GJw from PacerMonitor.com.
DICARLO SEAFOOD: Cendejas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dicarlo Seafood
Company, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Javier Cendejas,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Dicarlo Seafood Company, Inc., Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. 25LBCV00188 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 27,
2025).
DiCarlo Seafood -- https://dicarloseafood.com/ -- offers a wide
selection of fresh seafood including fish, oysters, clams, mussels,
scallops, and shrimp.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Vache A. Thomassian, Esq.
KJT LAW GROUP LLP
230 N. Maryland Ave. Suite 306
Glendale, CA 91206
Phone: 818.507.8525
Email: vache@kjtlawgroup.com
DISCOUNT TIRE: Court Narrows Claims in Schlagel Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nina Y. Wang of the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado granted in part and denied in part Discount
Tire Company of Colorado's motion to dismiss the first amended
complaint in the case captioned as MATTHEW SCHLAGEL, Plaintiff, v.
DISCOUNT TIRE COMPANY OF COLORADO, INC., Defendant, Civil Action
No. 23-cv-02909-NYW-CYC (D. Colo.).
Schlagel worked for Discount Tire from August 2005 to October 2023.
He alleges that he was promoted to store manager in January 2011
and managed multiple Discount Tire locations from January 2011 to
December 2016. From December 2016 to November 2021, Mr. Schlagel
managed Defendant's store in Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on Nov. 2, 2023. His Amended
Complaint asserts nine claims:
(1) Interference with his right to take leave under the Family
and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. Secs. 2611–20 ("Count
One"),
(2) Retaliation in violation of the FMLA ("Count Two"),
(3) Constructive discharge in retaliation for taking FMLA leave
in violation of the FMLA ("Count Three"),
(4) Retaliatory Constructive Discharge in violation of the
Colorado Wage Act ("CWA"), Colo. Rev. Stat. Secs. 8-4-101 to -127
(2024) ("Count Four"),
(5) Retaliation in violation of the Protected Health/Safety
Expression and Whistleblower ("PHEW") law, Colo. Rev. Stat. Secs.
8-14.4-101 to -109 (2024) ("Count Five"),
(6) Interference with and retaliation for Mr. Schlagel's
assertion of his right to sick leave, in violation of Colorado's
Healthy Families and Workplaces Act ("HFWA"),2 Colo. Rev. Stat.
Secs. 8-13.3-404 to -405 (2024) ("Count Six"),
(7) Retaliation for Mr. Schlagel's assertion of his employees'
right to meal breaks, in violation of the Colorado Overtime and
Minimum Pay Standards Order #38 ("COMPS Order"), 7 Colo. Code Regs.
Sec. 1103-1 (2022) ("Count Seven"),
(8) Disability discrimination in violation of the Colorado
Anti-Discrimination Act ("CADA"), Colo. Rev. Stat. Secs. 24-34-401
to -408 (2024), and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42
U.S.C. Sec. 12112 ("Count Eight"), and
(9) Retaliation in violation of the ADA and CADA ("Count
Nine").
In the instant Motion, Defendant argues that all nine claims should
be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).
Defendant contends that the Court should relinquish federal
jurisdiction over Counts Four, Five, and Seven because those claims
are currently subject to a lawsuit in Colorado state court.
Defendant contends that the Court should relinquish federal
jurisdiction over Counts Four, Five, and Seven because those claims
are currently subject to a lawsuit in Colorado state court. The
state case, Seamon v. Discount Tire Co. of Colorado, No.
23-cv-30691 (Dist. Ct. Pueblo Cnty.), involves a putative class
action alleging that Discount Tire violated failed to provide its
employees with paid rest breaks, in violation of Colorado
employment law. Mr. Schlagel provided a sworn declaration in
support of the plaintiff's claims in Seamon. Defendant argues that,
because the Seamon case is parallel to Mr. Schlagel's suit, this
Court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction over Counts Four,
Five, and Seven.
The Colorado River abstention doctrine permits federal courts to
dismiss or stay a federal action in deference to pending parallel
state court proceedings where the federal court would otherwise
have concurrent jurisdiction with the state court.
The Court concludes that neither the parties nor the issues in
Seamon are substantially the same as this lawsuit. As such, Seamon
cannot be an adequate vehicle for resolution of the issues raised
in Counts Four, Five, and Seven. The Court declines to invoke
Colorado River abstention as to Counts Four, Five, and Seven.
Count One: FMLA Interference
Count One alleges that Defendant interfered with Plaintiff's right
to FMLA leave by telling him that taking FMLA leave would hurt his
career, demoting him after he expressed interest in taking FMLA
leave, and refusing to promote him back to a store manager position
for five months.
Because Defendant's alleged verbal and written comments convinced
Plaintiff to delay his leave, Plaintiff concludes that Defendant
interfered with his FMLA rights.
The Court finds that the alleged statements by Mr. Schlagel's
superiors went further than to inform him that he would not accrue
benefits during FMLA leave, or warn him of a temporary restriction
of advancement and bonus opportunities. Hence, it concludes that
Mr. Schlagel has adequately alleged that Defendant took an adverse
action that interfered with his right to FMLA leave.
Counts Two and Three: FMLA Retaliation
Count Two alleges that Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for
his assertion of his FMLA rights, and Count Three alleges that
Defendant's retaliation amounted to a constructive discharge of
Plaintiff.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged protected
activity for purposes of a prima facie case of retaliation. It says
the delay and loss of bonus pay plausibly allege an adverse
employment action that satisfies the second prong of a retaliation
claim.
Therefore, the Court concludes that Mr. Schlagel has adequately
alleged a prima facie case of retaliation as to his delayed
promotion and his placement at a lower-earning store. With respect
to these two instances of conduct, the Motion is denied. As to all
other alleged retaliatory conduct, the Motion is granted, and Count
Two is dismissed without prejudice. It's granted as to Count Three,
and Count Three is dismissed without prejudice.
Count Four: CWA Retaliatory Constructive Discharge
Plaintiff alleges that, because of his complaints about Defendant's
alleged CWA violations, he was constructively discharged. In other
words, the "adverse action" that Plaintiff alleges for Count Four
is a constructive discharge.
The Court concludes that Mr. Schlagel fails to adequately allege
constructive discharge and therefore fails to state a prima facie
claim for CWA retaliation. Accordingly, the Motion is granted as to
Count Four, and Count Four is dismissed without prejudice.
Count Five: PHEW Retaliation
Defendant alleges that Count Five fails to state a claim for
retaliation under Colorado's PHEW law because he has not adequately
alleged an adverse employment action.
Based on the record before it, the Court declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Count Five. Because it declines to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's PHEW claim,
Count Five is dismissed without prejudice.
Count Six: HFWA Interference and Retaliation
The Court concludes that Plaintiff fails to adequately allege that
he "attempted to exercise" any right protected by the HFWA. The
Motion is granted as to Count Six, and Count Six is dismissed
without prejudice.
Count Seven: COMPS Order Retaliation
Mr. Schlagel seeks to recover under the COMPS Order for Defendant's
alleged retaliation against him after he complained that
Defendant's policies prevented him from providing his employees the
paid meal and rest breaks guaranteed by the COMPS Order.
The Corut finds the COMPS Order's plain text makes clear that
retaliation claims should be brought under the CWA or other
statutes rather than the COMPS Order itself. Nor will the Court
construe Count Seven as a CWA claim where Plaintiff has already
pled a CWA claim and has been represented by counsel since the
inception of this litigation. Accordingly, Count Seven is dismissed
without prejudice.
Count Eight: Disability Discrimination
Count Eight alleges that Defendant violated the ADA and CADA by
discriminating against Mr. Schlagel based on his disability status.
Defendant argues that Count Eight should be dismissed because Mr.
Schlagel fails to allege that he suffers from a qualifying
disability.
The Court concludes that Mr. Schlagel has alleged a prima facie
case for regarded-as disability discrimination based on his delayed
promotion and placement at a lower-earning store. To the extent
that Count Eight asserts a claim on these bases, the Motion is
denied. Count Eight is dismissed without prejudice as to all other
alleged discriminatory conduct.
Count Nine: Disability Retaliation
Count Nine alleges that Defendant retaliated against Mr. Schlagel
for requesting FMLA leave for his disability, for requesting
accommodations upon his return to work, and for complaining of
disability discrimination.
Defendant argues that Mr. Schlagel cannot assert an ADA claim based
on retaliation for his FMLA leave request because the ADA does not
protect rights granted by the FMLA. The Court agrees.
Accordingly, the Motion is denied insofar as Count Nine seeks to
recover for Plaintiff's alleged assignment to a lower-earning
store. With respect to all other alleged retaliatory conduct, Count
Nine is dismissed.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VvXges from PacerMonitor.com.
DISCOVERY PRACTICE: Greene Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Discovery Practice
Management Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Greene, an individual
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Discovery
Practice Management Inc. dba Casa Palmera, Case No. 25STCV02279
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 27, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Discovery Practice Management Inc. --
https://discoverybehavioralhealth.com/ -- offers residential as
well as hospitalization treatment for adolescent eating disorder,
mental health, substance abuse, and eating disorder.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
Robert David Wilson, Esq.
WILSON LAW
5173 Waring Rd. Ste. A Pmb 70
San Diego, CA 92120-2705
Phone: 858-833-8611
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
wilsonesq3@gmail.com
DOLE PACKAGED: Valle Jr. Sues Over Mislabeled Fruit Juice
---------------------------------------------------------
ENDY VALLE JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DOLE PACKAGED FOODS LLC, Defendant, Case No.
501022/2025 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., Jan. 12, 2025) alleges
violation of the New York General Business Law.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant's false
and deceptive representations and omissions with respect to the
Product's contents, origins, nutrient values, servings,
ingredients, flavoring, type, functionality, and quality, were
material in that they were likely to influence consumer purchasing
decisions.
The packaging and labeling of the Product violated the GBL, because
the representations, omissions, design, markings, and other
elements, including, "Mixed Fruit in 100% Fruit Juice With Added
Vitamin C and Natural Flavors," in transparent cups, showing a
packing medium which appeared to be "100% Fruit Juice," caused
purchasers to expect the fruit was packed only in fruit juice,
and/or its ingredients were listed in full on the front label,
which was unfair and deceptive to consumers.
As a result of the Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions,
the Plaintiff was injured and suffered damages, by payment of a
price premium for the Product, says the suit.
DOLE PACKAGED FOODS LLC produces, markets, and distributes fresh
fruits and vegetables.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
DROP HOLDINGS INC: Tirado Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Drop Holdings, Inc.
The case is styled as Christine Tirado, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Drop Holdings, Inc., Case No.
1:25-cv-01009 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 29, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com
E-BENEFIT SOLUTION: Monroe Files Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against E-Benefit Solution,
Inc. The case is styled as Parker Monroe, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. E-Benefit Solution,
Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00501-JAM (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 29, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor
Vehicle.
E-Benefit Solution Inc. -- https://e-benefitus.com/ -- is an
independent Insurance Brokerage Firm.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
GARDEN CITY, NY 11530
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Fax: (212) 868-1229
Email: vmaniatis@milberg.com
ENVISION RADIOLOGY: Judge Grants Class Action Over Practice Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marty Stempniak, writing for Innovate Healthcare, reports that a
Colorado judge recently granted class-action status to a
long-running lawsuit over the sale of a radiology practice.
The dispute dates to December 2017 when Colorado Springs-based
Envision Radiology became 100% owned by employees for an aggregate
price of about $164 million. Technologist and former employee
Robert Harrison and his attorneys filed suit in January 2021,
claiming shareholders grossly overpaid, among other contentions.
Envision Radiology had sought to quash the suit, believing Harrison
and colleagues "failed to assert any plausible claims of
wrongdoing." But Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney on Jan. 24 certified
the suit's class-action status, allowing the matter to move
forward.
"With this ruling, the court emphasizes that certifying plaintiffs'
class is in no way dispositive of their underlying claims,"
concluded Sweeney, with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado. "'In determining the propriety of a class action, the
question is not whether the plaintiff or plaintiffs have stated a
cause of action or will prevail on the merits, but rather whether
the requirements of Rule 23 are met.'"
