/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250214.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, February 14, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 33
Headlines
188 ONLINE: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Delacruz Says
3M COMPANY: Robinson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Rodriguez Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Schmidt Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Stern Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foam
3M COMPANY: Treib Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Zabel Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Chemicals
7-ELEVEN INC: Faces TCPA Class Suit Over Call Time Compliance
ALASKA AIRLINES: March 3 Deadline Set for Synoracki Case Status
AMAZON.COM INC: Kolotinsky Sues Over Private Information Disclosure
AMERICAN ADDICTION: Faces Prosky Suit Over Data Security Failure
ASPEN SKIING: Settles Labor Class Action Lawsuit for $1.575-Mil.
ATLAS FIELD SERVICES: Davis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
AUM INSURANCE SERVICES: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
C. MERRITT: Plaintiff in Coleman Suit Loses Bid to Appoint Counsel
CALIFORNIA: Settles 2022 Data Breach Class Suit for $1.8-Mil.
CARGO TRADERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Moreno Alleges
CARIBOU BIOSCIENCES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Feb. 24
DCI DONOR: Court Modifies Settlement Agreement in Wells Suit
DMC GLOBAL: Laurent Sues Over Misleading Statements on Securities
DOLLAR TREE: Class Settlement in Dalton Suit Gets Final Court Nod
ENCORE GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Padilla Alleges
ESSEX TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice
EXPERIAN PLC: Faces Zhen et al. Privacy Suit Over Data Collection
EXTREME NETWORKS: Faces Steamfitters Shareholder Suit
FINMAX SMART: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in D. Oregon
FLORISTS' TRANSWORLD: Faces Class Suit Over Online Junk Fees
FROM YOU FLOWERS: Walterlakes and Mahabal Sue Over Illegal Fees
FTD LLC: Faces Inoue Suit Over Illegal Pricing Scheme
GIGACLOUD TECH: Judge Granted in Part Motion to Dismiss Class Suit
INFRAMARK LLC: Graber Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
INTRASYSTEMS LLC: Faces Mikec Suit Over Private Data Breach
INTRASYSTEMS LLC: Fitzgerald Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
ITS LOGISTICS: Atkins Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
J & R MARINE INC: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property
J. JILL HOLDINGS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
JACK'S LEGACY: Rose Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
KINECTA FEDERAL: Settlement Deal Gets Initial OK
LANZ CABINET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rodriguez Alleges
LEO PHARMA: Agrees to Settle Picato Drug Class Action Lawsuit
LINKED HAIR: Watson Sues Over Worker Misclassification
LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Agrees to Settle EFTA Class Suit for $1.025MM
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Class Counsel Awarded $863,919.82 in Fees
MARTIN ZAKARIAN: Arnold Suit Transferred to W.D. Kentucky
MARYGOLD COMPANIES: Continues to Defend US Oil Fund Suit
MCMURRY UNIVERSITY: Lee Sues Over Unprotected Private Information
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set March 10
MICROSOFT CORP: Bowling Sues Over Online Commission
MODIVCARE INC: Faces Kalera Suit Over Securities Law Breaches
MONOLITHIC POWER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set April 7
MY CREDIT GUY: Harris FCRA Suit Transferred to D. Arizona
NEWMONT CORP: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
NORWEX USA: Bartel Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data
OHIO POWER: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Battle Suit Says
PALM SPRINGS: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property
PNC INVESTMENTS: Dehner Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
POLESTAR AUTOMOTIVE: Britton Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Prevent Data Brach, August Says
PREMIER NUTRITION: Montera Class Counsel Awarded $928,455 in Fees
QVC INC: Rubalcaba Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California
R-CALF USA: Seeks Preliminary Approval of $83.5BB Class Settlement
REGIONAL OBSTETRICAL: Alexander Files Suit in E.D. Tennessee
RETAILMENOT INC: Oganesyan and Ely Sue Over Stolen Commissions
RICOH USA: Class Cert Bid Filing in Mike Suit Extended to April 7
RICOH USA: MPI Seeks to Extend Court-Set Class Cert Deadline
ROYALTON ON THE GREENS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Orgera Says
SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Injunction in O'Bryan, et al. Case Dissolved
SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Court Sets Scheduling Conference in Dorado
SANYO FOODS: Shin Amended Bid for Class Certification Nixed
SIG SAUER INC: Court Extends Discovery in Glasscock
SMITH'S FOOD: Stolarski Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SNAC SYS. INC: Esparza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SNOWFLAKE INC: Court Stays All Deadlines Involving Neiman Marcus
SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES: Parties Seek Extension to File Response
STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Bernard Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
SUNBELT STAFFING: Richardson Suit Removed to E.D. California
SUNPATH LTD: Court Resets Class Cert Briefing Sched in Morales
SUNSHINE GASOLINE: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property
T & T Landscape: Morales et al. Sue Over Wage and Hour Violations
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Under Seal
TARGET CORP: Faces Investor Class Action Lawsuit Over Fraud
TARGET CORP: Progression Team Members Win Class Certification
TELUS INTERNATIONAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set March 31
TESLA INC: Dismissal of Class Action Under Appeal
THANG BOTANICALS: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Nov. 3
TOTAL SECURITY: Nygard Suit Removed to C.D. California
TOYOTA MATERIAL: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Emissions
TRANS UNION: Bids for Class Certification in Christian Due May 30
TRIUMPH GROUP: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Warburg Pincus
TYCON MEDICAL SYSTEMS: Baysmore Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
UBER FREIGHT LLC: Worrell Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Bonfiglio Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Johnson Seeks Prelim. OK of Class Settlement
UNITED SERVICES: Scheduling Order Amended in Tomczak Suit
UNITED STATES: FBI Agents Sue Over President Trump's Retribution
UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Seek to File Complaint as "Jane Does"
UTAH LIFE REAL ESTATE: Butera Files TCPA Suit in D. Utah
VANGUARD GROUP: Kelly Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
VELIC TRANSPORTATION: Hasic Sues Over Unlawful Payment Practices
VENTURA FOODS: Dominick Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violations
VHG SANTA MONICA: Wu Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
VILLAGRANA LOGISTICS: Maalouf Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
VIRGINIA MASON: Settles Privacy Class Action Suit for $3.5-Mil.
VITAC CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Anderson Says
WEST COAST CLIPS: Rosales Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
WESTERN REFINING RETAIL: Gaston Suit Removed to E.D. California
YALE NEW: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Pastor Suit Alleges
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Defends Personal Injury Claims
*********
188 ONLINE: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Delacruz Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
EMANUEL DELACRUZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 188 ONLINE, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-00946 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2025) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.nililotan.com, is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff,
in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
188 Online, LLC sells online ready-to-wear designer clothing. The
company is based in New York City. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
3M COMPANY: Robinson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Robinson, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION;
ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION, individually
and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS
COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA,
INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS,
INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.;
L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC
MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS,
LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING
COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN
MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.
(f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE &
ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., and DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-20, fictious names whose present identities are
unknown, Case No. 2:25-cv-00135-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 7, 2025), is
brought for damages relating to Defendants' development, marketing,
release, training users of, instructional materials, warnings,
sale, handling, and use in connection with Aqueous Film-Forming
Foam ("AFFF") containing Perfluorooctanoic Acid ("PFOA"),
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS"), Perfluorononanoic acid
("PFNA"), Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid ("PFHxS"),
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid ("PFBS"), Hexafluoropropylene Oxide
("HFPO", also known as "Gen-X"), and/or their precursors and
derivatives, and other fluorochemicals and for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film forming foams
("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing
"fluorochemical products."
The Defendants failed to warn users and consumers of their
fluorochemical products' persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxic
properties, as well as the fluorochemical products' propensity to
contaminate water supplies, which was known or knowable to the
Defendants.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS as well
as result in the contamination of Plaintiff's public drinking water
supply. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to
develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged
herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities and arising from
the intentional, malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts
and/or omissions of Defendants in connection with the contamination
of the Plaintiff's drinking water supply with Defendants'
fluorochemical products to which Plaintiff was exposed. Plaintiff
further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising
from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Wilson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 560
Raleigh, NC 27601
Phone: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: nicholas@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
John J. Driscoll, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, LLC
1311 Avenida Ponce de Leon, Suite 501
San Juan, PR 00907
Phone: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: john@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
Heidi J. Johnson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
211 N. Broadway, Ste 4050
St. Louis, MO 63102
Phone: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: heidi@thedriscollfirm.com
3M COMPANY: Rodriguez Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Rodriguez, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION;
ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION, individually
and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS
COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA,
INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS,
INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.;
L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC
MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS,
LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING
COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN
MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.
(f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE &
ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., and DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-20, fictious names whose present identities are
unknown, Case No. 2:25-cv-00141-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 7, 2025), is
brought for damages relating to Defendants' development, marketing,
release, training users of, instructional materials, warnings,
sale, handling, and use in connection with Aqueous Film-Forming
Foam ("AFFF") containing Perfluorooctanoic Acid ("PFOA"),
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS"), Perfluorononanoic acid
("PFNA"), Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid ("PFHxS"),
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid ("PFBS"), Hexafluoropropylene Oxide
("HFPO", also known as "Gen-X"), and/or their precursors and
derivatives, and other fluorochemicals and for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film forming foams
("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing
"fluorochemical products."
The Defendants failed to warn users and consumers of their
fluorochemical products' persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxic
properties, as well as the fluorochemical products' propensity to
contaminate water supplies, which was known or knowable to the
Defendants.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS as well
as result in the contamination of Plaintiff's public drinking water
supply. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to
develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged
herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities and arising from
the intentional, malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts
and/or omissions of Defendants in connection with the contamination
of the Plaintiff's drinking water supply with Defendants'
fluorochemical products to which Plaintiff was exposed. Plaintiff
further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising
from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Wilson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 560
Raleigh, NC 27601
Phone: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: nicholas@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
John J. Driscoll, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, LLC
1311 Avenida Ponce de Leon, Suite 501
San Juan, PR 00907
Phone: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: john@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
Heidi J. Johnson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
211 N. Broadway, Ste 4050
St. Louis, MO 63102
Phone: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: heidi@thedriscollfirm.com
3M COMPANY: Schmidt Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Schmidt, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION;
ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION, individually
and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS
COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA,
INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS,
INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.;
L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC
MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS,
LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING
COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN
MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.
(f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE &
ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., and DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-20, fictious names whose present identities are
unknown, Case No. 2:25-cv-00140-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 7, 2025), is
brought for damages relating to Defendants' development, marketing,
release, training users of, instructional materials, warnings,
sale, handling, and use in connection with Aqueous Film-Forming
Foam ("AFFF") containing Perfluorooctanoic Acid ("PFOA"),
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS"), Perfluorononanoic acid
("PFNA"), Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid ("PFHxS"),
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid ("PFBS"), Hexafluoropropylene Oxide
("HFPO", also known as "Gen-X"), and/or their precursors and
derivatives, and other fluorochemicals and for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film forming foams
("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing
"fluorochemical products."
The Defendants failed to warn users and consumers of their
fluorochemical products' persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxic
properties, as well as the fluorochemical products' propensity to
contaminate water supplies, which was known or knowable to the
Defendants.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS as well
as result in the contamination of Plaintiff's public drinking water
supply. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to
develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged
herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities and arising from
the intentional, malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts
and/or omissions of Defendants in connection with the contamination
of the Plaintiff's drinking water supply with Defendants'
fluorochemical products to which Plaintiff was exposed. Plaintiff
further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising
from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Wilson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 560
Raleigh, NC 27601
Phone: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: nicholas@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
John J. Driscoll, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, LLC
1311 Avenida Ponce de Leon, Suite 501
San Juan, PR 00907
Phone: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: john@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
Heidi J. Johnson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
211 N. Broadway, Ste 4050
St. Louis, MO 63102
Phone: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: heidi@thedriscollfirm.com
3M COMPANY: Stern Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foam
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Stern, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION;
ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION, individually
and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS
COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA,
INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS,
INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.;
L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC
MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS,
LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING
COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN
MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.
(f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE &
ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., and DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-20, fictious names whose present identities are
unknown, Case No. 2:25-cv-00143-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 7, 2025), is
brought for damages relating to Defendants' development, marketing,
release, training users of, instructional materials, warnings,
sale, handling, and use in connection with Aqueous Film-Forming
Foam ("AFFF") containing Perfluorooctanoic Acid ("PFOA"),
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS"), Perfluorononanoic acid
("PFNA"), Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid ("PFHxS"),
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid ("PFBS"), Hexafluoropropylene Oxide
("HFPO", also known as "Gen-X"), and/or their precursors and
derivatives, and other fluorochemicals and for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film forming foams
("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing
"fluorochemical products."