Envision Radiology (no relation to the Nashville multispecialty
group) had previously considered selling to the Center for
Diagnostic Imaging (now Rayus Radiology) for about $150 million.
However, the practice's owners at the time -- Darrel Creps III,
Paul Sherwood, and Jeff Jones -- were not ready to relinquish
control of the company, attorneys claim. They devised a deal where
Envision's employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) would buy the
company, according to court documents.
But the plan did not have enough money to buy Envision. Instead,
the ESOP borrowed more than $103 million from the sellers and
nearly $51 million from the company. Following the transaction, any
retirement contributions Envision made to employee participants'
accounts were used, first, to pay interest owned on this debt.
"The imprudent and disloyal transaction terms caused ESOP
participants to suffer monetary losses in their retirement
accounts," the original complaint contended.
Harrison further claimed that employees were not given a chance to
negotiate the stock pricing. The final deal "inexplicably" had the
plan paying two different share prices for the same Envision stock,
plaintiff attorneys charge. About 64,000 shares went for $1,770
apiece while the remaining 36,000 went for $1,404. Participants
allegedly later learned that the stock could be worth as little as
$349 apiece.
"There is no clear reason why the ESOP would pay $366 more per
share for nearly two-thirds of the Envision stock," the complaint
said. "According to the Articles of Incorporation for Envision, the
company has only one class of shares," it added, noting that the
disparity would amount to a $23.4 million overpay by the buyers.
Harrison and colleagues contend that the practice owners
"handpicked" the trustee overseeing the sale, who purportedly did
not have employees' best interests in mind.
"Defendants in the case were fiduciaries to the [employee stock
ownership plan], and the law required them to act in the best
interests of the employee-participants," Washington-based law firm
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC said in a recently published
update on the suit. "Instead of fulfilling these duties, the
complaint alleges that the defendants caused the ESOP to pay
inflated values for the Envision stock. This lawsuit seeks to
restore to the ESOP the amount it overpaid for Envision stock and
to disgorge all ill-gotten profits defendants obtained in the ESOP
transaction."
For its part, Envision has submitted hundreds of pages of documents
seeking a dismissal of the suit. Envision has shot down assertions
that employees paid two different stock prices in the 2017
transaction.
"In their original pleading, plaintiffs advanced a primary case
theory that the ESOP had overpaid for the shares it acquired at
$1,770 per share, based on a contention that the ESOP purportedly
purchased another block of shares in the same transaction for
$1,404 per share," Envision attorneys wrote. "Defendants later
produced transaction documents demonstrating plaintiffs' primary
theory to be unequivocally false. Despite having those key
documents, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint that
continues to advance a demonstrably false theory, along with other
conclusory allegations of wrongdoing."
Founded in 2000, Envision Radiology operates over 50 imaging
centers, with locations in Colorado, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas,
employing about 1,000 team members.
Law360 first reported news of the class-action certification on
Jan. 27. [GN]
FHI LLC: Underpays Forklift Operators, Meneses Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
EMILIO MENESES, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FHI, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-00269
(M.D. Fla., February 3, 2025) is a class action against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.
Mr. Meneses was employed by the Defendant as a forklift operator
from approximately January 2003 to October 02, 2024.
FHI, LLC is a logistics company and provider of outsourced
workforce solutions, with its place of business in Lakeland, Polk
County, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
FIRST ADVANTAGE: Jones Seeks to Certify Putative Consumer Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN R. JONES,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v.
FIRST ADVANTAGE BACKGROUND SERVICES, CORP. Case No.
3:23-cv-00553-KAD (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order:
-- certifying the putative class of consumers defined as:
"All individuals 1) about whom First Advantage conducted a
criminal background investigation and reported that the
individual had a criminal charge or conviction to a third
party during the two years immediately preceding this Class
Action Complaint and continuing on until the date of judgment,
2) who then initiated a dispute with First Advantage after it
disclosed that inaccurate report, and 3) First Advantage
"removed" or "revised" that criminal conviction and classified
the "Dispute Reason" in its internal CCD as "Not Applicant" or
"Offense"; and
-- granting the Plaintiff permission to notify those members of
this lawsuit.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to "follow reasonable
procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy" of the consumer
reports its disclosed to potential employers in violation of 15
U.S.C. Sec. 1681e(b).
First Advantage provides background checks and screening services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 30, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BRk9P4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas J. Durkin, Esq.
HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC
750 Main Street, Suite 904
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 522-8888
Facsimile: (860) 218-9555
E-mail: tdurkin@hayberlawfirm.com
FLUX POWER HOLDINGS: Faces Kassam Securities Suit Over Disclosures
------------------------------------------------------------------
Flux Power Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on January 29, 2025, that on November 1, 2024,
plaintiff Asfa Kassam filed a purported federal securities class
action complaint in the United States District Court, District of
Nevada, captioned "Kassam v. Flux Power Holdings, Inc. et al." (No.
2:24-cv-02051), against the company, its Chief Executive Officer,
Ronald F. Dutt, and former Chief Financial Officer, Charles A.
Scheiwe.
The complaint generally alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The action purports to be brought on behalf of those
who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's publicly traded
securities between November 11, 2022 and September 30, 2024, and
seeks unspecified damages and other relief.
On January 14, 2025, the court granted an unopposed motion to
transfer the case to the Southern District of California for all
further proceedings. The case is in its early stages and a lead
plaintiff has yet to be appointed.
Flux Power Holdings designs, develops, manufactures and sells a
portfolio of advanced lithium-ion energy storage solutions for
electrification of a range of industrial commercial sectors which
include material handling, airport ground support equipment and
other commercial and industrial applications.
FLUX POWER HOLDINGS: Faces Labor Suits in California Courts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Flux Power Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on January 29, 2025, that on April 30, 2024, a
former employee filed a class action complaint against the company
and "Insperity," its third-party payroll service provider, in San
Diego County Superior Court for claims including failure to pay
minimum wage, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal
periods, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to pay wages at
separation, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to
reimburse business expenses, failure to produce employment records
and unfair competition, which he has purported to assert on behalf
of himself and all other individuals who worked for the Company or
Insperity, as non-exempt employees in California between April 30,
2020 and the present.
On July 1, 2024, the company filed an answer to the complaint that
none of the asserted claims possessed any merit, contended that
many of the asserted claims were subject to immediate dismissal,
and contended that certain of the asserted claims were subject to
binding arbitration. On October 14, 2024, plaintiff elected to
dismiss Insperity from the action without prejudice.
On July 5, 2024, the same employee filed a representative action
complaint against the company and Insperity in San Diego County
Superior Court for Violation of Private Attorneys' General Act
(PAGA), seeking an unspecified amount of penalties and attorneys'
fees based on allegations that the company violated certain
California employment laws. On August 8, 2024, the company filed an
answer to the complaint in which it denied that any of the asserted
claims possessed any merit and contended that certain of the
asserted claims were subject to binding arbitration.
On December 10, 2024, parties stipulated to the consolidation of
labor suit and the PAGA Action. As of the date hereof, both
proceedings are currently pending consolidation by the court. On
October 22, 2024, the Employee elected to dismiss Insperity from
the action without prejudice.
Flux Power Holdings designs, develops, manufactures and sells a
portfolio of advanced lithium-ion energy storage solutions for
electrification of a range of industrial commercial sectors which
include material handling, airport ground support equipment and
other commercial and industrial applications.
FTAI AVIATION: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set March 18
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that
purchasers or acquirers of FTAI Aviation Ltd. (NASDAQ: FTAI)
securities between July 23, 2024 and January 15, 2025, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), have until March 18, 2025 to seek appointment
as lead plaintiff of the FTAI Aviation class action lawsuit.
Captioned Shannahan v. FTAI Aviation Ltd., No. 25-cv-00541
(S.D.N.Y.), the FTAI Aviation class action lawsuit charges FTAI
Aviation as well as certain of FTAI Aviation's top executives with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the FTAI Aviation class action lawsuit, please provide
your information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-ftai-aviation-ltd-class-action-lawsuit-ftai.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: FTAI Aviation owns, leases, and sells aviation
equipment, among other things.
The FTAI Aviation class action lawsuit alleges that defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) FTAI Aviation reported one-time
engine sales as Maintenance Repair & Overhaul revenue when FTAI
Aviation only performs limited repair and maintenance work on the
engine assets sold; (ii) FTAI Aviation presents whole engine sales
as individual module sales, thereby overstating sales and demand;
and (iii) FTAI Aviation depreciates engines that are not on lease,
which misleadingly lowers the reported cost of goods sold and
inflates EBITDA.
The FTAI Aviation class action lawsuit further alleges that on
January 15, 2025, Muddy Waters Research published a report
alleging, among other things, that "FTAI [m]aterially [m]anipulates
[i]ts [f]inancials" by "exaggerating the size of its aftermarket
aerospace business," "[m]isleading investors by presenting whole
engine sales as individual module sales," "[i]nflating Aerospace
Products' EBITDA margins by means of over-depreciation in the
leasing segment," and "[e]ngaging in channel stuffing." On this
news, the price of FTAI Aviation stock fell more than 24%,
according to the complaint.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired
FTAI Aviation securities during the Class Period to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff in the FTAI Aviation 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 FTAI Aviation class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the FTAI Aviation class
action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential
future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff of
the FTAI Aviation class action lawsuit.
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:
J.C. Sanchez, Esq.
Jennifer N. Caringal, Esq.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (800) 449-4900
info@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
GROCERY OUTLET: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of
securities of Grocery Outlet Holding Corp. (NASDAQ: GO) between
November 7, 2023 and May 7, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than March 31, 2025.
So what: If you purchased Grocery Outlet securities during the
Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of
any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee
arrangement.
What to do next: To join the Grocery Outlet class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=34369 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has
already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you
must move the Court no later than March 31, 2025. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation.
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. 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.
Details of the case: According to the lawsuit, during the Class
Period, defendants provided overwhelmingly positive statements to
investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false
and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts
concerning the true state of Grocery Outlet's transition to new and
upgraded systems; notably, that Grocery Outlet was either not truly
equipped to timely and effectively execute on the transition or
otherwise failed to disclose the potential for significant setbacks
to Grocery Outlet's profitability as a result of delays and
implementation issues which impacted Grocery Outlet's visibility
and performance. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the Grocery Outlet class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=34369 call Phillip Kim,
Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for
information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
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]
INTEGRAL AD: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set March 31
----------------------------------------------------------
If you suffered a loss on your Integral Ad Science Holding Corp.
(NASDAQ:IAS) investment and want to learn about a potential
recovery under the federal securities laws, follow the link below
for more information:
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/integral-ad-science-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=126635&wire=1
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team
of experienced shareholder advocates.
THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against
Integral Ad Science Holding Corp. that seeks to recover losses of
shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities
fraud between March 2, 2023 and February 27, 2024.
CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
false statements and/or concealed that: (i) IAS was experiencing a
new material trend of increased competitive pricing pressures and
as a result, IAS had been forced to cut prices to compensate for
weakening demand and slowing revenue growth; (ii) IAS's pricing
function was no longer "favorable" and IAS could not sustain its
pricing and drive price increases; (iii) pricing had become a key
differentiator between IAS and its competitor necessary to close
major renewals and new deals; (iv) the risks that competition
"could result in increased pricing pressure" or "could put pressure
on us to change our prices" had in fact transpired; and (v) as a
result, the IAS's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Integral Ad Science stock
during the relevant time frame -- even if you still hold your
shares -- go to
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/integral-ad-science-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=126635&wire=1
to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or
obligation to participate.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP
has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities
litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars
for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning
high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing
investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70
employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi &
Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top
50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the
United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
https://zlk.com/ [GN]
IVY LEAGUE: Rejects Class Action Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------
Ashley Flores, writing for Columbia Spectator, reports that the Ivy
League opted out of the settlement reached in Grant House and
Sedona Prince v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, et al.,
last month. On Jan. 21, Ivy League Executive Director Robin Harris
informed student-athletes that the athletic conference would not
alter its rules in response to the settlement, which is set for a
final approval hearing on April 7.