The Defendants failed to warn users and consumers of their
fluorochemical products' persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxic
properties, as well as the fluorochemical products' propensity to
contaminate water supplies, which was known or knowable to the
Defendants.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS as well
as result in the contamination of Plaintiff's public drinking water
supply. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to
develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged
herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities and arising from
the intentional, malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts
and/or omissions of Defendants in connection with the contamination
of the Plaintiff's drinking water supply with Defendants'
fluorochemical products to which Plaintiff was exposed. Plaintiff
further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising
from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Wilson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 560
Raleigh, NC 27601
Phone: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: nicholas@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
John J. Driscoll, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, LLC
1311 Avenida Ponce de Leon, Suite 501
San Juan, PR 00907
Phone: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: john@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
Heidi J. Johnson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
211 N. Broadway, Ste 4050
St. Louis, MO 63102
Phone: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: heidi@thedriscollfirm.com
3M COMPANY: Treib Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Treib, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION;
ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION, individually
and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS
COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA,
INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS,
INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.;
L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC
MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS,
LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING
COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN
MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.
(f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE &
ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., and DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-20, fictious names whose present identities are
unknown, Case No. 2:25-cv-00136-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 7, 2025), is
brought for damages relating to Defendants' development, marketing,
release, training users of, instructional materials, warnings,
sale, handling, and use in connection with Aqueous Film-Forming
Foam ("AFFF") containing Perfluorooctanoic Acid ("PFOA"),
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS"), Perfluorononanoic acid
("PFNA"), Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid ("PFHxS"),
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid ("PFBS"), Hexafluoropropylene Oxide
("HFPO", also known as "Gen-X"), and/or their precursors and
derivatives, and other fluorochemicals and for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film forming foams
("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing
"fluorochemical products."
The Defendants failed to warn users and consumers of their
fluorochemical products' persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxic
properties, as well as the fluorochemical products' propensity to
contaminate water supplies, which was known or knowable to the
Defendants.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS as well
as result in the contamination of Plaintiff's public drinking water
supply. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to
develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged
herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities and arising from
the intentional, malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts
and/or omissions of Defendants in connection with the contamination
of the Plaintiff's drinking water supply with Defendants'
fluorochemical products to which Plaintiff was exposed. Plaintiff
further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising
from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Wilson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 560
Raleigh, NC 27601
Phone: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: nicholas@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
John J. Driscoll, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, LLC
1311 Avenida Ponce de Leon, Suite 501
San Juan, PR 00907
Phone: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: john@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
Heidi J. Johnson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
211 N. Broadway, Ste 4050
St. Louis, MO 63102
Phone: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: heidi@thedriscollfirm.com
3M COMPANY: Zabel Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------------
Randall Zabel, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION;
ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION, individually
and as successor in interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS
COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA,
INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS,
INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.;
L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC
MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS,
LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING
COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN
MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.
(f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE &
ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., and DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-20, fictious names whose present identities are
unknown, Case No. 2:25-cv-00134-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 7, 2025), is
brought for damages relating to Defendants' development, marketing,
release, training users of, instructional materials, warnings,
sale, handling, and use in connection with Aqueous Film-Forming
Foam ("AFFF") containing Perfluorooctanoic Acid ("PFOA"),
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS"), Perfluorononanoic acid
("PFNA"), Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid ("PFHxS"),
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid ("PFBS"), Hexafluoropropylene Oxide
("HFPO", also known as "Gen-X"), and/or their precursors and
derivatives, and other fluorochemicals and for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film forming foams
("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing
"fluorochemical products."
The Defendants failed to warn users and consumers of their
fluorochemical products' persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxic
properties, as well as the fluorochemical products' propensity to
contaminate water supplies, which was known or knowable to the
Defendants.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS as well
as result in the contamination of Plaintiff's public drinking water
supply. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to
develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged
herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities and arising from
the intentional, malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts
and/or omissions of Defendants in connection with the contamination
of the Plaintiff's drinking water supply with Defendants'
fluorochemical products to which Plaintiff was exposed. Plaintiff
further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising
from the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Wilson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 560
Raleigh, NC 27601
Phone: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: nicholas@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
John J. Driscoll, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, LLC
1311 Avenida Ponce de Leon, Suite 501
San Juan, PR 00907
Phone: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: john@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
Heidi J. Johnson, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, PC
211 N. Broadway, Ste 4050
St. Louis, MO 63102
Phone: (314) 932-3232
Fax: (314) 932-3233
Email: heidi@thedriscollfirm.com
7-ELEVEN INC: Faces TCPA Class Suit Over Call Time Compliance
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman of Troutman Amin, LLP, in an article for National
Law Review, shares a report from TCPAWorld.com that Circle K was
being caught in a massive TCPA class action due to marketing
content in its opt in messages.
Eesh.
Well now competitor convenience store 7-Eleven is caught in a TCPA
class action of its own and it also stems from low-hanging-fruit
TCPA compliance issues that should never have happened (if it
did.)
Background -- the TCPA imposes call time limitations om messaging
in some contexts. Messages cannot be sent before 8 am or after 9
pm. In some states -- such as Florida -- where this case is brought
-- the restrictions are even tighter.
Now interestingly, my read of the TCPA is that it only restricts
telephone solicitations to call time hours, which means calls made
with consent or an EBR are not subject to those restrictions. That
is probably what 7-11 is thinking, but I am not sure. However,
these exemptions do not seem to apply to state statutes. So, keep
that in mind.
Regardless in the new case of Alexander Fernandez v. 7-Eleven,
Plaintiff seemingly admits signing up to a 7-Eleven text club using
a keyword (an always dangerous process, but that's a topic for
another day.)
While 7-Eleven does not appear to be using a double-opt in process
(also odd) it does seem to be sending messages at off hours.
Plaintiff provides screen shots demonstrating messages received at
9:40 and 9:41 pm.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all individuals that
received messages out of compliance with call time restrictions
based on the called party's time zone. Will be very interesting to
see what data sets exist around such a class.
The plaintiff seemingly intentionally does not allege her phone
number, so I am curious whether the area code matches Florida --
where Plaintiff apparently lives. This might be a "panhandle
special" where someone living in Florida's central time zone is
receiving messages intended for the eastern time zone -- resulting
in a message being sent at 8:41 being received at 9:41.
Then again, since Florida's state restriction is 8 pm that wouldn't
seem to matter anyway.
Really interesting one. We will keep an eye on it. [GN]
ALASKA AIRLINES: March 3 Deadline Set for Synoracki Case Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington ordered the parties in the case
captioned as LEO SYNORACKI, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALASKA AIRLINES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-cv-01784-RSL (W.D. Calif.) to address certain issues
following remand.
This matter comes before the Court on remand from the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit with instructions to
reconsider the summary dismissal of plaintiff's claims in light of
Clarkson v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 59 F.4th 424 (9th Cir. 2023),
including the possibility of certifying a narrower, temporarily
limited class.
The parties must confer and file a joint status report no later
than March 3, 2025, as to how this matter should proceed. At a
minimum, the parties must address the following subjects:
1. Which of Mr. Synoracki's military leaves of absence (a) were
"short-term" as that phrase was understood in Clarkson, 59 F.4th at
431, and (b) did not accrue vacation and/or sick time?
2. Which of Mr. Synoracki's longer military leaves of absence (a)
are arguably comparable to jury duty in duration, (b) did not
accrue vacation and/or sick time, and (c) therefore give rise to a
jury issue regarding comparability under the analysis in
Clarkson?
3. Which of Mr. Synoracki's military leaves of absence were so much
longer than any jury duty taken by Alaska Airline pilots that they
are not comparable to jury duty under the governing regulation, 20
C.F.R. Sec. 1002.150(b)?
4. Assuming, for purposes of this joint status report, that final
approval of the class action settlement in Clarkson v. Alaska
Airlines, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-005-TOR, is granted, which of
Mr. Synoracki's claims will survive?
5. Do the parties anticipate filing a motion to modify the class
definitions and, if so, when do they anticipate the motion will be
filed?
6. Do the parties anticipate filing renewed motions for summary
judgment based on the Ninth Circuit's analysis in Clarkson and, if
so, when do they anticipate the motions will be filed?
7. What is the anticipated length of the trial in this matter?
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i5hwU9 from PacerMonitor.com.
AMAZON.COM INC: Kolotinsky Sues Over Private Information Disclosure
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FELIX KOLOTINSKY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, and AMAZON ADVERTISING, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Case No. 3:25-cv-00931 (N.D. Cal., January 29,
2025) accuses the Defendants of surreptitiously tracking and
selling California residents' sensitive movements and locations.
Amazon.com, Inc. developed and disseminated a software development
kit called the Amazon Ads SDK that enables backdoor access to
consumers' devices and opens a direct data collection pipeline to
Amazon and its advertising partners. Plaintiff and other consumers
are never informed about Amazon's SDK nor are they allowed to
opt-in or opt-out of Amazon's data collection practices.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendants'
unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the
California Penal Code Section 638.51, and Section 502 or otherwise
known as the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act.
Headquartered in Seattle, WA, Amazon.com, Inc. is a technology
company that, among other things, operates an advertising network,
Amazon Advertising, LLC. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rafey Balabanian, Esq.
Jared Lucky, Esq.
EDELSON PC
150 California Street, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 212-9300
Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
jlucky@edelson.com
- and -
Schuyler Ufkes, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589-6370
Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
E-mail: sufkes@edelson.com
AMERICAN ADDICTION: Faces Prosky Suit Over Data Security Failure
----------------------------------------------------------------
RON PROSKY, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN ADDICTION CENTERS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:25-cv-00098 (M.D. Tenn., January 27, 2025) seeks
monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief arising from
Defendant's failure to safeguard the personally identifiable
information of its patients, which resulted in unauthorized access
to its information systems.
On or around September 26, 2024, American Addiction Centers, Inc.
detected unusual activity in its computer systems and ultimately
determined that an unauthorized third party accessed its network
and obtained certain files from its systems on September 23, 2024
to September 26, 2024. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings causes
of action against AAC for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy,
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, violation of the
California Consumer Privacy Act, Violation of the California
Consumer Records Act, Violation of the Confidentiality in Medical
Information Act and declaratory judgment seeking damages and
injunctive relief, including improvements to Defendant's data
security systems and integrated services, future annual audits, and
adequate credit monitoring.
Headquartered in Brentwood, TN, AAC is a network of rehab
facilities nationwide, with programs in California, Florida, Texas,
Nevada, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479 -2299
E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com
ASPEN SKIING: Settles Labor Class Action Lawsuit for $1.575-Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Skyler Stark-Ragsdale of Aspen Times reports that Aspen Skiing
Company settled a class action lawsuit for $1.575 million Monday,
February 3, 2025, to be distributed to around 10,000 past and
present employees.
The final settlement comes after over a year of legal battle, when
a former employee alleged that SkiCo deprived workers of
state-mandated, paid 10-minute breaks for every four hours worked.
The lawsuit also alleged the company failed to compensate employees
for their on-mountain commute, and presented misleading information
about friends and family benefits and ticket vouchers.
District Court Judge Anne Norrdin granted the joint motion for the
settlement approval filed by SkiCo and the plaintiff in October.
"I finally conclude that the proposed class action settlement is
fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable under the
circumstances," Norrdin said.
The employees are expected to receive a mix of cash payments and
vouchers, according to the plaintiff’s representative, Alexander
Hood, who described the settlement agreement. The cash payments,
$875,000 of the total settlement, will range from $5 to $375
payments to current or former employees. The vouchers, constituting
$700,000 of the payout, will range from $64.58 to $114.57, and can
be used for on-mountain food and beverage, rental, retail,
ticketing, or online purchases. [GN]
ATLAS FIELD SERVICES: Davis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atlas Field Services,
LLC. The case is styled as Steven Davis, an individual, on his own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Atlas
Field Services, LLC., Case No. 25CV109178 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda
Cty., Jan. 30, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Atlas Field Services, LLC --- https://www.atlasfieldservice.com/ --
is a full-service Health, Safety & Environment ("HSE") company
dedicated to the highest standards and procedures.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin A. Lipeles, Esq.
LIPELES LAW GROUP, APC
880 Apollo St., Ste. 336
El Segundo, CA 90245-4783
Phone: 310-322-2211
Fax: 310-322-2252
Email: kevin@kallaw.com
AUM INSURANCE SERVICES: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AUM Insurance
Services LLC. The case is styled as Chet Michael Wilson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AUM
Insurance Services LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00260-LB (N.D. Cal., Jan.
7, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
AUM Insurance Services LLC provide industry-specific insurance
broking, consulting, risk management, and claim services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana J. Oliver, I, Esq.
OLIVER LAW CENTER, INC.
8780 19th Street, Suite 559
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
Phone: (562) 500-0600
Fax: (888) 570-2021
Email: dana@danaoliverlaw.com
- and -
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Phone: (617) 485-0018
Fax: (508) 318-8100
Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Vani Moodley, Esq.
5655 Silver Creek Valley Road, #850
San Jose, CA 95138
Phone: (919) 341-6334
Email: vani@hahnmoodley.com
C. MERRITT: Plaintiff in Coleman Suit Loses Bid to Appoint Counsel
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as TRAVIS CLINTON COLEMAN, Plaintiff, v. C.
MERRITT, et al., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01566-JCC-BAT (W.D.