The case reached Judge Claudia Ann Wilken's bench in 2020, when
Arizona State University swimmer Grant House and Texas Christian
University basketball player Sedona Prince sued for damages related
to name, image, and likeness rights. The pair also sought a
court-ordered removal of restrictions on revenue sharing from
broadcast rights.
The lawsuit resulted in a $2.78 billion settlement agreement, which
includes payments to approximately 25,000 former Division I
athletes who were previously unable to profit from their NIL before
restrictions were lifted in 2021.
The settlement also establishes a framework allowing colleges that
opt into the agreement to directly compensate athletes based on
their NIL, with payments capped at approximately $20 million per
year. However, the Ivy League has chosen to forgo this system and
-- as a result -- its schools cannot provide additional
compensation or create their own alternative model.
The Ivy League defended its decision in the Jan. 21 statement from
Harris, emphasizing its commitment to holistic student-athlete
development.
"I firmly believe that the totality of the Ivy League model --
one that offers student-athletes an option with world-class
academics and an opportunity for personal growth while yielding
consistent national athletics success -- is a well-rounded
experience that will continue to resonate in this evolving and
uncertain era of college sports," Harris wrote.
While the Ivy League presents its institutional fabric as one that
balances academics and athletics, student-athletes who have
navigated this landscape have their own perspectives on what that
balance means. Former Columbia women's basketball phenom Abbey Hsu,
CC '24, who was drafted by the WNBA's Connecticut Sun in spring
2024, understands the challenges of competing at a high level
within the conference and the difficulties surrounding the league's
decision.
"It's a disappointing one," Hsu said on the decision. "I think as
Ivy League athletes, we're constantly trying to prove ourselves --
that we're at par with the Power Five and other schools."
The Florida native, who helped clinch Columbia's two Ivy League
titles and its first NCAA tournament appearance last year,
highlighted the desire for recognition among Ivy League
student-athletes.
"We want to be treated the same as well," she said.
Others view the decision through a different lens. Robert Boland,
CC '87, former athletics integrity officer at Pennsylvania State
University and a current professor at Seton Hall Law School,
pointed to the league's long-standing approach to athletics as a
potential factor.
"The House settlement imposes fairly stringent scholarship limits
and roster limits for athletes," Boland explained. "For the Ivy
League, I don't think they want to be under that draconian roster
limit. I think the Ivy League looks at their rosters as a flexible
opportunity to have more highly qualified athletes who they can
admit in any given year and want to maintain control of that."
Because the Ivy League does not offer athletic scholarships, teams
don't have the same financial incentives as other programs.
However, they do benefit from the ability to admit more athletes
who meet their academic and athletic criteria. By opting out, the
league ensures it can continue operating under its own rules rather
than conforming to external restrictions.
Boland also pointed to a separate key concern: the potential for
unequal compensation among athletes. "The Ivy League doesn't want
to be in the business of compensating some athletes and not
others," he said. "They want to treat all their athletes with some
egalitarian effect."
In the House settlement, Division I schools would have the
discretion to determine how compensation is distributed among
athletes, which could create disparities between competitors or
entire sports teams. The Ivy League's decision facilitates the
preservation of the NIL in its current form -- where athletes are
compensated externally, rather than directly by the school.
The debate over NIL has become part of a larger conversation about
the future of college sports, one that raises questions about how
schools can uphold their unique educational and athletic
environments without compromising their support for student
athletes.
"The idea that House is forcing institutions that are particularly
different into a sort of one-size-fits-all model is somewhat
problematic," Boland noted. The risk, he explained, is that larger
programs might focus too heavily on revenue-generating sports,
cutting funding for less high-profile programs -- including certain
Olympic disciplines like swimming and diving teams -- which could
diminish opportunities for athletes in a broad range of
specialties.
Meanwhile, the changing landscape of college sports is pushing some
athletes to reconsider their options. With NIL opportunities
playing an increasingly significant role in recruitment and
retention, an exodus from the Ivy League basketball is underway --
an indicator of the threats the conference may face ahead. Star
basketball players including forward Danny Wolf, who played for
Yale before his transfer to the University of Michigan, and Malik
Mack, a former Harvard guard who now competes for Georgetown
University, have been early examples of athletes looking beyond the
Ancient Eight.
However, many argue that athletes are drawn to the Ivy League for
factors that transcend NIL. Students, particularly those attracted
to Ivy League institutions, have historically weighed a variety of
factors -- academic rigor, athletic opportunities, and personal
growth potential -- when choosing their college paths. As Boland
pointed out, athletes are accustomed to making difficult decisions
that balance these factors with their long-term prospects.
Hsu echoed this perspective, noting that her passion for higher
education alongside athletics played a crucial role in her decision
to commit to Columbia and the Ivy League. She emphasized that each
college applicant must determine their own priorities.
"Not every student-athlete's the same," Hsu said. "There's no right
or wrong path."
While she doesn't foresee a mass exit from the Ivy League, she does
believe the situation is critical.
"Hopefully that puts pressure on the Ivy League to change some of
their policies," she added.
Though NIL now adds a new dimension to this complex decision-making
process, it remains unclear how profoundly it will impact
student-athletes who have traditionally prioritized a well-rounded
collegiate experience.
Regardless of how the debate unfolds, Hsu believes it will be
crucial to navigate the field carefully, as the distinction between
student-athletes and their emerging roles as professional players
becomes increasingly unclear.
"I could see that line being blurred," Hsu said. "Am I going to
play for the highest paycheck or am I going to play for what
college sports was created for, which was that pride, that
camaraderie, that school spirit?"
As the landscape evolves, student-athletes will continue to make
decisions that reflect their personal goals and the changing nature
of their roles both on and off the field. How the Ivy League and
others adapt to these pressures will shape the next chapter in
college sports. [GN]
LENDING LOVE: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert. Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MYKESHIA FOSTER, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. LENDING LOVE LLC,
Case No. 3:24-cv-00445-CWR-ASH (S.D. Miss.), the Parties ask the
Court to enter an order granting their joint motion and extending
the deadline to file a motion for class certification by 35 days.
The Parties would benefit from additional time to complete the last
round of class certification related document production, review,
and analysis.
The Parties request that the new deadline to file a motion for
class certification be March 10, 2025.
The requested extension will not cause any other deadlines imposed
by the Case Management Order to be moved.
On Nov. 7, 2024, the Court entered a Case Management Order setting
the deadline for Plaintiff to file a Motion for Class Certification
on Feb. 3, 2025.
Lending Love specializes in care and daily living assistance to an
array of individuals.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 30, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P8EOxW at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William "Jack" Simpson, Esq.
SIMPSON, PLLC
100 South Main Street
Booneville, MS 38829-0382
Telephone: (662) 913-7811
Facsimile: (662) 728-1992
E-mail: jack@simpson-pllc.com
LIFE CHIROPRACTIC: Huber Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Life Chiropractic
College West Incorporated. The case is styled as Shane Huber, on
behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of
the general public v. Life Chiropractic College West Incorporated,
Case No. 25CV108800 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Jan. 27,
2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Life Chiropractic College West, Incorporated --
https://lifewest.edu/ -- operates as a college. The Company offers
transcripts, seminars, and educational services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Mara, Esq.
MARA LAW FIRM, PC
2650 Camino Del Rio N., Ste 302.
San Diego, CA 92108-1632
Phone: 619-234-2833
Fax: 619-234-4048
Email: dmara@maralawfirm.com
LINKEDIN CORP: Cole Sues Over Disclosed Personal/Video Info to FB
-----------------------------------------------------------------
COURTNEY COLE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LINKEDIN CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
5:25-cv-01097 (N.D. Cal., February 3, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Video Privacy Protection
Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has disclosed to Meta
Platforms, Inc., a third party, the personally identifiable
information (PII) and video viewing activity of its website
subscribers without consent. The Defendant embedded Facebook Pixel
to collect users' data. That pixel tracked the Plaintiff's and the
Class members' video viewing history while on the website and
reported their viewing history to Facebook. As a result, the
Defendant violated the Plaintiff's and the Class members'
statutorily protected privacy rights, says the suit.
LinkedIn Corporation is an online service provider company, with
its principal place of business in Sunnyvale, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott R. Drury, Esq.
DRURY LEGAL, LLC
6 Carriage Lane
Highwood, IL 60040
Telephone: (312) 358-8225
Email: scott@drurylegal.com
- and -
Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
ARISOHN LLC
513 Eighth Avenue, #2
Brooklyn, NY 11215
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Email: josh@arisohnllc.com
LORETTO HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to June 5
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Aderohunmu v. Loretto
Health & Rehabilitation Center, Case No. 5:24-cv-00731 (N.D.N.Y.,
Filed: May 31, 2024), the Hon. Judge David N. Hurd entered an order
granting letter motion as and to the extent that:
(1) The deadline for Defendant CPS Recruitment to respond to
the First Amended Complaint is updated to Feb. 13, 2025;
(2) Plaintiffs deadline to move for class certification is
extended to June 5, 2025;
(3) Plaintiffs expert disclosure deadline is extended to
July 10, 2025;
(4) Defendants expert disclosure deadline is extended to
Aug. 21, 2025;
(5) Rebuttal expert disclosure deadline is extended to
Sept. 5, 2025;
(6) The deadline for all discovery (merit, named Plaintiffs,
and class) to be completed, including all depositions, is
extended to 10/7/2025; and
(7) The filing of dispositive motions deadline is extended to
Jan. 9, 2026.
Loretto offers health and rehabilitation services.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
involving collection of unpaid wages.[CC]
LUCAS COUNTY, OH: Filing for Class Cert. in Colombaro Due June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SONYA COLOMBARO, v. LUCAS
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02564-JRK
(N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge James Knepp II entered a case
management conference order as follows:
-- Discovery cut-off dates
Plaintiffs' liability expert disclosures: Oct. 31, 2025
Defendants' liability expert disclosures: Dec. 5, 2025
Liability: Dec. 31, 2025
-- Deadline for filing dispositive motions: Feb. 27, 2026.
-- Deadlines for class certification
Plaintiffs' motion: June 30, 2025
Defendants' opposition: Aug. 1, 2025
Reply: Aug. 15, 2025
Lucas County Board provides public safety and public service
programs and operations.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aBzKyE at no extra
charge.[CC]
LUCAS COUNTY, OH: Filing for Class Cert. in Upperco Due June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER UPPERCO, et al.,
v. LUCAS COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, et al., Case No.
3:23-cv-01283-JRK (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge James Knepp II
entered a case management conference order as follows:
-- Discovery cut-off dates
Plaintiffs' liability expert disclosures: Oct. 31, 2025
Defendants' liability expert disclosures: Dec. 5, 2025
Liability: Dec. 31, 2025
-- Deadline for filing dispositive motions: Feb. 27, 2026.
-- Deadlines for class certification
Plaintiffs' motion: June 30, 2025
Defendants' opposition: Aug. 1, 2025
Reply: Aug. 15, 2025
Lucas County Board provides public safety and public service
programs and operations.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LRlBWG at no extra
charge.[CC]
LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Class Settlement in Doyle Gets Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doyle v. Luxottica of
America, Inc. (re LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA, INC. DATA SECURITY BREACH
LITIGATION), Case No. 1:20-cv-00908-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Court
entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval
of class action settlement:
The Court dismisses the following actions:
-- Action Doyle v. Luxottica of Am., Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-908
(S.D. Ohio)
-- Consolidated Actions Gervais v. Luxottica of Am., Inc., Case
No. 1:20-cv-00983 (S.D. Ohio)
-- Crockett v. Luxottica of Am., Inc., No. 1:20-cv-01011 (S.D.
Ohio),
-- as well as all of the Released Claims with prejudice, as to
the Released Persons only.
The Parties are to bear their own costs, except as otherwise
provided in the Settlement Agreement.
The Court grants certification of the Settlement Class for
settlement purposes only.
The Court confirms the appointment of Settlement Class Counsel
Dorothy P. Antullis of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Bryan L.
Bleichner of Chestnut Cambronne PA, and Hassan A. Zavareei of Tycko
& Zavareei LLP.
The Court confirms the appointment of Settlement Class
Representatives Astrid Ela f/k/a Jessie Crockett, Michael Doyle,
Phillip Gervais, John Gloss, Larry Payne (on behalf of his minor
child, M.P.), and Donna Rivera.