Wash.), Magistrate Judge Brian A. Tsuchida of the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington denied the
motion filed by the plaintiff seeking reconsideration of an order
denying his second motion to appoint counsel.
In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff asserts that he is
disabled and on SSI for issues related to chronic pain, pain
related to insomnia and mental health issues. He claims this makes
it very painful and difficult to concentrate while trying to sit
and write letters and perform research. Plaintiff also indicates he
thinks the Court needs to compel the defendants because they did
not answer his questions or requests for information, and the jail
has a video he wants to use as evidence. He also states he sent a
revision of his claims to the Court, trying to explain his claims
more specifically, but that the Judge rejected it, and he does not
understand why.
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(h), motions for reconsideration are
disfavored and will be denied absent a showing of manifest error or
a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been
presented earlier with reasonable diligence.
Plaintiff has not shown a manifest error in the Court's prior order
denying his second motion to appoint counsel or shown that new
facts exist that make appointment of counsel appropriate.
The Court emphasizes that although Plaintiff makes additional
general arguments regarding health issues and that this makes
litigating his case more challenging, these arguments in and of
themselves fail to establish an exceptional circumstance warranting
appointment of counsel. At this relatively early stage of the
proceedings, it also cannot be concluded Plaintiff is likely to
succeed on the merits of his claims.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MF7HDV from PacerMonitor.com.
CALIFORNIA: Settles 2022 Data Breach Class Suit for $1.8-Mil.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that The California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation agreed to pay $1.8 million as part
of a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it failed to
protect California inmates from a 2022 data breach.
The California Department of Corrections data breach settlement
benefits individuals whose protected health information or
personally identifiable information was stored on the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation platform that was
accessed by an unauthorized user in January 2022.
The California Department of Corrections data breach reportedly
compromised the protected health information and personally
identifiable information of 1.4 million inmates. Plaintiffs in the
data breach class action lawsuit claim the department failed to
protect their information from cybercriminals.
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is
responsible for the state's prison system.
The California Department of Corrections hasn't admitted any
wrongdoing but agreed to the $1.8 million settlement to resolve the
data breach class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the California Department of Corrections data
breach settlement, class members can receive an equal share of the
net settlement fund. Exact payments will vary depending on the
number of participating class members and the amount deducted for
attorneys' fees and other costs.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Feb. 14, 2025.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for
March 7, 2025.
Class members who received a postcard notice regarding the
California Department of Corrections data breach settlement do not
need to take any action to benefit from the settlement. Class
members who did not receive a postcard notice must submit a valid
claim form by Feb. 14, 2025, to receive settlement benefits.
Who's Eligible
Individuals whose protected health information and/or personally
identifiable information was on California Department of
Corrections' platform that was accessed by the unauthorized user in
the incident discovered in January 2022
Potential Award
TBD
Proof of Purchase
N/A
Claim Form
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
02/14/2025
Case Name
Thomas, et al. v. California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, et al., Case No. 34-2022-00328693, in the
California Superior Court for Sacramento County
Final Hearing
03/07/2025
Settlement Website
CDCRDataClassActionSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Thomas v. California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation
c/o CPT Group Inc.
50 Corporate Park
Irvine, CA 92606
CDCRDataClassActionSettlement@CPTGroup.com
(888) 735-6130
Class Counsel
Scott Edward Cole
COLE & VAN NOTE
Defense Counsel
Amanda Waters
Adriano Hrvatin
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA [GN]
CARGO TRADERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Moreno Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
LILIA M. MORENO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CARGO TRADERS LLC; OSCAR CRISTANCHO; and
XIOMARA ZUNIGA, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-20501-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
Feb. 3, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Moreno was employed by the Defendants as a bookkeeper and
office clerk.
Cargo Traders LLC is an international shipping and transportation
logistics company. [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
CARIBOU BIOSCIENCES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Feb. 24
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of
Caribou Biosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: CRBU).
Shareholders who purchased shares of CRBU during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead
plaintiff appointment. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.
CONTACT US HERE:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/caribou-biosciences-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=126272&from=4
CLASS PERIOD: July 14, 2023 to July 16, 2024
ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) they had overstated CB-010's
safety, efficacy, and durability relative to approved autologous
CAR-T cell therapies in treating patients with r/r B-NHL and/or
LBCL, as well as CB-010's overall clinical results and commercial
prospects; (ii) Caribou was at significant risk of having
insufficient cash, liquidity, and/or other capital to fund its
current business operations, including preclinical research
activities associated with the allogeneic CAR-NK platform; (iii)
all the foregoing was likely to have a significant negative impact
on Caribou's business and operations; and (iv) as a result,
defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.
DEADLINE: February 24, 2025 Shareholders should not delay in
registering for this class action. Register your information here:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/caribou-biosciences-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=126272&from=4
NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who
purchased shares of CRBU during the timeframe listed above, you
will be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you
with status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The
deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is February 24, 2025. There
is no cost or obligation to you to participate in this case.
WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is a nationally recognized
class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of
all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and
illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to
ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices
and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery
on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or
misleading statements or the omission of material information by a
company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (646) 453-8903 [GN]
DCI DONOR: Court Modifies Settlement Agreement in Wells Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Carolyn K. Delaney of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of California granted the request of the
parties in the case captioned as MARIAH WELLS, an individual, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
DCI DONOR SERVICES, INC., a Tennessee Corporation; and DOES 1 to
50, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00994 CKD (E.D. Calif.) to modify
the settlement agreement with the correct class definition.
On Oct. 7, 2024, the Court issued an Order preliminarily certifying
a class for settlement purposes and approving a class-based
settlement in this matter.
The moving papers in support of class certification and class
settlement accurately described the proposed class as "non-exempt
per diem piece rate employees".
The Parties' Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Class and PAGA
Action Settlement and Release attached to the Motion for
Preliminary Approval mistakenly defined the class as "non-exempt
per diem employees"; and the proposed Notice of Pendency of Class
and Representative Action and Proposed Settlement, attached to the
Declaration of Megan E. Ross in support of the moving papers,
likewise mistakenly identifies the class as "non-exempt per diem
employees".
The Court's Oct. 7, 2024 Order references the MOU's incorrect class
definition.
The Parties seek to ensure certification of the class as defined in
the moving papers.
The settlement agreement with the correct class definition,
identified as the Amended Memorandum of Understanding Regarding
Class and PAGA Action Settlement and Release is attached as Exhibit
A.
Pursuant to the Court's Jan. 14, 2025 Order, the Parties identify
the changes made through the Amended MOU as follows:
1. The definition of "Class" and "PAGA" class members was revised
to "per diem piece rate non-exempt employee" in Paragraphs 3 and
23;
2. Paragraph 31 of the original MOU erroneously stated that the
release period commenced Sept. 9, 2010, which was corrected in the
Amended MOU to the intended date of April 30, 2017; and
3. Paragraph 55(f) of the original MOU included up to $5,000.00 to
resolve Class Counsel's claims for out of pocket litigation
expenses. This figure was updated to include up to $12,000.00 to
resolve Class Counsel's claims for out of pocket litigation
expenses. In effect, this is not a material change as Class Counsel
will request less than $5,000.00 in out of pocket litigation
expenses at final approval.
The new definitions of "Class" and "PAGA Class," as well as the
corrected release period, comply with the requirements of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and do not materially change the Court's
Oct. 7, 2024 Order, because the moving papers correctly identified,
and the settlement was based upon, these class definitions and
release period. The MOU erroneously defined the class such that it
included all employees who worked on a per diem basis, as opposed
to only those employees who worked on a piece rate, per diem basis.
The MOU's class definition accordingly would have expanded the
class well beyond the Parties' intentions and the scope of the
settlement. The corrections within the Amended MOU therefore do not
materially change the Court's Oct. 7 2024 Order, as the settlement
and the Motion for Preliminary Approval were based upon the class
definitions and release period set forth in the Amended MOU.
The proposed corrected notice to putative class members, identified
as the Amended Notice of Pendency of Class and Representative
Action and Proposed Settlement is attached as Exhibit B.
Therefore, the Parties stipulate to the following:
1. The Court's Oct. 7, 2024 Order is modified to define the class
as "non-exempt per diem piece rate employees" and to otherwise
approve the terms of Exhibit A and Exhibit B; and
2. The original MOU has no effect; and
3. The putative class members and aggrieved employees will receive
the Class Notice attached as Exhibit B in lieu of the original
notice attached to the Declaration of Megan E. Ross; and
4. All dates for compliance will be set from the date of this order
in accordance with the deadlines identified on page 26 of the
Amended MOU.
5. The Final Approval Hearing is continued from March 19, 2025.
Based on the parties' stipulation, and for good cause shown, the
Court ordered as follows:
1. The Court's Oct. 7, 2024 order granting plaintiff's unopposed
motion for conditional class certification and preliminary approval
of settlement will be modified to define the "class" as "all
individuals who are or were employed by Defendant as per diem piece
rate non-exempt employees in California from April 30, 2017 through
the earlier of March 1, 2023 or the date of preliminary approval of
the settlement; and "PAGA class" as "all individuals who are or
were employed by Defendant as per diem piece rate non-exempt
employees in California during the PAGA Settlement Period" as
indicated in the Amended Memorandum of Understanding Regarding
Class and PAGA Action Settlement and Release filed concurrently
with the parties' stipulation;
2. The terms of the Settlement Agreement are preliminarily
approved;
3. The Amended Notice of Pendency of Class and Representative
Action and Proposed Settlement is approved;
4. The original Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Class and
PAGA Action Settlement and Release has no effect;
5. The putative class members and aggrieved employees will receive
the Class Notice in lieu of the original notice attached to the
Declaration of Megan E. Ross;
6. All dates for compliance will be set from the date of this order
in lieu of the dates set in the Oct. 7, 2024 Order, and as
delineated by the Settlement Agreement:
7. The Final Fairness Hearing scheduled for March 19, 2025 is
vacated, and reset for July 16, 2025 at 10:00 in Courtroom 24.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v1q7Av from PacerMonitor.com.
Attorneys for Plaintiff Mariah Wells, the Putative Class, and the
Aggrieved Employees:
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
Hannah Becker, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP P.C.
1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel: 310-824-3828
Fax: 310-862-6851
E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com
hb@melmedlaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant DCI Donor Services, Inc.:
Barbara a. Cotter, Esq.
Alexis M. Gabrielson, Esq.
Zachary H. Rankin, Esq.
COOK BROWN, LLP
2407 J Street, Second Floor
Sacramento, CA 95816
Tel: 916-442-3100
Fax: 916-442-4227
E-mail: bcotter@cookbrown.com
DMC GLOBAL: Laurent Sues Over Misleading Statements on Securities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALESSANDRO LAURENT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DMC GLOBAL INC., MICHAEL KUTA, and
ERIC V. WALTER, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00277-KAS (D. Colo.,
January 27, 2025) seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants’
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5.
The Plaintiff brings this federal securities class action on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired DMC Global
securities between January 29, 2024 and November 4, 2024, both
dates inclusive. Throughout the said period, the Defendants
misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts
about DMC Global's business, operations, and prospects which were
known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (i) the
goodwill associated with Acadia Products was overstated due to the
adverse events and circumstances affecting that reporting segment;
(ii) DMC Global's materially inadequate internal systems and
processes were adversely affecting its operations; (iii) the
Company's inadequate systems and processes prevented it from
ensuring reasonably accurate guidance and that its public
disclosures were timely, accurate, and complete; (iv) as a result,
Defendants misrepresented DMC Global's operations and financial
results; and/or (v) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false, misleading, or lacked a reasonable basis
when made.
Headquartered in Broomfield, CO, DMC Global develops and
manufactures architectural buildings products, energy products, and
composite metals. Its common stock trades in the Nasdaq Global
Select Market under the ticker symbol "BOOM." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: ahood@pomlaw.com
jalieberman@pomlaw.com
- and -
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
PORTNOY LAW FIRM
1800 Century Park East, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 692-8883
E-mail: lesley@portnoylaw.com
DOLLAR TREE: Class Settlement in Dalton Suit Gets Final Court Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Katherine Menendez of the United States District Court for
the District of Minnesota granted final approval of the class
settlement, attorney fees, costs, expenses, and service award in
the case captioned as Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dollar Tree Stores,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 23-cv-00368-KMM-LIB (D. Minn.).
The Settlement Agreement is approved as fair, reasonable and
adequate.
The Agreement was negotiated at arm's length by experienced counsel
who were fully informed of the facts and circumstances of this
litigation and of the strengths and weaknesses of their respective
positions. The Agreement was reached after the Parties engaged in
extensive settlement discussions. Counsel for the Parties were
therefore well-positioned to evaluate the benefits of the
Agreement, taking into account the expense, risk, and uncertainty
of protracted litigation.
The following Class is certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)
and (b)(2) for purposes of settlement:
All blind or visually impaired individuals or other individuals in
the United States with disabilities as defined by the Americans
with Disabilities Act who use or require audio readouts of
on-screen prompts and tactile keypads associated with use of
payment terminals (or comparable technologies that allow the
individuals to interact with payment terminals), and who have or
allege they have been, or in the future will be, denied the full
and equal enjoyment of Defendant's payment terminals' cash back
feature at stores owned or operated by Defendant in the United
States because such persons encounter(ed) a payment terminal
without an audio readout and tactile keypad to obtain cash back at
Defendant's stores.