The Court discharges and releases the Released Claims as to the
Released Persons, as those terms are used and defined in the
Settlement Agreement.
The Court permanently bars and enjoins the institution and
prosecution by any Settlement Class Representative, Settlement
Class Member, and anyone claiming through or on behalf of any of
them, of any other action defined in the Released Claims against
the Released Persons, in any court or other forum asserting any of
the Released Claims, or any claim related in any way to the
All Settlement Class Members and anyone claiming through or on
behalf of any of them, shall cooperate with Defendant Luxottica to
promptly dismiss with prejudice as to any of the Released Persons,
Actions related to the Settlement Agreement, and all other pending
litigation asserting any Released Claims against any of the
Released Persons.
The Court discharges and releases all Settlement Class
Representatives, Settlement Class Members, and their counsel of the
Released Claims as provided in Section 1.38 of the Settlement
Agreement.
Luxottica offers prescription glasses and sunglasses.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FMLIf0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
MANCINI'S SLEEPWORLD: Abrams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mancini's Sleepworld,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Emil Davtyan, an dividual; on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Mancini's
Sleepworld, Inc., Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV108806
(Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Jan. 27, 2025).
Mancini's Sleepworld -- https://www.sleepworld.com -- offers
mattress, bedroom furniture, kids furniture, futons, massage chairs
and more.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Emil Davtyan, Esq.
David Yeremian, Esq.
Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq.
Rose Sorial, Esq.
D.LAW, INC.
450 N. Brand Blvd. Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (818) 962-6465
Fax: (818) 962-6469
Email: emil@d.law
d.yeremian@d.law
alindsay@d.law
r.sorial@d.law
MARINE LAYER: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Marine Layer, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-00329 (D. Minn.,
Jan. 28, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website
(www.marinelayer.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is
not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who
have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory
mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and
services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the
"ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim
under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action
under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA).
The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is
responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning
the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her
experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past
year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff
found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that
deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to
important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its
sighted Website users.
Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to
access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or
shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant
offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and
operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully
accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with
vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class
have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to
be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to
provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is
compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind.
The Defendant offers clothing and accessories for sale including,
but not limited to dresses, pants, sweaters, outerwear, socks,
bags, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
Jason Gustafson (#0403297)
222 South Ninth Street, Suite 1600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (763) 515-6110
Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
MARK OF EXCELLENCE: Graham Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leah Graham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MARK OF EXCELLENCE PIZZA COMPANY d/b/a DOMINO'S, Case
No. 3:25-cv-00210-K (N.D. Tex., Jan. 27, 2025), is brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid minimum
wages and overtime hours owed to themselves and similarly situated
delivery drivers employed by Defendant at its Domino's stores.
The Defendant employees delivery drivers who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their
customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the
reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles,
Defendant uses a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates
that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable
approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers'
unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal
minimum wage during some or all workweeks (nominal wages –
unreimbursed vehicle costs = subminimum net wages), says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from April 2014 to May of
2023 as a delivery driver at Defendant's Domino's store located
within this District.
The Defendant operates numerous Domino's Pizza franchise
stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Colby Qualls, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AK 72211
Phone: (214) 210-2100
Email: cqualls@foresterhaynie.com
- and -
Matthew McCarley, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
11300 North Central
Expressway, Suite 550
Dallas, Texas 75243
Phone: (214) 210-2100
Email: mccarley@foresterhaynie.com
MARTEN TRANSPORT: Court Stays Jackson Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alexander W. Jackson v.
Marten Transport, Ltd. et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-02368-AH-DTB (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order as follows:
-- denying the Plaintiff's motion to remand; and
-- granting the Defendant's motion to stay.
The action is stayed in its entirety pending completion of the
Allen/Martinez Actions, or until further order of the court. The
parties shall submit a brief Joint Status Report apprising the
court of the status of the Allen/Martinez Actions within one week
of the resolution of the class action certification and continuing
every three months thereafter.
Furthermore, within 10 days of either (1) a resolution of the state
court action through settlement or other informal means, or (2)
completion of the state court trial, the parties shall file a Joint
Notice informing the court of such development.
The Court is bound by the Ninth Circuit’s disposition not to
impose an anti-removal presumption in CAFA cases. Accordingly, the
Court finds that Defendant has met its burden to demonstrate the
total amount at issue in this case exceeds the $5 million threshold
required by CAFA. The Defendant's motion to remand is therefore
denied.
Because the relevant factors all weigh in favor of a stay, the
Court grants Defendant's motion to Stay and stays the instant
action pending resolution of the Allen/Martinez Actions.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent:
"all current and former California employees of the Defendant
employed in California, at any time beginning four (4) years
prior to the filing of Complaint through the date notice is
mailed to the Class, and who drove a truck for the Defendant."
The Plaintiff filed this wage and hour class action against the
Defendant alleging failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide
meal periods and rest periods, failure to furnish accurate itemized
wage statements, waiting time penalties, and violation of
California's Unfair Competition Act.
The Plaintiff is a former driver for the Defendant.
Marten specializes in protective service transportation of foods
and other products requiring temperature-controlled carriage or
insulated carriage.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8mcK3k at no extra
charge.[CC]
MAXLINEAR INC: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Failed Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
MaxLinear, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 29, 2025, that on August 31, 2023, a Silicon
Motion stockholder filed a class action complaint against the
company and certain of its current officers alleging that the
company materially misrepresented the likelihood that its merger
with Silicon Motion Technology Corporation would close.
The company terminated said merger agreement on July 26, 2023.
Silicon Motion has challenged the validity of that termination. On
August 16, 2023, Silicon Motion delivered a notice that it was
purporting to terminate the merger and that Silicon Motion would be
commencing an arbitration before the Singapore International
Arbitration Centre to seek damages arising from alleged breaches.
On October 5, 2023, Silicon Motion filed a Notice of Arbitration
with the Singapore International Arbitration Centre.
MaxLinear, Inc. is a provider of communications systems-on-chip, or
SoC, solutions used in broadband, mobile and wireline
infrastructure, data center, and industrial and multi-market
applications.
MDL 2566: Bid to Seal Docs in Celluci v. Montalvo OK'd
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Celluci v. Montalvo, Case
No. 4:22-cv-40018 (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton
entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to seal the
documents in question provisionally so as not to delay briefing
related to class certification.
Any documents filed under seal pursuant to the order must be filed
in accordance with the instructions from the Clerk's Office by no
later than Feb. 5, 2025. The Defendants have not identified, or
provided the court with copies of, the documents they seek to file
under seal.
To the extent the Defendants -- or the Plaintiffs -- want these
documents to remain under seal on the docket, they must "explain,
on a document-by-document basis, why sealing is required and how
their request satisfies the applicable legal standard." They must
make such a filing by no later than Feb. 28, 2025. If they do not
make such a filing, the court will unseal the documents.
Mag. Judge Katherine A. Robertson entered in Case No.
1:14-cv-12058-NMG provisionally granting motion to seal filed by
the Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo Bank. LLC,
Mauricio Cardenas, Michael Montalvo, and ProPay, Inc.
Counsel will receive an email within 24 hours of the order with
instructions for submitting sealed documents for which leave has
been granted in accordance with the Local Rules of the U.S.
District Court of Massachusetts.
The Celluci suit is consolidated in TELEXFREE SECURITIES LITIGATION
MDL No. 2566.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Fraud.
Telexfree, a trade name owned by Telexfree Inc., was a
multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme disguised as an internet phone
service company.[CC]
MDL 2566: Bid to Seal Docs in Celluci vs Staten OK'd
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Celluci v. Staten, et al.,
Case No. 4:22-cv-40100 (D. Mass., Filed Sept. 14, 2022), the Hon.
Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton entered an order granting the Defendants'
motion to seal the documents in question provisionally so as not to
delay briefing related to class certification.
Any documents filed under seal pursuant to the order must be filed
in accordance with the instructions from the Clerk's Office by no
later than Feb. 5, 2025. The Defendants have not identified, or
provided the court with copies of, the documents they seek to file
under seal.
To the extent the Defendants -- or the Plaintiffs -- want these
documents to remain under seal on the docket, they must "explain,
on a document-by-document basis, why sealing is required and how
their request satisfies the applicable legal standard." They must
make such a filing by no later than Feb. 28, 2025. If they do not
make such a filing, the court will unseal the documents.
Mag. Judge Katherine A. Robertson entered in Case No.
1:14-cv-12058-NMG provisionally granting motion to seal filed by
the Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo Bank. LLC,
Mauricio Cardenas, Michael Montalvo, and ProPay, Inc.
Counsel will receive an email within 24 hours of the order with
instructions for submitting sealed documents for which leave has
been granted in accordance with the Local Rules of the U.S.
District Court of Massachusetts.
The nature of suit states bankruptcy – appeal.
The Celluci suit is consolidated in Case No. 4:14-md-02566.[CC]
MDL 2566: Bid to Seal Docs OK'd in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re: Telexfree Securities Litigation,
Case No. 4:14-md-02566 (D. Mass., Filed Oct. 22, 2014), the Hon.
Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton entered an order granting the Defendants'
motion to seal the documents in question provisionally so as not to
delay briefing related to class certification.
Any documents filed under seal pursuant to the order must be filed
in accordance with the instructions from the Clerk's Office by no
later than Feb. 5, 2025. The Defendants have not identified, or
provided the court with copies of, the documents they seek to file
under seal.
To the extent the Defendants -- or the Plaintiffs -- want these
documents to remain under seal on the docket, they must "explain,
on a document-by-document basis, why sealing is required and how
their request satisfies the applicable legal standard." They must
make such a filing by no later than Feb. 28, 2025. If they do not
make such a filing, the court will unseal the documents.
Mag. Judge Katherine A. Robertson entered in Case No.
1:14-cv-12058-NMG provisionally granting motion to seal filed by
the Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo Bank. LLC,
Mauricio Cardenas, Michael Montalvo, and ProPay, Inc.
Counsel will receive an email within 24 hours of the order with
instructions for submitting sealed documents for which leave has
been granted in accordance with the Local Rules of the U.S.
District Court of Massachusetts.
The nature of suit states Securities Fraud.
Telexfree, a trade name owned by Telexfree Inc., was a
multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme disguised as an internet phone
service company.[CC]
MDL 2992: Status Conference Set for Feb. 14
-------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Bank of America California
Unemployment Benefits Litigation, Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB
(S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gonzalo Curiel entered an order
following hearing on class certification and setting status
conference:
On Jan. 17, 2025, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification. The Court issued a tentative order to the
parties prior to the hearing.
At the hearing, the Court questioned whether Plaintiffs could seek
class certification on a due process claim for the Credit
Rescission Class when it was not raised in the Second Amended
Master Consolidated Complaint ("SAMCC") and whether Plaintiff could
raise the breach of fiduciary claim for the Customer Service Class
when it was not alleged in the SAMCC. At the hearing, Class
Plaintiffs' counsel requested leave to amend those causes of action
to add those allegations.
When asked, defense counsel did not oppose the amendments. On
January 24, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Master
Consolidated Complaint. Defendant is directed to file an Answer in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3).
As to the breach of fiduciary claim, the Court noted, in its
tentative order, that the issue of whether the breach of fiduciary
duty claim should be certified as to the Customer Service Class not
only was not in the SAMCC but was also not briefed in the motion
for class certification.
Accordingly, the Court sets a status conference via Zoom on Feb.
14, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. to address this issue as well as how the
parties will proceed with Class Notice. If the parties wish to
discuss any other issues at the conference, they should identify
the issue for the Court no later than February 7, 2025, with an
explanation as to what the parties have done to address it to date.
The Court will email the parties the Zoom link closer to the date
of the hearing.
Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and
financial services holding company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YuQVzi at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 3062: Court Narrows Claims in Antitrust Litigation
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re: CROP PROTECTION PRODUCTS LOYALTY
PROGRAM ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 1:23-md-03062-TDS-JEP
(M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Schroeder entered an order
granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to
dismiss as follows:
1. The Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' federal
damages claims under the First, Second, and Third Claims for
Relief is granted and those claims are dismissed as barred
by Illinois Brick.