Plaintiff Julie Dalton fairly and adequately represents the
interests of the Settlement Class in enforcing their rights in this
action is appointed as Settlement Class Representative.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. is an experienced and competent class
action counsel who efficiently, effectively, fairly, and adequately
protected the interests of the putative class throughout this
litigation. He is appointed Class Counsel for the Settlement
Class.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GyTw6J from PacerMonitor.com.
ENCORE GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Padilla Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY PADILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENCORE GROUP (USA) LLC; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV03015 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Feb. 3, 2025) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide meals
and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a staff.
Encore Group (USA) LLC provides audiovisual and event technology
support services. The Company offers event branding, show
management, designing, video conferencing, virtual events, power
distribution, content development, and networking services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq.
Stephanie E. Yasuda, Esq.
YOON LAW, APC
751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 102
Pasadena, CA 91103
Telephone: (213) 612-0988
Facsimile: (213) 947-1211
ESSEX TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice
------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTOPHER BOSHERS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ESSEX TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LLC d/b/a
BARGAIN HUNT STORES, Defendant, Case 3:25-cv-00120 (M.D. Tenn.,
Jan. 31, 2025) alleges violation of the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act ("Warn Act"), the Plaintiff seeks to
recover from the Defendant up to 60 days wages and benefits,
pursuant to the Warn Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide 60
days' notice prior to terminating 500 or more employees without
cause in a mass layoff, or before terminating 50 or more employees
in a plant closing. The Plaintiff and the Class that were
terminated constituted mass layoffs and a plant closing without the
60 days'
Essex Technology Group, LLC, doing business as Bargain Hunt,
operates as a retail company. The Company offers food, clothing,
shoes, accessories, electronics, appliances, sporting goods, home
decor, and other related products. Bargain Hunt serves customers in
the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Michael C. Iadevaia, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
miadevaia@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI, LLP
613 Williamson St., Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
Email: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Natalie A. Lyons, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
nlyons@cohenandmalad.com
EXPERIAN PLC: Faces Zhen et al. Privacy Suit Over Data Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ZHICHENG ZHEN, MARCUS JOHNSON, JANE DOE, MARC RUSSO, DILARA USKUP,
and KELDA MCKINNEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EXPERIAN DATA CORPORATION,
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., EXPERIAN PLC, and TAPAD,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00948-DMR (N.D. Cal., January
29, 2025) sets forth how the business practices of Experian and
Tapad amount to a deliberate surveillance of millions of Americans
via their activity on the Internet and mobile applications.
Experian, through Tapad, tracks in real time and records
indefinitely the personal information and specific web activity of
hundreds of millions of Americans. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now
bring this action to enforce their constitutional rights to privacy
and to seek damages under California law for the harm caused by the
collection and sale of their confidential data and personal
information. They assert claims for intrusion upon seclusion,
unjust enrichment, and for violations of the California Invasion of
Privacy Act.
Headquartered in Dublin, Ireland, Experian PLC is a data broker and
consumer credit reporting company. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented:
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
Victoria X. Zhou, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
vzhou@bursor.com
- and -
Joshua R. Wilner, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: jwilner@bursor.com
EXTREME NETWORKS: Faces Steamfitters Shareholder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Extreme Networks, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on January 30, 2025, that on August 13, 2024, a
putative securities class action was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California captioned
"Steamfitters Local 449 Pension & Retirement Security Funds v.
Extreme Networks, Inc., et al.," Case No. 5:24-cv-05102-TLT, naming
the company and certain of its current and former executive
officers as defendants.
The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of
Extreme Networks securities between July 27, 2022 and January 30,
2024. The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, based on allegedly false and misleading statements
about the company's business and prospects and seeks unspecified
damages. On December 30, 2024, the court selected Oklahoma
Fire/Police and Oakland County Employees as the lead plaintiffs.
Trial has been scheduled for March 20, 2027.
Extreme Networks, Inc., together with its subsidiaries provides
software-driven networking solutions for enterprise customers.
FINMAX SMART: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in D. Oregon
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Finmax Smart Capital
LLC. The case is styled as Chet Michael Wilson, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Finmax Smart Capital
LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-00173-AA (D. Ore., Jan. 31, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Finmax -- https://profinmax.com/ -- is a professional collection
solutions team providing high quality accounts receivable
management collection & recovery services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq.
PERRONG LAW LLC
2657 Mt. Carmel Ave
Glenside, PA 19038
Phone: (215) 225-5529
Fax: (888) 329-0305
Email: a@perronglaw.com
- and -
Anthony Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Phone: (617) 485-0018
Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com
FLORISTS' TRANSWORLD: Faces Class Suit Over Online Junk Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that Florists'
Transworld Delivery (FTD) faces a proposed class action lawsuit
that claims the floral wire service unlawfully waits to tack on a
$19.99 delivery fee until the very end of the online ordering
process.
The 49-page lawsuit against FTD alleges that the retailer's
last-minute disclosure of the "surprise fee," which is added onto
the price of every product irrespective of order size or recipient
location, is nothing more than a deceptive "bait-and-switch"
pricing scheme that has allowed the company to "systematically
cheat[] consumers out of millions of dollars" each year.
The suit accuses FTD of using "drip pricing," a manipulative tactic
whereby companies add previously undisclosed charges to a product's
price as consumers navigate through the purchasing process. The
technique has enabled the retailer to lure shoppers with
artificially low prices before tricking them into paying more at
checkout, the complaint contends.
The case claims that instead of properly disclosing the $19.99
per-arrangement delivery fee at the beginning of the purchase flow
on FTD.com, the company springs the extra charge on the consumer
right before they finalize the transaction, after they have already
clicked through multiple screens and invested a significant amount
of time building their order.
As the complaint tells it, nowhere during the purchase process does
FTD mention that a $19.99 fee will be added to the price of each
floral arrangement. Per the filing, only after navigating through
five webpages and entering all the details of the order does the
consumer arrive at the payment information page, where the true
total cost of the product—including the surprise fee—is listed
in the "order summary" section for the first time.
The lawsuit asserts that FTD's pricing scheme is "designed to
hassle the user into clicking ‘PLACE ORDER' rather than confront
the alternative of losing more valuable time and energy searching
for another option from a different competitor or a differently
priced listing from [FTD's] offerings."
What's more, the suit alleges the "junk fee" is not truly a
delivery fee or shipping cost at all.
"The Surprise Fee of $19.99 is the hidden cost of every listed
item, a hidden portion of the charge the consumer must pay to
purchase the product," the case says. "The fee is for general
service, not a pass-through delivery charge."
Consumers have been duped into spending more on floral arrangements
than they otherwise would have absent FTD's false advertising, the
complaint contends.
The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who
purchased a floral arrangement and/or other gift delivery from FTD
within the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN]
FROM YOU FLOWERS: Walterlakes and Mahabal Sue Over Illegal Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
TREVOR WALTERLAKES, and KIMBERLEY MAHABAL, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FROM YOU
FLOWERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00867-MKV (S.D.N.Y.,
January 29, 2025), seeks to stop Defendant from falsely advertising
the price of its floral arrangements throughout 50 states and to
residents of the United States and force Defendant to pay back the
tens of millions of dollars in unlawful Surprise Fee revenues it
has taken from consumers together with statutory penalties and
punitive damages.
Rather than transparently disclosing the full cost of the floral
arrangement and/or gift item delivery offered through its
e-commerce platform, Defendant instead adds on previously
undisclosed Surprise Fees to every product purchased, right before
the buyer finalizes the transaction. As a result of Defendant's
false advertising, Plaintiffs and the proposed class have suffered
damages.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs assert that Defendant's misleadingly
advertised product prices, a bait-and-switch scheme, constitutes
false and misleading advertising in violation of the Consumer
Protection Acts of the 50 states, including California's Unfair
Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, New York's Deceptive Acts and Unfair
Trade Practices Act, and New York's False Advertising Act.
Headquartered in New York, NY, From Your Flowers, LLC operates as
floral wire service company, which brokers orders to local florists
for delivery. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
- and -
Kristen Simplicio, Esq.
1050 Connecticut Ave NW, Ste 500
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone.: (202) 688-2105
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: ksimplicio@clarksonlawfirm.com
FTD LLC: Faces Inoue Suit Over Illegal Pricing Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------
MAYO INOUE a/k/a MAIO INOUE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FTD, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-01016 (N.D. Ill., January 29, 2025) alleges that the
Defendant systematically cheats consumers out of millions of
dollars annually by employing a deceptive and illegal
bait-and-switch pricing scheme.
Rather than transparently disclosing the full cost of the floral
arrangement and/or gift item delivery offered through its
e-commerce platform, the Defendant instead adds on a previously
undisclosed "Surprise Fee" of $19.99 to every product purchased,
regardless of order size and recipient location. In addition, even
when a consumer does not ultimately consent to the Surprise Fee and
instead abandons their cart, the Defendant has still harvested
their personal data which it will use to further enrich itself in
future applications unrelated to the transaction in question.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this action under the
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law,
and False Advertising Law, to stop Defendant from falsely
advertising the price of its floral arrangements as $19.99 less
than they actually cost throughout 50 states and to residents of
the United States and force Defendant to pay back the tens of
millions of dollars in unlawful Surprise Fee revenues it has taken
from consumers together with statutory penalties and punitive
damages.
Headquartered in Chicago, IL, FTD LLC offers flower and gift
delivery services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan Paul Thompson, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: bthompson@clarksonlawfirm.com
- and -
Kristen Simplicio, Esq.
1050 Connecticut Ave NW, Ste 500
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 688-2105
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: ksimplicio@clarksonlawfirm.com
GIGACLOUD TECH: Judge Granted in Part Motion to Dismiss Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
JD Supra reports that on January 27, 2025, Judge Jesse M. Furman of
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York partially granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities
class action asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act")
against an e-commerce platform (the "Company"), the underwriter of
its IPO, and certain of its officers and directors. In re Gigacloud
Tech. Inc. Sec. Litig., 23-cv-10645-JMF (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2025).
Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made material misstatements and
omissions regarding the Company's marketplace activities and
associated revenue metrics, as well as its use of AI. The Court
granted in part defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that
plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege actionable
misrepresentations regarding the Company's marketplace activities,
but denied the motion as it related to alleged misrepresentations
concerning the Company's use of AI.
Plaintiffs, who brought the action on behalf of a putative class of
investors that purchased Company shares between August 18, 2022 and
May 22, 2024, alleged violations of the Securities Act and the
Exchange Act based on purported misleading statements by defendants
that allegedly overstated the success of the platform's
marketplace. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that defendants
failed to disclose the Company's relationships with "closely
connected" companies that comprised a "significant amount" of
revenue. Plaintiffs also alleged Securities Act violations on the
basis that the offering materials misrepresented the Company's use
of AI in its logistics operations.
The Court dismissed plaintiffs' Securities Act and Exchange Act
claims based on statements about the Company's marketplace
activities, holding that plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that
the statements were false or misleading. The Court held that the
disclosure of accurate historical data about the Company's revenue
streams, and explanatory statements about the benefits of the
marketplace to reseller purchasers, were not rendered misleading by
the alleged omission that some of the buyers were allegedly
"closely connected" to the company or its employees.
The Court, however, denied defendants' motion to dismiss the
Securities Act claims based on statements about the Company's use
of AI, holding that plaintiffs plausibly alleged a material
misstatement. The Court credited allegations based on confidential
former employee statements that supported an inference that the
Company did not use AI in its logistics operations as claimed in
its offering materials. The Court distinguished defendants' general
statements about the strength of their technology, which the Court
deemed puffery, and defendants' specific statements about the use
of AI, which the Court deemed actionable. The Court further found
that defendants could not prevail on their negative causation
defense at the pleading stage, including because plaintiffs
adequately pleaded that short seller reports contributed new
information to the market even if such reports were based on
publicly available information.
Finally, the Court denied an individual defendant's motion to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, holding -- in what the
Court noted appeared to be a matter of first impression -- that
"for purposes of a Section 11 claim, there is no material
difference between a director who signs the registration statement
and someone . . . who signs the written consent required by 17
C.F.R. Sec. 230.438 to be submitted with the registration
statement." [GN]
INFRAMARK LLC: Graber Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth A. Graber, Individually and On Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. Inframark, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:25-cv-00376 (S.D. Tex., January 29, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime that is required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Graber worked for Inframark as an operator and as a team
lead from August of 2023 until October of 2024. During the time he
worked for the Defendant, Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40
hours per week. However, Inframark did not pay Plaintiff
time-and-a-half for many of the overtime hours that he worked for
the Defendant, says the suit.