2. The Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for
federal injunctive relief under the First, Second, and Third
Claims for Relief for failure to plead proximate causation
is denied.
3. The Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to plead
proximate causation in support of state antitrust and
consumer protection claims is denied.
4. The Defendants' motion to dismiss claims under the laws of
Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia,
Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and
West Virginia, for failure to allege in-jurisdiction
purchases by named Plaintiffs, is denied.
5. The Defendants' motion to dismiss claims under the New York
Donnelly Act (Claim 21) and New Hampshire Consumer
Protection Act (Claim 46) for failure to allege sufficient
intrastate conduct is denied.
6. The Defendants' motion to dismiss the claim under the Puerto
Rico Antitrust Act (Claim 25) for lack of an Illinois Brick
repealer is denied.
In this MDL litigation putative class action, a dozen farmers
allege that two major manufacturers of crop protection products
used by farmers have employed anticompetitive loyalty rebate
programs. Relief is sought under federal antitrust law as well as
the law of 38 states and territories and the District of Columbia.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated Jan. 28,
2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BIrZEF at no extra charge.[CC]
MERCURY SYSTEMS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Mercury Systems Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending December 27, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2025, that the company
continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
On December 13, 2023, a securities class action complaint was filed
against the Company, Mark Aslett, and Michael Ruppert in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The complaint asserted Section 10(b) and 20(a) securities fraud
claims on behalf of a purported class of purchasers and sellers of
the Company's stock from December 7, 2020, through June 23, 2023.
The complaint alleged that the Company's public disclosures in SEC
filings and on earnings calls were false and/or misleading.
On February 27, 2024, the Court entered an order appointing
Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California as lead
plaintiff.
On April 18, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
including William Ballhaus and David Farnsworth as additional
defendants and amended the class period to February 3, 2021 through
February 6, 2024.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss on May 24, 2024, and after
the plaintiffs’ filed their opposition motion and the Company
filed its reply to their opposition, a hearing on the motion was
conducted by the Court on July 24, 2024.
On July 24, 2024, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice
and permitted the plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint.
The plaintiffs filed for leave to amend their complaint on August
23, 2024, the Company filed its opposition motion on September 6th,
the plaintiffs filed their response brief on September 17, 2024,
and the Company filed its reply on September 30, 2024.
On October 17, 2024, the Company received a shareholder derivative
demand alleging the same claims as those covered in the federal
securities class action.
On November 14, 2024, the Company and the shareholder entered into
a tolling agreement on the derivative demand.
Subject to the terms of the Company's by-laws and applicable
Massachusetts law, Mr. Aslett, the Company's former Chief Executive
Officer, and Mr. Ruppert, the Company's former Chief Financial
Officer, Mr. Ballhaus, the Company's current Chief Executive
Officer, and Mr. Farnsworth, the Company's current Chief Financial
officer, are indemnified by the Company for this matter.
The Company believes the claims in the complaints are without merit
and intends to defend itself vigorously
Mercury Systems, Inc. is a technology company that delivers
processing power for the most demanding aerospace and defense
missions. Its end-to-end processing platform enables a broad range
of aerospace and defense programs, optimized for mission success in
some of the most challenging and demanding environments.
MODIVCARE INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP informs stockholders that a class action was filed on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
ModivCare, Inc. (NASDAQ: MODV) securities between November 3, 2022
and September 15, 2024. ModivCare provides a suite of integrated
supportive care solutions for public and private payors and their
members.
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
ModivCare, Inc. (MODV) Misled Investors Regarding its Business
Prospects
According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
failed to disclose that certain contracts used in ModivCare's NEMT
segment caused the Company's free cash flow to deteriorate and
that, as a result, (1) contract renegotiations and pricing
accommodations negatively impacted the Company's adjusted EBITDA;
(2) the Company had insufficient liquidity; and (3) defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis. When the truth was revealed, ModivCare's stock declined,
harming investors.
What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against ModivCare, Inc. Shareholders who want to serve as lead
plaintiff for the class must file papers with the court by March
31, 2025. 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 ModivCare, 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. [GN]
MORGAN & MORGAN: Bid to Remand Walker Suit to State Court Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON WALKER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MORGAN & MORGAN, JACKSONVILLE PLLC a/k/a Morgan & Morgan,
Jacksonville LLC and BRAD MILKWICK, Case No. 2:24-cv-00088-LGW-BWC
(S.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Lisa Godbey Wood entered an order
denying Plaintiff's motion to remand this case to state court based
on the local controversy exception.
The Plaintiff has failed to show that Defendant Milkwick, the only
defendant who is a citizen of Georgia, is a significant defendant,
and Plaintiff has failed to show that two-thirds of the putative
class members are citizens of Georgia. The Plaintiff has,
therefore, failed to meet his burden of establishing that this case
falls within CAFA's local controversy exception.
The Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, a putative class action, against
Morgan & Morgan and Mr. Milkwick on June 20, 2024 in the Superior
Court of Glynn County, Georgia. In the complaint, the Plaintiff
asserts that, at the time Plaintiff retained Morgan & Morgan to
represent him, the firm "was not qualified or registered to do
business in Georgia in violation of O.C.G.A. section 14-11-711,"
and, "[t]herefore, the collection of any fees and expenses
contemplated in the unenforceable fee contract was wrongful, and
Plaintiff is entitled to the return of such money taken by [Morgan
& Morgan]."
Morgan & Morgan is a personal injury law firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NFJdaA at no extra
charge.[CC]
MYLAN NV: Plaintiffs' Objections to Bill of Costs Sustained in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Paul Oetken of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York sustained in part and overruled in part the
objections filed by plaintiffs to defendants' corrected bill of
costs in the class action lawsuit In re Mylan N.V. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 16-cv-07926-JPO (S.D.N.Y.), .
Defendants, having prevailed in this class action concerning
alleged securities fraud, now seek costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1920 and Local Rule 54.1.
Plaintiffs filed timely objections to the Corrected Bill of Costs.
In response to the objections, Defendants withdrew several items
from their request, resulting in a current request for $430,165.61
in deposition-related, demonstrative, and document conversion and
production costs.
Plaintiffs object on the ground that Defendants did not submit with
the Corrected Bill of Costs an affidavit that the costs claimed are
allowable by law, are correctly stated and were necessarily
incurred. In particular, they argue that the Corrected Bill of
Costs does not state which deposition transcripts, demonstrative
exhibits, and document conversion costs were necessarily incurred.
The Court is content that Defendants' sworn declaration --
submitted with the Corrected Bill of Costs in the form prescribed
by the Administrative Office -- satisfies the threshold affidavit
requirement of Section 1924 and Local Rule 54.1. That is not to
say that every item in Defendants' Corrected Bill of Costs is
necessarily taxable, but only that it should not be denied in its
entirety by virtue of the affidavit requirement.
Plaintiffs argue that the Court should reject the Corrected Bill of
Costs as a matter of equity.
Plaintiffs contend that their good faith and initial success in
prosecuting this action demonstrate that equity militates against
an award of costs. They further argue that it would be particularly
inequitable to award costs against class representatives, which
would discourage future plaintiffs from taking on the role of class
representative in future meritorious class action suits of
importance to the public.
According to the Court, Plaintiffs' arguments for an extraordinary
departure from ordinary practice are insufficient. As for success
against early dispositive motions, that Section 1920 and Local Rule
54.1 explicitly contemplate the award of costs for expenses
incurred at trial undercuts Plaintiffs' contention that proceeding
past dispositive motions constitutes a sufficient basis for denying
the award of costs, the Court finds.
Plaintiffs do not dispute that the depositions themselves at issue
are covered by Rule 56.1. Instead, they argue that Defendants seek
more than mere transcripts and copies, but additional expenses that
are unnecessary and duplicative, and are therefore not taxable.
Defendants contend that other categories of deposition costs, such
as those contested in this case, are taxable when they are
necessary, as opposed to merely convenient or helpful, to the
prosecution of their case.
The Court concludes Defendants are entitled to deposition-related
costs from the following
categories:
(1) Certified Transcript,
(2) Surcharge,
(3) Production/Processing,
(4) Exhibits – Linked, and
(5) Expedited Delivery.
The remaining categories of deposition-related costs are not
taxable.
The Clerk of Court is directed to tax costs in the amount of
$82,080.80.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qEaDw2 from PacerMonitor.com.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due May 9
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABDUL SHABAZZ, v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC d/b/a RIGHTPATH SERVICING, Case No.
5:24-cv-00498-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge John Gallagher entered
an amended scheduling order as follows:
1. All fact and expert discovery shall be completed no later
than April 4, 2025.
2. Affirmative expert reports, if any, are due by Feb. 21,
2025.
3. Rebuttal expert reports, if any, are due by March 21, 2025.
4. Expert depositions, if any, shall be concluded no later than
April 4, 2025.
5. Motions for summary judgment, Daubert motions, and motions
for class certification if any, shall be filed by May 9,
2025. Responses shall be filed no later than June 9, 2025.
Motions and responses shall be filed in the form prescribed
in Judge Gallagher's Policies and Procedures.
Nationstar provides mortgages loan, re-financing, and home equity
loans.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mrwuHH at no extra
charge.[CC]
NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE: Cruz Sues Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Noel Cruz, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly-situated v. NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE INC. d/b/a
NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE, and PATRICK CLARKE, individually, and CRAIG
LUSARDI, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-00832 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 28,
2025), is brought for damages and other redress based upon
violations that Defendants committed of Plaintiff's rights
guaranteed to him by: the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"); the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA,
the overtime provisions of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"); N.Y.
Comp. Codes R. & Regs. ("NYCRR").
Throughout his employment, except from November 3 through January
5, 2025, and currently, Defendants have willfully failed to pay
Plaintiff the overtime wages lawfully due to him under the FLSA and
the NYLL. Specifically, Defendants have required Plaintiff to work,
and Plaintiff does in fact work, in excess of forty hours each
week, or virtually each week. Yet in exchange for his work,
Defendants have failed to compensate Plaintiff, who is an hourly
employee, at any rate of pay for any hours that Plaintiff works
prior to his scheduled shifts that exceeded forty in a workweek,
and thus not at the statutorily-required overtime rate of pay for
those hours, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff works for the Defendant as a non-managerial laborer
from mid-July 2024 through the present.
The Defendants is a utility asset management and contracting
company based in Nassau County that services the New York City and
Westchester areas, its Branch Manager, and one of its
Superintendents, both of whom serve as its day-to-day
overseers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew C. Weiss, Esq.
Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 248-5550
Fax: (516) 248-602
NISSAN NORTH: Stockley Must File Class Cert Bid by Dec. 6
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEAN STOCKLEY, BRIANNA
WILLIAMS, ELIZABETH BURNS and LORETTA MUNFORD, DOROTHY ARDS, LEE
SEVIGNY, MAUREEN LOVE, TAYLOR SIMMS, SEAN CHAMBERS and JENNA
HAINES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. Case No. 3:22-cv-00709 (M.D. Tenn.),
the Hon. Judge Aleta Trauger entered modifying initial case
management order:
Event Proposed Dates
Completion of Discovery Necessary for Sept. 15, 2025
Class Certification:
Deadline to file Motion for Class Dec. 6, 2025
Certification:
Plaintiffs' expert disclosures and reports Dec. 6, 2025
due for any experts to be relied upon in
support of motion for class certification:
Deadline for Plaintiffs to produce class Jan. 30, 2026
certification experts for deposition:
Deadline to file Opposition to Motion for April 30, 2026
class certification:
NNA's expert disclosures and reports due April 30, 2026
for any experts to be relied upon in
Opposition to Motion for Class Certification:
Deadline for NNA to produce class May 30, 2026
certification experts for deposition:
Deadline to file Reply in support of Motion July 30, 2026
for Class Certification:
Nissan North operates in the automotive industry.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Eu5TxY at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
STRANCH JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 257-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
Michael H. Pearson, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
328 Barry Avenue S., Suite 200
Wayzata, MN 55391
E-mail: mweiner@pwfirm.com
mpearson@pwfirm.com
- and -
Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
Laura E. Goolsby, Esq.
Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
Nathan N. Kivam, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
E-mail: Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
Laura.Goolsby@capstonelawyers.com
Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
- and -
Norberto J. Cisneros, Esq.
Barbara McDonald, Esq.
MADDOX & CISNEROS, LLP
1210 S. Valley View Blvd., Ste 202
Las Vegas, NV 89102
Telephone: (702) 366-1900
Facsimile: (702) 366-1999
E-mail: ncisneros@mic-law.com
bmcdonald@mc-thefirm.com
- and -
James C. Shah, Esq.
Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (866) 540-5505
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: jcshah@millershah.com
nfinkelman@millershah.com
- and -
Lawrence Deutsch, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Osterwise, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: ldeutsch@bm.net
josterwise@bm.net
- and -
Mark Greenstone, Esq.
Benjamin Donahue, Esq.
GREENSTONE LAW APC
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
E-mail: mgreenstone@greenstonelaw.com
bdonahue@greenstonelaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
E. Paul Cauley, Jr., Esq.
Bradley J. Andreozzi, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
2323 Ross Ave., Suite 1700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (469) 358-2503
Facsimile: (469) 327-0860
E-mail: paul.cauley@faegredrinker.com
Bradley.Andreozzi@faegredrinker.com
- and -
John S. Hicks, Esq.
BAKER DONELSON, BEARMAN,
CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C.
1600 West End Avenue, Suite 2000
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 726-5600
Facsimile: (615) 744-7337
E-mail: jhicks@bakerdonelson.com
NORTH CAROLINA: Faces Martin Suit Over Violations of Civil Rights
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KA'LAH MARTIN, ALICIA RODRIGUEZ, KEVIN SANDERS, ERIC HICKS, JUSTIN
COLLINS, JOHN DOE'S A THROUGH Z, JANE DOE'S A THROUGH Z, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, ALAMANCE
COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, ALAMANCE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, ALAMANCE
COUNTY CLERK OF COURT, ALAMANCE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, ALAMANCE
COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY, ALAMANCE COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY, ALAMANCE
COUNTY HISTORIC COURT HOUSE, ALAMANCE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS'
OFFICE, ALAMANCE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ALAMANCE COUNTY DSS,
ALAMANCE COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY, ALAMANCE COUNTY GUARDIAN AD
LITEM PROGRAM, ALAMANCE COUNTY ABSS, ALAMANCE COUNTY, NEXT CARE,
ALAMANCE GRAHAM POLICE DEPARTMENT, GRAHAM, NORTH CAROLINA, HAW
RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA, ALAMANCE COUNTY JB ALLEN COURTHOUSE,
ALAMANCE COUNTY CIVIL ANNEX BUILDING, LOFTS ON HAW RIVER, ALAMANCE
COUNTY, CHATHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, CHATHAM COUNTY SUPERIOR
COURT, CHATHAM COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, CHATHAM COUNTY CLERK OF
COURT, CHATHAM COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, CHATHAM COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS' OFFICE, CHATHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, CHATHAM
COUNTY LEGAL ADVISORS, CHATHAM COUNTY SHERRIFF, CHATHAM COUNTY
BOARD OF ELECTIONS, RANDOLPH COUNTY SHERRIFF, RANDOLPH COUNTY BOARD
OF ELECTIONS, RANDOLPH COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, WAKE COUNTY BOARD OF
ELECTIONS, WAKE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISIONERS, THE NORTH CAROLINA
STATE BAR, STATE BAR COUNCILOR KELLY DEANGELUS, STATE BAR COUNCILOR
CAMERON LEE, THE NORTH CAROLNIA SBI, NORTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY PATROL,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF DHHS, THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE, THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE
TREASURER, THE NORTH CAROLINE STATE AUDITOR, THE JUDICIARY OF NORTH
CAROLINA, THE NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT, THE NORTH CAROLINA
ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALLEN BADDOUR, CHATHAM COUNTY SAMATHA CABE,
CHATHAM COUNTY BISSELL PET FOUNDATION, CHATHAM COUNTY WRAL, CHATHAM
COUNTY ANIMAL RESCUE CORPS, CHATHAM COUNTY JUDGE JOHN DOE C,
ALAMANCE COUNTY CRAIG TURNER, ALAMANCE COUNTY ALAMANCE BAR JOHN DOE
A ALAMANCE COUNTY ALAMANCE BAR LLC, ALAMANCE COUNTY ALAMANCE BAR
PLLC, ALAMANCE COUNTY ALAMANCE BAR JOHN DOE B, ALAMANCE COUNTY
ALAMANCE BAR LOCAL DISTRICT COUNSELOR, LAWYERS MUTUAL, LLC, FRIENDS
OF CRAIG TURNER, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00084 (M.D.N.C.,
February 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of civil rights and the North Carolina False Claims Act
(NCFCA).
The case arises from the Defendants' actions that violated the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals including beating
citizens, killing citizens, abandoning hope in the law, abandoning
a fair procedure, abandoning almost every applicable civil right,
killing people, permanently damaging people, committing crimes and
protecting criminals while zealously prosecuting innocent people in
pursuit of a political, monetary or personal goal. The Plaintiffs
bring this suit to fight for the defenseless, most innocent and
vulnerable, to never experience a loss of rights to the point that
criminal charges, criminal jury trials, and enforcement of civil
rights through suit are stripped even to enforcing those rights in
Federal Court. The Plaintiffs and others similarly situated seek
and are entitled to compensatory damages against the Defendants for
physical injuries, mental suffering, and actual damages as the
result of the Defendants' violation of the Plaintiffs'
constitutional rights.
The State of North Carolina is a state government in the U.S. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Taylor M. Dant, Esq.
P.O. Box 436
9052 W. Market St.,
Colfax, NC 27235
Telephone: (919) 726-4812
Facsimile: (336) 397–9413
Email: td@dantlegal.com
PATERSON, NJ: Arbitration Order Reversed in Evans, et al. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as ADRIAN EVANS and KENNETH HICKS, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF PATERSON and PATERSON FIRE
DEPARTMENT, Defendants-Respondents, DOCKET NO. A-1818-23 (N.J.
Super. Ct. App. Div.), Judges Arnold L. Natali Jr. and Robert M.
Vinci of the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division:
(i) reversed the order of the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Passaic County, granting defendants' motion to
dismiss and compel arbitration pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(a); and
(ii) vacated the order of the trial court denying plaintiffs'
subsequent motion for reconsideration.
Plaintiffs Adrian Evans and Kenneth Hicks are employed by defendant
City of Paterson as firefighters assigned to the Paterson Fire
Department and are members of the Paterson Firefighters
Association, who negotiate with Paterson on behalf of plaintiffs
with respect to the terms of their employment.
On July 17, 2023, plaintiffs filed a class action complaint
alleging certain terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement
violate their statutory rights under the New Jersey Wage and Hour
Law, N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a1 to -56a41, as it allegedly permits
defendants to pay overtime compensation contrary to the NJWHL.
Plaintiffs claim they routinely worked over forty hours per week
without receiving the statutorily required overtime payment for
doing so.
On Sept. 26, 2023, Paterson filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to
Rule 4:6-2(a) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and to compel
arbitration in accordance with the CBA, and Rule 4:6-2(e) for
failure to state a cause of action under the NJWHL. Relying on
Atalese v. U.S. Legal Services Group, L.P., 219 N.J. 430, 441
(2014), plaintiffs contended the CBA says the contract is not
intended and shall not be construed as a waiver of any right or
benefit to which 7 A-1818-23 employees are entitled by law.
In a Nov. 28, 2023 order, the trial court granted defendants'
motion to dismiss after concluding plaintiffs' claims were
encompassed by the CBA's alternative dispute clause, including its
arbitration provision.
On Dec. 14, 2023, plaintiffs sought reconsideration of the trial
court's determination that the CBA required plaintiffs to proceed
to binding arbitration.
On Jan. 26, 2024, the trial court entered an order and statement of
reasons denying plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.
Plaintiffs argue the CBA's arbitration provision is unenforceable
because it does not include a clear and unambiguous waiver of their
right to seek judicial remedies as required by long-standing New
Jersey law, particularly Atalese.
The Appellate Judges are satisfied that the CBA's arbitration
clause does not contain a clear and unambiguous waiver of
plaintiffs right to seek judicial remedies and is thus
unenforceable, as it is inconsistent with New Jersey law.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kWvJwd from PacerMonitor.com.
PELTON-SHEPHERD INDUSTRIES: Moyses Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pelton-Shepherd
Industries, Inc. The case is styled as Mary Moyses, individually,
and on behalf of other memebers of the general public similarly
situated v. Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc., Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2025-0001410 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Jan.
29, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Pelton Shepherd -- https://www.peltonshepherd.com/ -- provides
reliable and sustainable cold chain shipping solutions including
gel packs for shipping and commercial ice packs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Molly DeSario, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
475 14th St., Ste. 700
Oakland, CA 94612-1945
Phone: 213-381-9988
Fax: 213-381-9989
Email: molly.desario@wilshirelawfirm.com
POLESTAR AUTOMOTIVE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set March 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, a nationally recognized law
firm, notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Polestar Automotive Holding UK PLC ("Polestar" or "the
Company") (NASDAQ:PSNY) 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 Polestar
securities between November 14, 2022 and January 16, 2025, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged
to join this case by visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/PSNY.
Case Details
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Polestar's financial statements during the Class Period
were materially misstated; (2) Polestar understated its internal
control weaknesses; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements
about Polestar's business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis 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/PSNY. 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 Polestar
you have until March 31, 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.
Contact
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Nathan Miller
(332) 239-2660 | info@bgandg.com [GN]
PRIVATUS CARE: Lewis Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Live-In Caregivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
XANTHIA LEWIS and JUDITH RALEY ROSE, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PRIVATUS CARE SOLUTIONS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00595 (E.D.N.Y., February 3,
2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Fair Labor Standard Act and the New York Labor Law including
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide wage notice and
accurate itemized wage statements.
Plaintiffs Lewis and Rose worked as live-in caregivers since May
2021 and 2020, respectively.
Privatus Care Solutions, Inc. is a caregiving company, doing
business in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
Carrie J. Elrod, Esq.
MANSELL LAW, LLC
85 8th Ave., 6M
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (646) 921-8900
Email: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com
R. I. C. INC: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property
-----------------------------------------------------
Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. R. I. C., INC.; and RESTAURANTE RICO
PAN, INC. d/b/a RESTAURANTE RICO PAN, Case No. 1:25-cv-20418-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., Jan. 28, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the
Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by
denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods,
services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations
of the commercial property and restaurant and bar business within
the commercial property.
Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of
Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities
accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Plaintiff found
the commercial property and commercial restaurant business located
within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The
Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial
property and commercial restaurant business located within the
commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of
the premises.
The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and
businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to
access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each
denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial
Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA.
The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies),
embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff and others similarly
situated.
The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff
by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located
therein, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate.
R. I. C., INC., owned and operated a commercial property.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beverly Virues, Esq.
Armando Mejias, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, Fl 33134
Phone: (305) 553-3464
Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com
Secondary Emails: amejias@lawgmp.com
jacosta@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL, 33155
Phone: (305) 350-3103
Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com
RADIUS GLOBAL: Hasenfeld Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Radius Global
Solutions LLC. The case is styled as Mirel Hasenfeld, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Radius Global
Solutions, LLC formerly known as: Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC,
Case No. 3:24-cv-11497-GC-TJB (D.N.J., Dec. 30, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Radius Global Solutions LLC -- https://www.radiusgs.com/ --
provides debt recovery services and customer contact
solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Cohen, Esq.
STEIN SAKS PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: jcohen@steinsakslegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Aaron Raphael Easley, Esq.
SESSIONS, ISRAEL& SHARTLE, LLC
3 CROSS CREEK DRIVE
Flemington, NJ 08822
Phone: (908) 237-1660
Fax: (908) 237-1663
Email: aeasley@sessions.legal
READING INT'L: Must Face VPPA, NYACAL Claims in Berryman Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as HALEY BERRYMAN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -v- READING
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-00750 (S.D.N.Y.),
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York:
(i) denied Reading International Inc.'s motion to dismiss
certain claims under Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(l) and
12(b)(6); and
(ii) denied in substantial part as premature Reading's motion
to strike the Complaint's class allegations under Rule 12(f).