Inframark, LLC is a Texas limited liability company provides water
utilities and property management services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 10099
Houston, TX 77206
Telephone: (713) 868-3388
Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
INTRASYSTEMS LLC: Faces Mikec Suit Over Private Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
LISA MIKEC, individually, and on behalf of Minor Plaintiffs B.G.
and A.M., and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
INTRASYSTEMS, LLC and ALLEGHENY HEALTH NETWORK, Defendants, Case
No. 1:25-cv-10205 (D. Mass., January 27, 2025), arises from
Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs'
and other similarly situated persons' personally identifiable
information and protected health information.
The investigation launched by Defendant Allegheny Healthcare
Network has revealed that on October 11, 2024, an unauthorized
party had access to patient information stored by Instrasystems on
its behalf. On or about January 17, 2025, AHN only sent out data
breach letters to Plaintiffs and other individuals whose
information was compromised as a result of the hacking incident.
Moreover, the Defendants failed to properly monitor and properly
implement security practices with regard to the computer network
and systems that housed the private information, says the suit.
Headquartered in Braintree, MA, Instraystems provides IT software
systems to companies in numerous sectors, including the healthcare
sector. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christina Xenides, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
1005 Congress Avenue, Suite 925-C36
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 265-5622
E-mail: cxenides@sirillp.com
- and -
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com
INTRASYSTEMS LLC: Fitzgerald Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IntraSystems, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Sally Fitzgerald, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. IntraSystems, LLC, Allegheny
Health Network, Case No. 1:25-cv-10218-RGS (D. Mass., Jan. 28,
2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor
Vehicle.
INTRASYSTEMS -- https://www.intrasystems.com/ -- provides a wide
range of comprehensive services for the full lifecycle of IT
projects subject to international standards.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Randi A. Kassan, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 741-5600
Fax: (516) 741-0128
Email: rkassan@milberg.com
ITS LOGISTICS: Atkins Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ITS Logistics, LLC.
The case is styled as Larry Atkins, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. ITS Logistics, LLC, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2025-0001231 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Jan.
27, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
ITS Logistics -- https://www.its4logistics.com/ -- is a premier 3PL
with dedicated fleet and asset-lite transportation services plus
omnichannel distribution and fulfillment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, PC
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6006
Phone: 310-975-1493
Fax: 310-675-0861
Email: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com
J & R MARINE INC: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property
---------------------------------------------------------
Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. J & R MARINE, INC.; and MI BANDEJA
LATINA, CORP. d/b/a MI BANDEJA LATINA,, Case No. 1:25-cv-20430-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.
J & R MARINE, 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
J. JILL HOLDINGS: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. J. Jill Holdings, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-00330 (D.
Minn., Jan. 28, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's
Website (www.j.jill.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, shoes, and accessories for sale
including, but not limited to, tops, tees, sweaters, pajamas,
robes, sandals, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 South, 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (763) 515-6110
Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
JACK'S LEGACY: Rose Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Rose, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JACK'S LEGACY SERVICES, LLC and GILLES RODOLPHE
SASSINE, Case No. 6:25-cv-00171 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 2, 2025), is
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"), for
failing to pay Plaintiff and the Putative Class overtime wages.
In the course of his employment with Defendants, during the
material time, the Plaintiff and other Tow Truck driver employees,
regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per work week and were not
paid overtime compensation at the lawful overtime rate for all of
the overtime hours worked, based on Defendants' unlawful pay
practices and scheme to evade its pay obligations under the FLSA.
The Plaintiff alleges on behalf of himself and the Putative Class
that they are entitled to be paid a premium for all overtime hours
worked for which they did not receive overtime compensation, as
required by the FLSA. Defendants had a common pay practice and
policy of denying its "Tow Truck Drivers" overtime pay for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per work week, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from June 2024 until
January 3, 2025, as a "tow truck driver."
JACK'S LEGACY SERVICES, LLC, is a Florida for profit
Corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
12610 Race Track Road Suite 225
Tampa, FL 33626
Phone: (813) 639-9366
Fax: (813) 639-9376
Email: Mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com
KINECTA FEDERAL: Settlement Deal Gets Initial OK
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rogelio Esqueda v. Knecta
Federal Credit Union, Case No. 2:24-cv-03697-WLH-BFM (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Wesley Hsu entered an order re motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement:
The Court conditionally certifies the settlement class for
settlement purposes only, appoints the Plaintiff as class
representative, appoints MALDEF as class counsel, and preliminary
approves the proposed settlement agreement.
The Court orders one condition regarding the proposed notice plan
and approves the plan with the condition, appoints RG2 Claims
Administration LLC as the settlement administrator and sets a
hearing for final approval of the settlement on May 30, 2025, at
8:30 a.m.
The Court orders the following schedule:
-- RG2 Claims Administration LLC shall provide mail and email
notice to class members within 30 days of this order;
-- Settlement class members must opt out or object to the
settlement within 75 days of this order. Any objections must
state whether it applies only to the objector, to a specific
subset of the class or to the entire class, and also state
with specificity the grounds for the objection pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P.23(e)(5)(A);
-- The class representative and class counsel must file a motion
for final approval and motion for award of fees, costs and
service award within 90 days of this order. The Motion for
final approval must include a proposed cy pres recipient.
The proposed settlement defines the settlement class as:
"the 31 individuals who, according to Kinecta's records,
applied for a Financial Product from May 3, 2022, through May
2, 2024, were legally residing in the United States at the
time they applied and were denied such Financial Product
solely due to their alienage or immigration status."
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has a policy of denying
applicants for financial products based on their alienage and/or
immigration status.
Kinecta operates as a financial cooperative.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FrdEXb at no extra
charge.[CC]
LANZ CABINET: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rodriguez Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
ADAN RENDON RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LANZ CABINET SHOP, INC.; EDER
VALENCIA; and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
25CV109370 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., Feb. 3, 2025) is an action
against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours,
minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.
Plaintiff Rodriguez was employed by the Defendants as a carpenter.
Lanz Cabinet Shop, Inc. offers kitchen cabinets, doors, furniture
construction, wood frames, and other related products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
Henry G. Glitz, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
1460 Westwood Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 438-5555
Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
henry@tomorrowlaw.com
LEO PHARMA: Agrees to Settle Picato Drug Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo Finance reports a class action settlement has been reached in
Stewart v. LEO Pharma Inc. et al, S.C.B.C. No. S2010053 (the
"Claim").
The British Columbia Supreme Court has certified the class action
for the purpose of implementing the proposed settlement. The
settlement is a compromise of disputed claims and does not
constitute an admission of liability, wrongdoing, or fault by any
Defendant. The proposed settlement is subject to Court approval.
The Class consists of all persons in Canada who purchased and/or
used Picato in Canada between January 1, 2013, and the present.
The settlement provides for payment of $437,678.24 CAD by the
Defendants in exchange for a release of all matters related to the
Claim. After deducting Class Counsel Fees, disbursements,
Administration Expenses, and Honorarium, the remaining funds will
be donated as follows: 50% to the Canadian Skin Cancer Foundation's
GoSafe Sun safety program and 50% to the Law Foundation of British
Columbia.
Full settlement details and court documents are available at:
www.rhelaw.com/class-action/picato-class-action-canada.
The representative plaintiff has entered into a contingency fee
agreement with Class Counsel providing for a maximum fee of 30%
(plus taxes and disbursements). The court will determine the final
amount to be paid for legal fees and disbursements.
Important Deadlines:
Opt-Out Deadline: March 28, 2025
Objection Deadline: If you wish to object to the settlement, you
must notify Class Counsel by March 28, 2025.
Settlement Approval Hearing: April 15, 2025, at 800 Smithe Street,
Vancouver, B.C., before the Honourable Mr. Justice Brongers.
If you are a Class Member, you are automatically included in the
Class and will be bound by the settlement if approved by the Court,
unless you opt out.
For members of the Class that wish to object or opt out of the
settlement, you must notify Class Counsel no later than March 28,
2025, in the manner set out in the notice.
Class Counsel are Rice Harbut Elliott LLP. More information on the
settlement (including the opt-out form, Notice and Settlement
Agreement) is available at
https://rhelaw.com/class-action/picato-class-action-canada/.
This notice has been authorized by the British Columbia Supreme
Court. [GN]
LINKED HAIR: Watson Sues Over Worker Misclassification
------------------------------------------------------
DANA WATSON, and all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v.
LINKED HAIR SALON, LLC, and DEONNA FLETCHER aka DEE MICHELLE,
Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00133 (W.D. Pa., January 29, 2025)
accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and asserts claims for breach
of contract, fraudulent information return, and tortious
interference with contractual relations,.
On or around July 27, 2024, Plaintiff Watson began working at
Linked as a salon assistant. She was misclassified as an
independent contractor and Defendant Linked did not withhold taxes
from her pay. Linked required Plaintiff to work additional hours by
staying late at the salon to assist in a service or to complete
administrative tasks from her home. However, at no time did Linked
ever pay Plaintiff any overtime compensation for hours worked over
40 hours per workweek, says the suit.
Based in Millvale, PA, Linked Hair Salon, LLC provides luxury hair
installations to its clients. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tamra Van Hausen, Esq.
Christine T. Elzer, Esq.
ELZER LAW FIRM, LLC
960 Penn Avenue, Suite 1001
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 230-8436
E-mail: tvanhausen@elzerlaw.com
celzer@elzerlaw.com
LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Agrees to Settle EFTA Class Suit for $1.025MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that LoanDepot agreed to pay $1.025
million to resolve claims it violated the federal Electronic Funds
Transfer Act by taking money from customers' bank accounts without
written authorization.
The loanDepot.com settlement benefits individuals whose bank
accounts were debited on a recurring basis by loanDepot between
Sept. 21, 2021, and Oct. 6, 2023, but did not receive a copy of the
authorization to make a preauthorized electronic fund transfer.
Plaintiffs in the loanDepot class action lawsuit claim the company
violated the EFTA by taking money from their bank accounts without
providing a copy of the authorization to make a preauthorized
electronic fund transfer.
LoanDepot is a mortgage lender that offers home loans, refinancing
and home equity loans.
The company hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to the $1.025
million class action settlement to resolve these allegations.
Under the terms of the loanDepot.com settlement, class members can
receive a pro rata cash payment.
Class members who received more frequent debits will receive a
larger share of the settlement fund. Exact payment amounts will
vary depending on the number of participating class members.
The deadline for exclusion and objection was Jan. 15, 2025.
The final approval hearing for the LoanDepot class action lawsuit
settlement is scheduled for April 21, 2025.
To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid
claim form by March 3, 2025.
Who's Eligible
All persons in the United States whose bank accounts were debited
on a reoccurring basis by loanDepot.com LLC without such person
being provided a copy of the authorization to make a preauthorized
electronic fund transfer between Sept. 21, 2021, and Oct. 6, 2023
Potential Award
Varies
Proof of Purchase
N/A
Claim Form
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
03/03/2025
Case Name
Jweinat, et al. v. loanDepot.com LLC, Case No. CGC-23-605149, in
the California Superior Court for San Francisco County
Final Hearing
04/21/2025
Settlement Website
EFTASettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Jweinat v. loanDepot.com LLC Claims Administrator
PO Box 3868
Baton Rouge, LA 70821
info@EFTASettlement.com
(844) 755-2326
Class Counsel
Todd M Friedman
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC
Defense Counsel
Matthew D Brown
Caroline A Lebel
COOLEY LLP [GN]
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Class Counsel Awarded $863,919.82 in Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as DANA GOLD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LUMBER
LIQUIDATORS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-cv-05373-RS (N.D.
Calif.), Chief Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California granted class
counsel's motion for a final award of attorney's fees.
At final approval of the settlement, Class Counsel was granted 25%
of the $14 million common fund, to be awarded immediately and costs
and expenses in the amount of $877,224.60, and 25% of the $16
million of vouchers as they are redeemed over three years.
In August and September 2024, Defendant Lumber Liquidators, Inc.
filed for bankruptcy protection and then decided to pursue a
complete liquidation after failing to find a purchaser.
As of Oct. 31, 2024, the total value of vouchers redeemed is
$6,412,326.29, representing 40% of the total vouchers issued in
this case. Importantly for this motion, $3,455,679.29 in vouchers
have been redeemed from Oct. 31, 2022, through Oct. 31, 2024. Class
Counsel seeks 25% of the vouchers redeemed in this final two-year
period, amounting to $863,919.82.
Given the previous final approval of this settlement and the
lodestar cross-check, Class Counsel are entitled to their final fee
award after over ten years of litigation. Class Counsel shall
receive $863,919.82.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kakKw8 from PacerMonitor.com.
MARTIN ZAKARIAN: Arnold Suit Transferred to W.D. Kentucky
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Bryan Arnold, The Rawlings Company LLC,
Rawlings Financial Services, LLC, Rawlings & Associates, PLLC,
Petitioner v. Martin Zakarian, Mary Jones, on behalf of themselves
and those similarly situated, Respondent, Case No.
4:24-cv-00229-SRB was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Kentucky on Jan. 31, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-mc-00003-CHB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Motion to Quash Subpoena.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
F. Maximilian Czernin, Esq.
S. Chad Meredith, Esq.
SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP - CINCINNATI
201 E. Fourth Street, Suite 1900
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Phone: (513) 361-1206
Fax: (513) 361-1201
Email: max.czernin@squirepb.com
chad.meredith@squirepb.com
MARYGOLD COMPANIES: Continues to Defend US Oil Fund Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Marygold Companies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2025, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the United States Oil fund
securities class suit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
In June 19, 2020, USCF LLC, USO, John P. Love, and Stuart P.
Crumbaugh, were named as defendants in a putative class action
filed by purported shareholder Robert Lucas (the "Lucas Class
Action"). The Court thereafter consolidated the Lucas Class Action
with two related putative class actions filed on July 31, 2020 and
August 13, 2020, and appointed a lead plaintiff. The consolidated
class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under the caption In re: United States Oil
Fund, LP Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04740.
On November 30, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
(the "Amended Lucas Class Complaint").
The Amended Lucas Class Complaint asserts claims under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 as amended ("Securities Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 under
the Securities Exchange Act.
The Amended Lucas Class Complaint challenges statements in
registration statements that became effective on February 25, 2020
and March 23, 2020 as well as subsequent public statements through
April 2020 concerning certain extraordinary market conditions and
the attendant risks that caused the demand for oil to fall
precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi
Arabia-Russia oil price war.
The Amended Lucas Class Complaint purports to have been brought by
an investor in USO on behalf of a class of similarly-situated
shareholders who purchased USO securities between February 25, 2020
and April 28, 2020 and pursuant to the challenged registration
statements.
The Amended Lucas Class Complaint seeks to certify a class and to
award the class compensatory damages at an amount to be determined
at trial as well as costs and attorney’s fees.
The Amended Lucas Class Complaint named as defendants USCF LLC,
USO, John P. Love, Stuart P. Crumbaugh, Nicholas D. Gerber, Andrew
F Ngim, Robert L. Nguyen, Peter M. Robinson, Gordon L. Ellis, and
Malcolm R. Fobes III, as well as the marketing agent, ALPS
Distributors, Inc., and the Authorized Participants: ABN Amro, BNP
Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup
Global Markets, Inc., Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Deutsche
Bank Securities Inc., Goldman Sachs & Company, J.P. Morgan
Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corporation,
Morgan Stanley & Company Inc., Nomura Securities International
Inc., RBC Capital Markets LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, UBS
Securities LLC, and Virtu Financial BD LLC.
The lead plaintiff has filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of its
claims against BNP Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel
Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse
Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Morgan Stanley &
Company, Inc., Nomura Securities International, Inc., RBC Capital
Markets, LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, and UBS Securities LLC.
USCF LLC, USO, and the individual defendants in In re: United
States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation intend to vigorously
contest such claims and have moved for their dismissal.
Marygold Companies Inc. designs, markets, and supports unified
messaging products. The Company's products integrate voice
technology and software as a solution to the remote access needs of
Internet electronic mail (e-mail), fax, and voice mail users.
Marygold's software enables Internet e-mail users to have e-mail
read to them over any telephone as instructed by voice command.
[BN]
MCMURRY UNIVERSITY: Lee Sues Over Unprotected Private Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JADA LEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MCMURRY UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00014-H (N.D. Tex., January 27, 2025) arises from failure
to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable
information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular
business practices, including, but not limited to, full names and
Social Security numbers.
The Defendant's investigation concluded that the PII compromised in
the data breach included Plaintiff's and approximately 17,000 other
individuals' information. Despite the prevalence of public
announcements of data breach and data security compromises, the
Defendant failed to take appropriate steps to protect the PII of
Plaintiff and Class Members from being compromised. Accordingly,
the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and
asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied
contract, and unjust enrichment.
McMurry University is a private Methodist university in Abilene,
TX. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (858) 209-6941
E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set March 10
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of
Micron Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: MU).
Shareholders who purchased shares of MU during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead
plaintiff appointment. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.
CONTACT US HERE:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/micron-technology-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=126277&from=4
CLASS PERIOD: September 28, 2023 to December 18, 2024
ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) demand for Micron's products in
consumer markets, especially the Company's NAND products, had
significantly deteriorated; (ii) accordingly, defendants had
overstated the extent to which demand for Micron's products had
recovered, particularly in consumer markets and for its NAND
products, and/or had overstated the sustainability of demand for
such products, as well as the normalization of inventory for such
products; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
DEADLINE: March 10, 2025 Shareholders should not delay in
registering for this class action. Register your information here:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/micron-technology-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=126277&from=4
NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who
purchased shares of MU during the timeframe listed above, you will
be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you with
status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The deadline
to seek to be a lead plaintiff is March 10, 2025. There is no cost
or obligation to you to participate in this case.
WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is a nationally recognized
class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of
all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and
illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to
ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices
and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery
on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or
misleading statements or the omission of material information by a
company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (646) 453-8903 [GN]
MICROSOFT CORP: Bowling Sues Over Online Commission
---------------------------------------------------
DANA BOWLING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-00209 (W.D. Wash., Jan. 31, 2025) is an action by the
Plaintiff and a class of similarly situated Content Creators whose
commissions were misappropriated by Microsoft Edge Shopping,
seeking to enjoin the Defendant's unlawful conduct and recover for
the injuries and damages Content Creators
According to the complaint, Microsoft's online browser extension,
Microsoft Edge Shopping, purports to apply discount codes for
online shoppers, but by design, deprives Content Creators and other
marketers of commissions in connection with online product sales by
swapping online tracking information and substituting Microsoft's
own affiliate links during online checkout.
Online shoppers use Microsoft Edge Shopping because it offers a
rewards program, price comparison, and automatic discount codes.
However, to the detriment of Content Creators, when consumers
utilize Microsoft Edge Shopping at the point of purchase, at the
last minute Microsoft replaces a Content Creator's last click
attribution with its own, depriving Plaintiff and Class members of
the monetary compensation to which they are entitled, says the
suit.
Microsoft Corporation operates as a software company. The Company
offers applications, extra cloud storage, and advanced security
solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
Joan Pradhan, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 682-5600
Email: jdennett@tousley.com
jpradhan@tousley.com
- and -
Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER
& SPRENGEL LLP
135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3210
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 782-4880
Email: blcobes@caffertyclobes.com
dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
MODIVCARE INC: Faces Kalera Suit Over Securities Law Breaches
-------------------------------------------------------------
DINESH KALERA, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MODIVCARE, INC., L. HEATH SAMPSON, KENNETH
SHEPARD, and BARBARA K. GUTIERREZ, Defendants, Case No.
1:25-cv-00306 (D. Colo., January 29, 2025), asserts claims arising
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and
Exchange Commission's Rule 10b-5.
The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired ModivCare securities
between November 3, 2022, and September 15, 2024, inclusive.
Throughout the class period, ModivCare misled the market to believe
certain contracts used in its non-emergency medical transportation
segment mitigated risks to its free cash flow. In reality, the
ModivCare's free cash flow deteriorated throughout the class
period, says the suit.
ModivCare provides a suite of integrated supportive care solutions
for public and private payors and their members. ModivCare's common
stock trades on the NASDAQ under the symbol "MODV." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew A. Peller, Esq.
Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
Nicholas S. Bruno, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
E-mail: mpeller@scott-scott.com
tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
nbruno@scott-scott.com
MONOLITHIC POWER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set April 7
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: MPWR) common stock between
February 8, 2024 and November 8, 2024, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), have until April 7, 2025 to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff of the Monolithic Power Systems class action lawsuit.
Captioned Waterford Township General Employees Retirement System v.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., No. 25-cv-00220 (W.D. Wash.), the
Monolithic Power Systems class action lawsuit charges Monolithic
Power Systems and certain of Monolithic Power Systems' top
executive officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Monolithic Power Systems class action lawsuit,
please provide your information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-monolithic-power-systems-inc-class-action-lawsuit-mpwr.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: Monolithic Power Systems is a provider of power
management components used in electronic systems. Nvidia
Corporation -- the world's leading supplier of GPUs -- is
Monolithic Power Systems' largest customer.
The Monolithic Power Systems class action lawsuit alleges that
defendants throughout the class period made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Monolithic Power
Systems' voltage regulator modules and power management integrated
circuits were suffering from significant performance and quality
control issues; (ii) these defects had, in turn, negatively
impacted the performance of certain products offered by Nvidia in
which such products were used; (iii) Monolithic Power Systems had
failed to adequately address and resolve known issues affecting the
performance of the power management solutions Monolithic Power
Systems supplied to Nvidia; (iv) Monolithic Power Systems'
relationship with Nvidia had been irreparably damaged due to the
significant performance and quality control problems affecting the
products it supplied to Nvidia and Monolithic Power Systems'
failure to adequately address such issues; and (v) as a result of
the above, Monolithic Power Systems was acutely exposed to material
undisclosed risks of significant business, financial, and
reputational harm.
On October 30, 2024, Monolithic Power Systems announced financial
results for its fiscal quarter ending September 30, 2024, revealing
a sudden and surprising slowdown in Monolithic Power Systems'
critical Enterprise Data segment. Specifically, Monolithic Power
Systems reported that quarterly revenue within Monolithic Power
Systems' Enterprise Data business declined sequentially to $184
million, down from $187 million in the prior quarter, missing
consensus estimates of $211 million by nearly 13%. On this news,
the price of Monolithic Power Systems common stock fell more than
17%.
Then, on November 11, 2024, Edgewater Research analysts published a
report revealing that Nvidia had cancelled half of its outstanding
Monolithic Power Systems orders and intended to eliminate
Monolithic Power Systems' allocation to most variants of its
next-generation Blackwell chips due to "[p]erformance issues" with
Monolithic Power Systems' products. The report further disclosed
that Nvidia engineers had "lost confidence" in Monolithic Power
Systems' products and decided to turn to Monolithic Power Systems'
competitors as Nvidia's "primary suppliers." On this news, the
price of Monolithic Power Systems common stock fell nearly 15%.
The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud. You can view a copy of the complaint by
clicking here.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Monolithic
Power Systems common stock during the Class Period to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff in the Monolithic Power Systems 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 Monolithic Power Systems class action lawsuit. The
lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the
Monolithic Power Systems class action lawsuit. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Monolithic
Power Systems class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as
lead plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of
the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities
fraud cases. Our Firm has been #1 in the ISS Securities Class
Action Services rankings for six out of the last ten years for
securing the most monetary relief for investors. We recovered $6.6
billion for investors in securities-related class action cases --
over $2.2 billion more than any other law firm in the last four
years. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the
largest plaintiffs' firms in the world and the Firm's attorneys
have obtained many of the largest securities class action
recoveries in history, including the largest securities class
action recovery ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec.
Litig. Please visit the following page for more information:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contact:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
J.C. Sanchez, Jennifer N. Caringal
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
(800) 449-4900
info@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
MY CREDIT GUY: Harris FCRA Suit Transferred to D. Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Curtis Harris, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. My Credit Guy LLC, Case No.
0:24-cv-01453 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona on Jan. 31, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00328-SMB to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Carl E. Christensen, Esq.
Christopher Wilcox, Esq.
Ryan Supple, Esq.
CHRISTENSEN SAMPSEL PLLC
305 Fifth Ave. N, Ste. 375
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 473-1200
Fax: (612) 823-4777
- and -
Thomas J Lyons, Jr., Esq.
CONSUMER JUSTICE CTR PA
367 Commerce Ct
Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
Phone: (651) 770-9707
Fax: (651) 770-5830
Email: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Ellen E Anderson, Esq.
QUARLES & BRADY LLP - MILWAUKEE, WI
411 E Wisconsin Ave., Ste. 2400
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Phone: (414) 277-5241
- and -
Julia Wischmeier, Esq.
Zachary Scott Foster
QUARLES & BRADY LLP - TAMPA, FL
101 E Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 3400
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 384-6726
Fax: (813) 387-1800
Email: zachary.foster@quarles.com
NEWMONT CORP: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
The Denver Law Office of Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of Newmont
Corporation (NYSE: NEM), a company headquartered in Denver,
Colorado. The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of
investors who acquired their securities between February 22, 2024
and October 23, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). If
you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 1, 2025.
If you incurred significant losses and want to act as the lead
plaintiff in the class action lawsuit or determine if you are
eligible to receive a potential recovery of your losses, follow the
link provided:
https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/newmont-corporation
For more information, contact James Baker, (619) 814-4471,
jimb@johnsonfistel.com or fjohnson@johnsonfistel.com
The Newmont class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout
the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) defendants created the false
impression that they possessed reliable information pertaining to
Newmont’s projected revenue outlook and ability to deliver
growing gold and mineral production at its Tier 1 portfolio
operations through mining and cost profile improvements; and (ii)
defendants provided the public with materially flawed statements of
confidence and growth projections which did not account for these
variables.
Following this news, Newmont’s stock price fell from a closing
market price of $57.74 per share on October 23, 2024 to $49.25 per
share on October 24, 2024.
Investor Action Steps: Shareholders who incurred losses during the
class period, have until April 1, 2025, to move the court to become
a lead plaintiff in this action. A lead plaintiff will act on
behalf of all other class members in directing the class-action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the class-action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share
any potential future recovery of the class action lawsuit is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
About Johnson Fistel, LLP | Top Law Firm, Securities Fraud,
Investors Rights:
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York, Georgia, and
Colorado. The firm represents individual and institutional
investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action
lawsuits. We also extend our services to foreign investors who have
purchased on US exchanges. Stay updated with news on stock drops
and learn how Johnson Fistel, LLP can help you recover your losses.