Reading owns and operates Angelika Film Centers, a nationwide movie
theater chain that features independent and foreign films. It also
owns and operates Angelika's website, AngelikaFilmCenter.com, which
permits users to view movie trailers, search for information about
films, subscribe to a newsletter, and purchase movie theater
tickets
Berryman is an AngelikaFilmCenter.com account holder and newsletter
subscriber. She subscribed to the website's services by providing,
among other information, her name and email address to register for
a web account. She is also a Facebook user.
Berryman contends that, without users' consent, Reading knowingly
disclosed to
Facebook:
(1) subscribers' personally identifiable information, including
hers, and
(2) data revealing the users' activity—including the trailers
watched and the movie theater tickets purchased—on the
AngelikaFilmCenter.com website.
Berryman also contends that Reading failed to disclose to her the
total cost of theater tickets, inclusive of ancillary fees, at the
outset of the purchase process.
On Feb. 1, 2024, Berryman filed the Complaint, alleging violations
of the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2710 and Sec.
25.07(4) of the New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law. The
Complaint is styled as a putative class action on behalf of five
defined subclasses, which it terms:
(1) the VPPA movie screening class,
(2) the VPPA account class,
(3) the VPPA newsletter class,
(4) the NYACAL nationwide class, and
(5) the NYACAL New York subclass
The Complaint seeks, inter alia, statutory damages, injunctive and
declaratory relief, and punitive
damages.
Motion to Dismiss the VPAA Claim
Reading moves to dismiss Berryman's VPPA claim on the grounds that,
as pled, it does not qualify as a "video tape service provider",
and Berryman does not qualify as a "consumer," under the Act.
Neither argument is persuasive, the Court concludes.
Reading protests that its offering of videos on its website is
"peripheral" relative to the other offerings on and purposes of the
website.
According to the Court, Reading's delivery of audiovisual materials
on its website, even if only a "peripheral" feature of the site,
subjects it to the VPPA.
Motions to Dismiss the NYACAL Claim
Reading argues that the Complaint does not allege that Berryman
suffered an injury sufficient to confer Article III standing to
bring her NY ACAL claim. The focus of this argument is Berryman,
not the putative class. Reading argues that Berryman did not suffer
a cognizable injury because, as pied, she had ample notice of the
service charge before buying the ticket, and a bare procedural
violation of the NY ACAL is not a cognizable injury absent concrete
harm resulting from the timing of the disclosure of the total cost
of a ticket, inclusive of fees.
The Court finds that argument fails as a basis to dismiss because,
as alleged, Berryman experienced a concrete economic injury: the
payment of a fee made unlawful by Reading's failure to timely
disclose it.
Motion to Strike Under Rule 12(f)
Reading moves to strike the Complaint's class allegations under
Rule 12(f), as to both the VPPA and NYACAL claims. The Court grants
Reading's motion to strike in one respect. It says the proposed
VPPA movie screening class cannot survive because Reading's role as
an operator of brick-and-mortar movie theaters does not qualify it
as a videotape service provider.
The Court denies the balance of the motion as premature.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AIjhVF from PacerMonitor.com.
RICHMOND UNIVERSITY: Counts Files Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Richmond University
Medical Center. The case is styled as Mathew Counts, Kaitia
Charitable, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Richmond University Medical Center, Case No.
1:24-cv-08898-ERK-JRC (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 30, 2024).
The nature suit is stated as Other P.I. for Petition to Enforce INS
Subpoena.
Richmond University Medical Center -- https://www.rumcsi.org/ -- is
an award-winning healthcare facility and teaching institution
serving residents in Staten Island, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street, Ste N-300
Newtown, PA 18940
Phone: (215) 867-2399
Fax: (267) 685-0676
Email: medelson@edelson-law.com
- and -
Sonal Jain, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Phone: (929) 677-5124
Fax: (646) 417-5967
Email: sjain@sirillp.com
SYNGENTA CROP: Court Narrows Claims in Antitrust Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas D. Schroeder of the United States District Court for
the Middle District of North Carolina granted in part and denied in
part the defendants' motion to dismiss the federal and state law
claims in the consolidated case IN RE: CROP PROTECTION PRODUCTS
LOYALTY PROGRAM ANTITRUST LITIGATION , Case No. 1:23-md-3062
(M.D.N.C.).
In this multi-district litigation putative class action, a dozen
farmers allege that two major manufacturers of crop protection
products used by farmers have employed anticompetitive loyalty
rebate programs. Relief is sought under federal antitrust law as
well as the law of 38 states and territories and the District of
Columbia. Before the court is the motion to dismiss by Defendants
Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop
Protection, LLC, and Corteva, Inc. Plaintiffs Clint Meadows,
Michael Shows, Matt Taylor, John W. Jenkins, Clifton Kirven, Janie
Yeargin, Ronald Yeargin, Donald F. Deline, Peter F. Bonin, Robert
Ott, Bernard "B" Jones IV, and Martin Wait, all farmers who are
alleged purchasers of Defendants' products, have responded in
opposition, and Defendants have replied. The court heard argument
on the motion on Aug. 29, 2024.
In a related public enforcement action, the Federal Trade
Commission and a dozen states ("FTC Plaintiffs") have alleged
substantially similar violations of antitrust and consumer
protection laws by these same Defendants.
In brief, the FTC Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have
excluded generic manufacturers of certain active ingredient crop
protection products ("CPPs") by paying loyalty discounts to
distributors contingent on their purchasing 85% or more of their
products from the respective Defendant, in addition to other
alleged means of exclusion. In the motion to dismiss in that
action, the Defendants principally contended that the FTC
Plaintiffs failed to plead a plausible product market and that the
loyalty discount programs are per se reasonable under the
"price-cost test" because, in the Defendants' view, price is the
clearly predominant means of exclusion for their loyalty discount
programs. The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the
FTC Plaintiffs had stated plausible claims for relief.
The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
consolidated for pretrial proceedings eight separate actions filed
in the Southern District of Indiana with two separate actions filed
in this district, as well as several tag along actions. Pursuant
to this court's case management order, Plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint on Sept. 5, 2023.
Citing judicial efficiency, Defendants do not pursue the same
arguments as those raised in the public enforcement action.
Instead, they challenge whether Plaintiffs may pursue antitrust
claims against them as purported "indirect purchasers" of CPPs
under Illinois Brick Company v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), and
whether Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged proximate cause under
Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572
U.S. 118 (2014). Defendants also raise myriad challenges to the
state law claims.
Plaintiffs plead fifty-eight claims for relief on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated. The three federal claims
arise under sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1,
2, and section 3 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 14. For each
federal claim, Plaintiffs seek damages under section 4 of the
Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 15, and injunctive relief under section
16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 26. The remaining claims
arise under antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair and
deceptive trade practices statutes of various states and
territories. Plaintiffs seek class certification, declaratory
relief, injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.
Defendants now move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Defendants contend that the federal claims should be dismissed
because Plaintiffs, in their view, are "indirect purchasers" of
their CPPs or, in the alternative, because they have failed to
plead proximate cause. Additionally, Defendants argue that the
state law claims should be dismissed for failure to plead proximate
cause, and for an array of state-specific grounds.
Defendants contend that Plaintiffs' alleged injuries are "too
remote from the alleged restraint of trade at the wholesale level"
for three reasons:
(1) Plaintiffs are indirect purchasers;
(2) Plaintiffs are not "participants" in the wholesale market
for CPPs, where the allegedly anticompetitive conduct reduced sales
of generics; and
(3) the complaint does not allege that Defendants limit the
ability of generic manufacturers to reach Plaintiffs directly, such
as through e-commerce.
Plaintiffs argue that Illinois Brick does not bar their damages
claims because they are direct purchasers from antitrust
violators.
The District Court finds Defendants argue, correctly, that
Plaintiffs are not direct purchasers under controlling law.
The complaint alleges that Defendants' loyalty programs foreclosed
generics from the market and caused Plaintiffs to pay higher prices
for CPPs than they would in a competitive market. But there are no
allegations that distributors or retailers had to maintain any
price. According to the District Court, Plaintiffs are indirect
purchasers as to these Defendants. And the complaint does not
plausibly allege price fixing. Illinois Brick therefore bars
Plaintiffs from seeking damages for antitrust violations under
federal law, the District Court concludes.
For these reasons, the District Court ruled as follows:
1. Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' federal damages
claims under the First, Second, and Third Claims for Relief is
granted and those claims are dismissed as barred by Illinois
Brick.
2. Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for federal
injunctive relief under the First, Second, and Third Claims for
Relief for failure to plead proximate causation is denied.
3. Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to plead proximate
causation in support of state antitrust and consumer protection
claims is denied.
4. Defendants' motion to dismiss claims under the laws of
Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa,
Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York,
North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico,
Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont,
Virginia, and West Virginia, for failure to allege in-jurisdiction
purchases by named Plaintiffs, is denied.
5. Defendants' motion to dismiss claims under the New York
Donnelly Act (Claim 21) and New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act
(Claim 46) for failure to allege sufficient intrastate conduct is
denied.
6. Defendants' motion to dismiss the claim under the Puerto Rico
Antitrust Act (Claim 25) for lack of an Illinois Brick repealer is
denied.
7. Defendants' motion to dismiss the claims under the consumer
protection laws of Arkansas (Claim 33), Illinois (Claim 39),
Montana (Claim 43), South Carolina (Claim 54), and Utah (Claim 56)
on the grounds of state class-action bars is denied without
prejudice to address the applicability of Shady Grove on a more
developed record.
8. Defendants' motion to dismiss claims under the consumer
protection laws of the District of Columbia (Claim 36), Missouri
(Claim 16), Montana (Claim 43), Oregon (Claim 51), Pennsylvania
(Claim 52), Rhode Island (Claim 53), Utah (Claim 56), and Virginia
(Claim 57) because Plaintiffs are commercial consumers of CPPs, is
granted.
9. Defendants' motion to dismiss the claim under the
Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act (Claim 41) because Plaintiffs
are not "consumers" under section 9 of that Act and indirect
purchaser claims are barred under section 11 of that Act, is
granted.
10. Defendants' motion to dismiss claims under the consumer
protection laws of Arkansas (Claim 33), Illinois (Claim 39), Kansas
(Claim 40), Minnesota (Claim 42), North Dakota (Claim 50), and West
Virginia (Claim 58) for failure to allege a deceptive act, is
denied.
11. Defendants' motion to dismiss claims under the consumer
protection laws of Colorado (Claim 35), New York (Claim 48), and
South Dakota (Claim 55) for failure to allege a deceptive act, is
granted.
12. Defendants' motion to dismiss the claim under the consumer
protection law of Hawaii (Claim 38) for failure to comply with the
notification requirement, is denied.
13. Defendants' motion to dismiss the claim under the consumer
protection law of Minnesota (Claim 42) for failure to allege
attempt to induce reliance, is granted.
14. Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims "as they
pertain to Syngenta's AI paraquat" for being time-barred, is
denied.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=z9UaXr from PacerMonitor.com.
TIARA YACHTS: Stodolak Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Chaz Stodolak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TIARA YACHTS, INC, a corporation, Case No.
1:25-cv-00098-JMB-RSK (W.D. Mich., Jan. 27, 2025), is brought from
the Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and common law as a result of unpaid overtime wages.
During Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, there have been one
or more instances when he worked 40 hours or more in a workweek.
the Defendant has utilized an 'auto-deduction' feature in its
computerized time/pay system which automatically deducts 30 minutes
of time from Plaintiff and Hourly Employees' work shifts for meal
periods regardless of whether or not the full 30-minute meal period
is taken. The Defendant maintained an unlawful time shaving policy
pursuant to which it shaved work Plaintiff and Hourly Employees
performed on-the clock at the end of their shifts. As a result,
Defendant fails to pay Plaintiff and all other similarly situated
Hourly Employees for all hours worked, including overtime hours in
workweeks in which they worked more than forty, as required by the
FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has worked for Defendant as a non-exempt hourly
employee
The Defendant manufacturers handcrafted, American-made luxury
yachts designed for performance and comfort.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Alana A. Karbal, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Town Square
Southfield, MI 48076
Phone: (248) 355-0300
Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
akarbal@sommerspc.com
TICKETMASTER LLC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Lozoya Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE LOZOYA, JOLINDA MURPHY, LAUREN NEVE, and MOLLY O'HARA, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. TICKETMASTER, LLC and LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 8:25-cv-00202 (C.D. Cal., February 3, 2025) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence and violation
of applicable state consumer protection laws.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals stored on the
computer systems of Snowflake following a data breach. The
Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result,
the private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was
compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown
and unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
Ticketmaster, LLC is a ticket management company with its principal
place of business in Hollywood, California.
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. is an American multinational
entertainment company with its principal place of business in
Beverly Hills, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 254-6808
Email: ssoneji@tzlegal.com
- and -
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H. St. NE, Suite 302
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
Email: jrathod@classlawdc.com
- and -
John Heenan, Esq.
HEENAN & COOK
1631 Zimmerman Trail
Billings, MT 59102
Telephone: (406) 839-9091
Email: john@lawmontana.com
- and -
Amy Keller, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
Ten North Dearborn, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
Email: akeller@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
J. Devlan Geddes, Esq.
GOETZ, GEDDES & GARDNER P.C.
35 N. Grand Ave.
Bozeman, MT 59715
Telephone: (406) 587-0618
Email: devlan@goetzlawfirm.com
- and -
Raphael Graybill, Esq.
GRAYBILL LAW FIRM, PC
300 4th Street North
Great Falls, MT 59401
Telephone: (406) 452-8566
Email: raph@graybilllawfirm.com
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Oral Argument on Pending Bids Set for March 24
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE HANDORF, BLACKOAK
LIFE LIMITED, AS GP FOR BLACKOAK INVESTORS LP, and PHT HOLDING II
LP, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-00032-CJW-MAR
(N.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge C.J. Williams entered an order
scheduling oral argument:
-- The Court will conduct oral argument on all pending motions in
this case on Monday, March 24, 2025.
-- The Court has allotted three (3) hour for this hearing. If any
party wishes to appear remotely, that party is directed to
contact Chambers' staff at Sali vanweelden@iand.uscourts.gov
Transamerica offers life, health, and dental insurance.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ELfoMU at no extra
charge.[CC]
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Castellanos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Travelers
Indemnity Company, et al. The case is styled as Daniel Castellanos,
an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The
Travelers Indemnity Company, Colon Cody, Case No. 25STCV02474 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 29, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
The Travelers Companies, Inc. -- https://www.travelers.com/ --
commonly known as Travelers, is an American insurance company.[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
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Travelers
Indemnity Company, et al. The case is styled as Maria Martinez on
behalf of others similarly situated v. The Travelers Indemnity
Company, Colon Cody, Case No. BCV-25-100339 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern
Cty., Jan. 29, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
The Travelers Companies, Inc. -- https://www.travelers.com/ --
commonly known as Travelers, is an American insurance company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arnel Ordinario Tan, Esq.
Christine Verduzco Reyes, Esq.
PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP
149 Sheldon St.
El Segundo, CA 90245-3916
Phone: 424-290-3095
Fax: 866-264-7880
Email: arnel@protectionlawgroup.com
christine@protectionlawgroup.com
- and -
Joseph Marshall, Esq.
SULLIVAN HILL REZ & ENGEL
600 B. St. Ste. 1700
San Diego, CA 92101-4507
Phone: 619-233-4100
Fax: 619-231-4372
Email: marshall@sullivanhill.com
VSL PHARMACEUTICALS: Starr Wins Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID STARR, et al., v.
VSL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al., Case No. 8:19-cv-02173-LKG (D.
Md.), the Hon. Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby entered an order as
follows:
(1) Denies the Defendants' motion to exclude;
(2) Grants the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;
(3) Grants the parties' motions to seal;
(4) Grants the Defendants' consent motion to substitute
exhibit;
(5) Certifies a class action on behalf of the following
classes, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23:
(i) The "Nationwide Class," consisting of "all persons who
purchased VSL#3 in the United States from June 1, 2016
through June 19, 2019."
(ii) The "Florida Class," consisting of "all persons who
purchased VSL#3 in Florida from June 1, 2016 through
June 19, 2019."
(iii) The "Idaho Class," consisting of "all persons who
purchased VSL#3 in Idaho from June 1, 2016 through June
19, 2019."
(iv) The "Illinois Class," consisting of "all persons who
purchased VSL#3 in Illinois from June 1, 2016 through
June 19, 2019."
(v) The "Kentucky Class," consisting of "all persons who
purchased VSL#3 in Kentucky from June 1, 2016 through
June 19, 2019."
(vi) The "Massachusetts Class," consisting of "all persons
who purchased VSL#3 in Massachusetts from June 1, 2016
through June 19, 2019."
(vii) The "Michigan Class," consisting of "all persons who
purchased VSL#3 in Michigan from June 1, 2016 through
June 19, 2019. "
(viii) The "New Jersey Class," consisting of "all persons who
purchased VSL#3 in New Jersey from June 1, 2016 through
June 19, 2019."
(ix) The "Washington Class," consisting of "all persons who
purchased VSL#3 in Washington from June 1, 2016,
through June 19, 2019."
(x) The "Wisconsin Class," consisting of "all persons who
purchased VSL#3 in Wisconsin from June 1, 2016 through
June 19, 2019."
(6) Appoints the Plaintiffs as the representatives of the
Classes; and
(7) Appoints Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP and Schulman
Bhattacharya, LLC as Class Counsel for each of the Classes.
VSL provides medical food for the dietary management of patients.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nCK7E1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
WALGREENS BOOTS: Court Approves Settlement in Clem Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as James Clem, derivatively
on behalf of Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., v. James A. Skinner,
Stefano Pessina, William C. Foote, Nancy M. Schlichting, Ginger L.
Graham, David J. Brailer, Janice M. Babiak, Dominic P. Murphy, John
A. Lederer, Jose E. Almeida, George R. Fairweather, and Leonard D.
Schaeffer, and Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00406-GBW (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge
Gregory Williams entered an order:
-- granting approval of settlement;
-- approving agreed-to-fee amount of $750,000; and
-- approving service award to the Plaintiff in the amount of
$2,500.
A copy of the Court's memorandum order dated Jan. 28, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uHZhPf
at no extra charge.[CC]
WALGREENS BOOTS: Settlement in Clem Suit Gets Final Court Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gregory B. Williams of the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware granted final approval of the settlement
in the case captioned as JAMES CLEM, Derivatively on Behalf of
WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC., Plaintiff, v. JAMES A. SKINNER,
STEFANO PESSINA, WILLIAM C. FOOTE, NANCY M. SCHLICHTING, GINGER L.
GRAHAM, DAVID J. BRAILER, JANICE M. BABIAK, DOMINIC P. MURPHY, JOHN
A. LEDERER, JOSE E. ALMEIDA, GEORGE R. FAIRWEATHER, and LEONARD D.
SCHAEFFER, Defendants, and WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC., a
Delaware corporation, Nominal Defendant, C.A. No. 21-406-GBW (D.
Del.).
On March 19, 2021, Mr. Clem filed this shareholder derivative
action alleging that various directors of Walgreens Boots Alliance,
Inc. made misrepresentations regarding Walgreens' now-failed merger
with Rite Aid Corporation.
On July 9, 2024, the parties entered a settlement that:
(1) requires Walgreens to implement various corporate governance
reforms,
(2) provides costs and fees in the amount of $750,000 to
Plaintiff's counsel, and
(3) provides a service award of $2,500 to Plaintiff.
The corporate governance reforms include:
(i) ensuring annual attendance by directors at the stockholder
meeting and at continuing education director training;
(ii) enhancing the specific duties of the Audit Committee related
to disclosure controls and procedures;
(iii) enhancing the oversight responsibilities of the Disclosure
Committee when mergers are contemplated; and
(iv) enhancing the Company's oversight of whistleblower
procedures.
On Nov. 19, 2024, the Court held a preliminary approval hearing
and, on Nov. 25, 2024, the Court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement.
On Dec. 23, 2024, Plaintiff timely filed his Motion for Final
Approval.
On Jan. 23, 2025, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff's Motion
for Final Approval.
The standards annunciated in Girsh v. Jepson for class suit
settlements have accordingly been applied.
The Girsh factors are:
(1) the complexity, expense and likely duration of the
litigation;
(2) the reaction of the shareholders to the settlement;
(3) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery
completed;
(4) the risks of establishing liability;
(5) the risks of establishing damages;
(6) the risks of maintaining the derivative action through the
trial;
(7) the ability of the defendants to withstand a greater
judgment;
(8) the range of reasonableness of the settlement agreement in
light of the best possible recovery; and
(9) the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund to a
possible recovery in light of all the attendant risks of
litigation.
The Court finds each of the Girsh factors weigh in favor of
approving the settlement, including the extent of the benefit to be
derived from the proposed settlement by Walgreens. Following a
discussion of the Girsh factors, it also holds that Defendants'
notice of the proposed settlement to the Walgreens stockholders was
sufficient and that the amount of fees, costs and the award is fair
and reasonable.
Accordingly, the Court approves the agreed-to fee amount of
$750,000. To compensate Plaintiff for his time and effort devoted
to this matter, Plaintiff is given the service award in the amount
of $2,500.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Wnadx4 from PacerMonitor.com.
[] Global Securities Class Action Settlements Soared in 2024
------------------------------------------------------------
Wealth Briefing reports that global securities class action
settlements soared reaching more than $5.2 billion across 136
settlements worldwide in 2024, fintech firm Broadridge Financial
Solutions reports.
The 2024 settlement total trailed behind the 2023 result by 6 per
cent but beat the five-year average by 5 per cent, with the US
rising 14 per cent. The US tends to be the most litigious
jurisdiction for such matters. Legal tussles over securities are
significant risks that financial organisations such as banks, asset
managers and brokerages must take into account. Firms such as
Broadridge also provide data and tech solutions regarding such
lawsuits, seeing these cases as ways to earn revenue.
The number of "mega-cases" rose: Some 10 cases each surpassed $100
million, exceeding a five-year mega-settlement average by 4 per
cent, Broadridge said in its report, entitled Global Class Action
Annual Report.
Among the top 10 most complicated legal cases in 2024 were those
such as the Stock Loan Antitrust Class Action -- $580,008,750;
Mesoblast Securities Litigation - A$26,500,000 (16,468,783);
European Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation - $120,000,000
(Combined); Perrigo Securities Litigation - $97,000,000; and Gatos
Silver, Inc Securities Class Actions -- $24,715,600 (Combined).
Broadridge said it has identified more than 300 newly-filed class
and collective actions involving publicly traded securities, taking
the total number of cases monitored - and yet to be resolved -- to
more than 1,000.
"While settlement values dipped slightly below last year's figures,
they exceeded the five-year average by 5 per cent, driven by an
impressive 14 per cent growth in US settlements," Steve Cirami,
Broadridge Global Securities Class Actions leader, said.
The report said that anti-trust claim deadlines remained high;
unresolved cases also rose, while a total of 222 new securities
class action cases were filed at the Federal level.
ESG and Europe
The Broadridge report said ESG lawsuits surged, fuelled by
investors using class-action cases to enforce their wishes.
While class-action cases have tended to be a dominant US story,
Europe is catching up. The European Union continued its transition
under the Representative Actions Directive (RAD), with compliance
milestones met by Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Austria and Sweden in
2024. More than 100 collective redress claims were filed across
Europe, setting a global precedent for opt-in litigation, the
report said.
The report said cybersecurity issues became more important last
year, with a sharp rise in cybersecurity-related settlements,
including three of the year’s top ten cases totalling $560
million.
AI litigation is also rising as the use of artificial intelligence
advances; cases alleging insufficient AI disclosures have doubled
since 2020. Shareholders are demanding clarity on AI development
risks and ethical implications, the report said.
The study examines global cases identified by the Broadridge Asset
Recovery Advocate database involving publicly traded securities or
financial instruments that use a class action process to recoup
lost funds. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***