For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonfistel.com.
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Johnson Fistel, LLP has paid for the dissemination of this
promotional communication, and Frank J. Johnson is the attorney
responsible for its content.
Contacts
Johnson Fistel, LLP
501 W. Broadway, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101
James Baker, Investor Relations or Frank J. Johnson, Esq.,
(619) 814-4471
jimb@johnsonfistel.com or fjohnson@johnsonfistel.com [GN]
NORWEX USA: Bartel Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
Caylynne Bartel, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. NORWEX USA, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00243-D (N.D. Tex.,
Jan. 30, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to
protect highly sensitive data.
As such, Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal
identifiable information ("PII") about its current and former
employees and job applicants. But Defendant lost control over that
data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected
computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach").
It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access
to Defendant's network before the breach was discovered. In other
words, Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop,
or mitigate breaches of its systems—thereby allowing
cybercriminals unrestricted access to its current and former
employees' and job applicants' PII.
Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because
Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity
and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols
to protect the Class's PII. In short, Defendant's failures placed
the Class's PII in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy
targets for cybercriminals, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim, having received a breach
notice.
The Defendant is a retailer of cleaning and personal care
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE, PLLC
12720 Hillcrest Suite 1045
Dallas, TX 75230
Phone: (972) 387-4040
Email: bruce@stecklerlaw.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, Illinois 60611
Phone: (872) 263-1100
Fax: (872) 263-1109
Email: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
OHIO POWER: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Battle Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Ohio Power Tool, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00901 (N.D. Ill., January 27, 2025) arises from Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant's website contains access barriers that have denied
Plaintiff full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the goods,
benefits and services of the website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff
now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct asserts claims
for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and for
declaratory relief.
Based in Columbus, OH, Ohio Power Tool, Inc. owns and maintains the
website, https://ohiopowertool.com, which provides consumers with
access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to
view and purchase power tools, hand tools, work gear, hardware
supplies and accessories. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (718) 705-8706
Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
PALM SPRINGS: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property
---------------------------------------------------
Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated mobility-impaired individuals v. PALM SPRINGS MILE
ASSOCIATES, LTD.; 1170 SUPERMARKET, LLC d/b/a SEDANO'S SUPERMARKET;
and HIALEAH LATIN CAFE, INC. d/b/a LATIN CAFE 2000, Case No.
1:25-cv-20460-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 30, 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 Defendants' commercial retail plaza (hereinafter the
"Commercial Property") being inaccessible to people who are
disabled.
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. Congress provided
commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act.
The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant
lead time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since
1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who
are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of
Defendants' property and the businesses therein.
The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses
named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with
ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at
the Commercial Property, and businesses named herein located within
the Commercial Property, and wishes to continue his patronage and
use of each 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 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, as prohibited by the
ADA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae
down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate.
PALM SPRINGS MILE ASSOCIATES, LTD., was and is a Florida Limited
Partnership registered to conduct business in the State of Florida,
with its principal place of business listed in Great Neck, New
York.[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
PNC INVESTMENTS: Dehner Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
------------------------------------------------------------
MARLENE DEHNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PNC INVESTMENTS, LLC; and PNC FINANCIAL
SERVICES GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00127 (W.D. Pa.,
January 29, 2025), arises from Defendants' exploitative and unfair
implementation of their PNC Priority Bank Deposit Sweep Program.
The Defendants' conduct resulted in the breach of Defendants'
fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiff and similarly situated
retirement account investors as their investment advisors and their
contractual obligation pay a fair and reasonable rate of interest
for retirement accounts. Defendant PNC Financial sweeps uninvested
cash balances in its customers’ accounts and deposits that cash
into accounts located at its wholly owned affiliate bank, PNC Bank
N.A. As a result, the Plaintiff and other Class members have lost
significant amounts of interest they would have otherwise earned
had PNC Financial swept their uninvested cash into bank accounts
that pay a reasonable market interest rate.
Headquartered in Pittsburgh, PA, PNC Investments LLC operates as an
investment adviser and broker-dealer. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth J. Grunfeld
KOPLEOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
65 Overhill Road
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com
- and -
Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq.
Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave Suit 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
adam@edelsberglaw.com
POLESTAR AUTOMOTIVE: Britton Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Britton, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. POLESTAR AUTOMOTIVE HOLDING UK PLC, THOMAS INGENLATH,
JOHAN MALMQVIST, and PER ANSGAR, Case No. 2:25-cv-00840 (D.N.J.,
Jan. 30, 2025), is brought seeks to recover compensable damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), on
behalf of others who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded securities between November 14, 2022 and January 16, 2025,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
On November 14, 2022, before the market opened, the Company filed
with the SEC a current report on Form 6-K signed by defendants
Ingenlath and Malmqvist. Attached to this 6-K were the Company's
unaudited financial statements for the three months ended September
30, 2022 (the "3Q22 Unaudited Financial Results"). The financial
statements were materially false and misleading at the time they
were made because the Company underreported accrued liabilities and
assets.
On April 14, 2023, the Company filed with the SEC its Annual Report
on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2022 (the "2022 Annual
Report"). The statements were materially false and misleading
because they underreported the Company's internal control issues,
considering that the 2022 Annual Report did not disclose material
issues with accounting for the Company's unique tooling, which
resulted in an underreporting of assets and accrued liabilities.
On August 29, 2024, Polestar filed with the SEC a current report on
Form 6-K that was signed by Defendant Ansgar. This 6-K contained
Polestar's Q2 2024 financial results. The financial information
included in the Form 6-K was materially false and misleading
because of, among other things, under reported accrued
liabilities.
The statements were materially false and/or misleading because they
misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts
pertaining to the Company's business, operations and prospects,
which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: Polestar's financial statements
during the Class Period were materially misstated; Polestar
understated its internal control weaknesses; and as a result,
Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Polestar securities during the Class Period
and was economically damaged thereby.
Polestar purports to be "the Swedish electric performance car brand
with a focus on uncompromised design and innovation, and the
ambition to accelerate the change towards a sustainable
future."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
One Gateway Center, Suite 2600
Newark, NJ 07102
Phone: (973) 313-1887
Fax: (973) 833-0399
Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Prevent Data Brach, August Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
DOBIE JAMES AUGUST, individually and on behalf of his minor
children, K.J-A. and K.D-A., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-at-00172 (E.D. Cal., Jan. 31, 2025)
is an action alleging the Defendants' failure to secure and
safeguard the confidential, personally identifiable information of
millions of students, parents, caregivers, school faculty and
staff.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, due to inadequate
security, on December 28, 2024, the Defendant allowed the sensitive
PII/PHI of millions of individuals, the majority of which belong to
students under the age of 18, to be stolen by hackers who accessed
the PII/PHI through compromised login credentials and negligent
security policies and practices
. Indeed, Defendant did not have sufficient security policies or
practices in place to detect or stop this Data Breach from
occurring.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiffs anticipate that they
and Class Members will spend considerable time and money on an
ongoing basis to try to mitigate and address harm caused by the
Data Breach.
PowerSchool Group LLC provides K-12 education technology solutions.
The Company offers platform that assists schools and districts to
manage instruction, learning, grading, attendance, assessment,
analytics, state reporting, special education, student
registration, talent, finance, and HR. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Casey, Jr., Esq.
Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
P. Camille Guerra, Esq.
Jennifer L. Connor, Esq.
CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA
BLATT & PENFIELD LLP
110 Laurel Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 238-1811
Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
Email: dcasey@cglaw.com
gmb@cglaw.com
camille@cglaw.com
jconnor@cglaw.com
PREMIER NUTRITION: Montera Class Counsel Awarded $928,455 in Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as MARY BETH MONTERA, Plaintiff, v. PREMIER
NUTRITION CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-06980-RS (N.D.
Calif.), Chief Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California granted class counsel
attorney's fees on appeal in the amount of $928,455 and nontaxed
expenses in the amount of $3,053.39
Plaintiff Mary Beth Montera seeks an award of attorney's fees and
expenses incurred while litigating the appeal in this class
action.
Defendant Premier Nutrition Corporation unsuccessfully appealed the
final judgment in favor of Montera. The Ninth Circuit affirmed
seventeen of the nineteen aspects of the judgment contested on
appeal but vacated the award of prejudgment interest and remanded
Premier's due process challenge to the award of statutory damages.
Premier petitioned for and was denied en banc rehearing of the
denial of its motion to certify questions to New York's highest
court. After the disposition of Premier's petition for en banc
hearing, Plaintiff Mary Beth Montera timely moved for attorney's
fees and costs incurred litigating the appeal.
Pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1.6 and New York General Business
Law (GBL) Secs. 349 and 350, Montera seeks attorney's fees of
$928,455, which represents a 1.5 multiplier on counsels' lodestar
of $618,970 and reimbursement of expenses at $3,053.39.
Premier contends Plaintiff's lodestar amount should be reduced by
25 percent.
Class Counsel argues the lodestar does not adequately account for
the exceptional results obtained, the skill required, and the
contingent nature of the fees. Defendant opposes, arguing a
multiplier is not the standard practice in awarding attorney's fees
under Secs. 349 and 350. Additionally, it contends the relevant
factors are already considered in the unadorned lodestar.
Therefore, as Premier tells it, applying a multiplier would "double
count" factors and make Class Counsel's proposed fee unreasonable.
Plaintiff persuasively argues a multiplier would not "double count"
these factors, but rather reward the results obtained on appeal,
class counsel's skill, and the risk the firm undertook in
continuing this years-long litigation.
Overall, the complexity of the appeal, near perfect results for
Plaintiff, and the continued risk of this long-running matter weigh
in favor of applying the multiplier, the Court concludes.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8iF7I1 from PacerMonitor.com.
QVC INC: Rubalcaba Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against QVC, Inc. The case is
styled as Susana A. Rubalcaba, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated v. QVC, Inc., Case No.
1:25-cv-00129-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal., Jan. 31, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
QVC -- https://www.qvc.com/ -- is an American free-to-air
television network and a flagship shopping channel specializing in
televised home shopping, owned by Qurate Retail Group.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (754) 444-7539
Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com
R-CALF USA: Seeks Preliminary Approval of $83.5BB Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rachael Oatman, writing for MEAT+POULTRY, reports that R-CALF,
National Farmers Union and four fed cattle producers are seeking
preliminary approval of a proposed $83.5 million class action
settlement with JBS.
In April 2019, the producer groups filed an antitrust suit against
JBS, Tyson, Cargill and National Beef with the Federal District
Court for the District of Minnesota. The settlement agreement
announced on Jan. 31 was the first one reached in the case.
"We're pleased to have reached this settlement with JBS, and we
look forward to prosecuting our claims against the remaining
defendants, Tyson, Cargill and National Beef," said Bill Bullard,
chief executive officer of R-CALF.
The proposed agreement includes a $83.5 million cash payment as
well as the provision of certain documents and assistance in
prosecution of the remaining three defendants.
The settlement is not an admission of liability as JBS continues to
deny any wrongdoing.
"JBS has entered into an agreement to settle with the largest
outstanding class (the "Cattle Class") in the In re Cattle and Beef
antitrust litigation," a spokesperson from JBS told MEAT+POULTRY.
"By entering this agreement, JBS admits no wrongdoing for the
claims alleged," the company added. "This decision is in the best
interest of the company, and JBS will continue to vigorously defend
its interests against the remaining plaintiffs."
The class covered by the settlement includes US producers who sold
fed cattle for slaughter to JBS, Tyson, Cargill and/or National
Beef from June 1, 2015, to Feb. 29, 2020, as well as those who held
a long position in live cattle futures traded on the CME prior to
June 1, 2015, and subsequently liquidated the long position through
offsetting market transactions at any point before Nov. 1, 2016.
[GN]
REGIONAL OBSTETRICAL: Alexander Files Suit in E.D. Tennessee
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Regional Obstetrical
Consultants, P.C. The case is styled as Javelin Alexander, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Regional
Obstetrical Consultants, P.C., Case No. 1:25-cv-00033 (E.D. Tenn.,
Jan. 31, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Regional Obstetrical Consultants -- https://www.rocob.com/ -- is
the largest, privately-owned Maternal Fetal Medicine (MFM) and
Neonatology practice in the Southeast.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Phone: (865) 247-0080
Fax: (865) 522-0049
Email: ahoneycutt@milberg.com
RETAILMENOT INC: Oganesyan and Ely Sue Over Stolen Commissions
--------------------------------------------------------------
EDGAR OGANESYAN and MATTHEW ELY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RETAILMENOT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00783 (S.D.N.Y., January 27, 2025)
arises from Defendant's deceptive, unfair and unlawful practice of
stealing affiliate marketing commissions from Creators via the
RetailMeNot browser extension.
The Defendant advertises RetailMeNot as an extension that promotes
savings and convenience to consumers by searching the internet for
coupons. However, what Defendant does not tell consumers is that
alongside scraping the internet for coupons, RetailMeNot also acts
to steal commissions from Creators by replacing the Creators'
information with Defendant's in cookies that are used to track and
attribute commissions just as consumers are about to complete their
purchases, says the suit.
RetailMeNot, Inc. owns and maintains several coupon websites. It
develops a browser extension that automatically finds, verifies and
stacks all eligible codes and cash back offers. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Julian Hammond, Esq.
Polina Brandler, Esq.
Ari Cherniak, Esq.
HAMMONDLAW, P.C.
1201 Pacific Ave, Suite 610
Tacoma, WA 98402
Telephone: (310) 601-6766
Facsimile: (310) 295-2385
E-mail: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com
pbrandler@hammondlawpc.com
acherniak@hammondlawpc.com
RICOH USA: Class Cert Bid Filing in Mike Suit Extended to April 7
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKE THE PRINTER, INC., a
California corporation, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. RICOH USA, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation,
Case No. 2:24-cv-08192-JFW-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John
Walter entered an order granting the Plaintiff 's ex parte
application for an order extending the Court-set deadline for
Plaintiff to file its motion for class certification to a date no
earlier than April 7, 2025.
-- The deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for class
certification is extended from Feb. 6, 2025, to April 7, 2025.
Ricoh produces and distributes printing equipment.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ag86ie at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian J. Panish, Esq.
Jesse Creed, Esq.
Bernadette Bolan, Esq.
PANISH | SHEA | RAVIPUDI LLP
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 477-1700
Facsimile: (310) 477-169
E-mail: panish@panish.law
jcreed@panish.law
bbolan@panish.law
RICOH USA: MPI Seeks to Extend Court-Set Class Cert Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKE THE PRINTER, INC., a
California corporation, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. RICOH USA, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation;
and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-08192-JFW-JC (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting
parte application and ex parte application to extend court-set
deadline for plaintiff to file motion for class certification:
Thie Application is made on the following grounds:
(1) Plaintiff's counsel has had personal issues recently that
have impacted their abilities to work on this case,
including serious illnesses and loss of counsel Creed’s
home in the fires, as well as a trial given preference
under California law that has unexpectedly conflicted with
deadlines in this case;
(2) Ricoh's counsel told Plaintiff's counsel that Ricoh wants
its motion to dismiss ("MTD") to be fully heard and ruled
on, on the merits, before moving to class cert issues, to
which Plaintiff agreed to request;
(3) the outcome of your MTD will likely impact class issues
because the claims may change, and Plaintiff may be given
leave to amend, at which point Ricoh might again challenge
the pleadings; and
(4) Ricoh has improperly dodged reasonable discovery that is
needed to move forward with our motion.
The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit against Ricoh based on Ricoh's
intentional scheme to overcharge its customers in violation of its
form contract agreements.
The Plaintiff served Rioch with the Complaint on Oct. 9, 2024.
Ricoh first filed MTD on Nov. 20, 2024.
On January 13, 2025, the parties jointly stipulated to continue the
MTD hearing date and associated briefing deadlines.
Ricoh produces and distributes printing equipment.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 29, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SdMWLz at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian J. Panish, Esq.
Jesse Creed, Esq.
Bernadette Bolan, Esq.
PANISH | SHEA | RAVIPUDI LLP
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 477-1700
Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
E-mail: panish@panish.law
jcreed@panish.law
bbolan@panish.law
The Defendants are represented by:
Derrick M. Fong-Stempel, Esq.
Meriel Kim, Esq.
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq.`
Jennifer A. Riley, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
865 South Figueroa St., #3100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 689-7442
Facsimile: (213) 403-6511
E-mail: dfongstempel@duanemorris.com
mkim@duanemorris.com
gmaatman@duanemorris.com
jariley@duanemorris.com
ROYALTON ON THE GREENS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Orgera Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM ORGERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROYALTON ON THE GREENS, LLC; M ROYALTON
PARTNERS, LLC; ROYALTON MANAGEMENT INC.; MICHAEL EINHORN; MIKHAIL
TAKHALOV; and GEORGE DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00590
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Plaintiff Orgera was employed by the Defendants as a manager.
Royalton on the Greens, LLC is a country club wedding venue in
Melville, NY.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary Naidich, Esq.
NAIDICH LAW
137 5th Ave., 9th Fl.
New York, NY 10010
Telephone: (646) 661-5694
Email: ZNaidich@naidichlaw.com
SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Injunction in O'Bryan, et al. Case Dissolved
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nancy G. Edmunds of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan granted the defendants' motion to
dissolve the permanent injunction in the case captioned as JAMES
O'BRYAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SAGINAW COUNTY, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 75-10075 (E.D. Mich.).
In 1978, the court issued a permanent injunction in this class
action, requiring the officials operating the Saginaw County Jail
to cease violating prisoners' constitutional rights and to follow
certain practices and procedures.
On June 4, 2021, Reuben Ranke filed a pro se "motion to show
cause," asking the Court to order Defendants David Kerns, Saginaw
County Jail Administrator, and William Federspiel, Saginaw County
Sheriff, to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for
violating the 1978 injunction. Ranke alleged that the injunction
was violated while he was incarcerated at the Saginaw County Jail
in 2020 and 2021. He requested damages for the alleged violations.
The Court established a new case number, docketed the motion within
that case, and treated it as a civil contempt action. It eventually
denied Ranke's motion for summary judgment and granted Defendants'
motion for summary judgment and to dissolve the 1978 injunction.
Ranke appealed.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the Court's denial of Ranke's contempt
motion. But because the Court did not give the class notice and an
opportunity to respond before dissolving the injunction, the Sixth
Circuit vacated the portion of the order dissolving the injunction
without prejudice to the defendants' ability to refile their motion
in the original docket. The Sixth Circuit acknowledged that the
Court may have found notice unnecessary but indicated that it
should have explained its decision not to notify the class.
Defendants once again move to dissolve the 1978 permanent
injunction by pointing to significant changes in the facts, laws,
and circumstances that have occurred during the almost fifty years
that have passed since the injunction was issued. They argue that
notice to the class is unnecessary. Ranke opposes dissolution of
the injunction and urges the Court to provide members of the class
with notice and a similar opportunity to respond.
In requesting dissolution of the injunction, Defendants not only
invoke the Court's discretion to modify an injunction, but they
also argue that dissolution is required under the Prison Litigation
Reform Act. The injunction was issued in this case prior to
enactment of the PLRA and without the requisite findings. The
record does not support making those findings now.
The Court finds even if there are any current and ongoing
violations, the injunction is overbroad and must be terminated
under Sec. 3626(b).
The Court also finds the injunction unnecessary to ensure that
Saginaw County provides prisoners with their constitutional rights
due to significant changes in both fact and law. In fact, requiring
prison officials to abide by outdated requirements may impede their
ability to adapt to new technologies and circumstances and may
result in unintended inequities. Thus, the Court dissolves the
permanent injunction issued in this case.
The class was certified in this case under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(2), which allows for certification of a class when
"the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on
grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive
relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate
respecting the class as a whole."
In this case, the Court does not need any additional information to
find dissolution of the injunction appropriate. The requirements in
the injunction are so antiquated, even if there are any current and
ongoing constitutional violations, the relief is overbroad under
the PLRA. In sum, the Court does not find notice to any past or
current class members necessary prior to dissolution of the
injunction.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vj8sVo from PacerMonitor.com.
SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Court Sets Scheduling Conference in Dorado
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lucy Dorado, v. San
Bernardino County et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-02684-HDV-SP (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hernan Vera entered an order setting
scheduling conference:
-- Class certification motion
For a putative class action, the Court will set a deadline for
hearing the class certification motion. The motion must be
filed sufficiently far in advance of the deadline to allow
for:
(i) at least three (3) weeks between the filing of the
reply and the hearing;
(ii) four (4) weeks for the opposition; and
(iii) two (2) weeks for the reply.
San Bernardino is a county located in the southern portion of the
U.S. state of California and is located within the Inland Empire
area.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tsMsqU at no extra
charge.[CC]
SANYO FOODS: Shin Amended Bid for Class Certification Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sue Shin v. Sanyo Foods
Corp. of America et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-10485-SVW-MRW (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stephen Wilson entered an order denying the
Plaintiff's motion amended motion for class certification.
Sanyo was founded in 1988. The Company's line of business includes
manufacturing prepared foods and miscellaneous food specialties.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h6cRjr at no extra
charge.[CC]
SIG SAUER INC: Court Extends Discovery in Glasscock
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Glasscock v. Sig Sauer,
Inc., Case No. 6:22-cv-03095 (W.D. Mo., Filed April 18, 2022), the
Hon. Judge M. Douglas Harpool entered an order re motion to
amend/correct case schedule:
-- While the Court strains to find what new legal theories are
presented that arose outside the Complaint, the Court will
extend discovery by 45 days from this Order.
-- The Defendant may take a deposition of the Plaintiff but may
only touch upon topics not covered in the original deposition.
-- The Defendant may also have one additional set of
interrogatories.
-- The Defendant will have 52 days from this Order to respond to
Plaintiff's motion for class certification and to submit
expert designations.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Fraud.[CC]
SMITH'S FOOD: Stolarski Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bobbi Stolarski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SMITH'S FOOD & DRUG CENTERS, INC., d/b/a FRY'S FOOD AND
DRUG, Case No. 2:25-cv-00241-DGC (D. Ariz., Jan. 27, 2025), is
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed by Fry's Food to her
and other e-commerce supervisors.
Fry's Food employs workers to help fill the e-commerce orders
received from customers through its website or app. Once such
position is an "e-commerce supervisor," who is classified as exempt
and paid a salary with no additional compensation or overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.
However, Fry's Food misclassifies the e-commerce position as exempt
from the overtime pay requirements of the FLSA. E-commerce
supervisors like Plaintiff are not involved in hiring or firing
employees of Fry's Food, and as such, cannot be exempt under the
FLSA. As a result of this misclassification, Plaintiff and other
e-commerce supervisors in each Fry's Food stores have not been paid
overtime compensation for the overtime hours worked by them, in
violation of the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff, who has worked for Fry's Food for approximately five
years in total, has worked as an e-commerce supervisor since
February 2023.
Smith's Food & Drug Centers, Inc. d/b/a Fry's Food and Drug is a
grocery chain which operates approximately 129 grocery stores in
the state of Arizona.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven Jones, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN ARIZONA LLC
2355 East Camelback Road, Suite 335
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Phone: (602) 627-2322
Fax: (602) 627-2213
Email: steven.jones@forthepeople.com
- and -
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., Suite 1600
Orlando, FL 32801
Phone: 407-418-2069
Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com
- and -
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Marilyn Linares, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
622 Banyan Trail, Suite 200
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Phone: (561) 447-8888
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
mlinares@shavitzlaw.com
SNAC SYS. INC: Esparza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SNAC Sys., Inc. The
case is styled as Miguel Esparza, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SNAC Sys., Inc. d/b/a WWW.SNAC.COM,
Case No. 25CU004622C (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., Jan. 27,
2025).
SNAC -- https://snac.com/ -- offers products that improve level of
fitness, help lose fat, build muscle, & enhance performance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC
4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 706-6464
Fax: (949) 706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
SNOWFLAKE INC: Court Stays All Deadlines Involving Neiman Marcus
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the consolidated case IN RE: SNOWFLAKE, INC., DATA SECURITY
BREACH LITIGATION, Cause No. 2:24-MD-03126-BMM (D. Mont.), Chief
Judge Brian Morris of the United States District Court for the
District of Montana stayed all deadlines involving Neiman Marcus
Group LLC pending approval of class action settlement.
On June 13, 2024, a class action was filed in the District of
Montana against Snowflake alleging that Snowflake failed to take
reasonable measures to secure systems that contained consumer data,
thereby allowing threat actors to access and exfiltrate the
customers' data. On Oct. 4, 2024, an order was issued by the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation combining the
class actions filed in the United States into a multidistrict
litigation in the District of Montana.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IaEBXs from PacerMonitor.com.
SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES: Parties Seek Extension to File Response
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALFREDO CERTEZA,
individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities
similarly situated, v. SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES HOME IMPROVEMENTS, LLC,
Case No. 2:24-cv-03020-DCN (D.S.C.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order extending Plaintiff's deadline to respond to
Defendant's motions for summary judgment, to deny class
certification, and for a protective order each filed on Dec. 19,
2024.
The parties request that the Plaintiff's deadline for each motion
be extended to Feb. 17, 2025.
In May 2024, the Plaintiff sued defendant in a class action
alleging it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
In June 2024, the Defendant answered the Plaintiff's complaint.
In July 2024, the Court set a scheduling order that it later
amended in September 2024.
Pursuant to local rule 7.02, the parties have conferred prior to
and join in the filing of this motion.
Southern Industries provides home improvement services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 29, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vnQSTa at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David A. Maxfield, Esq.
CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW
Columbia, SC 29211 Telephone: (803) 509-6800
Facsimile: (855) 299-1656
E-mail: dave@consumerlawsc.com
- and -
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (508) 221-1510
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
- and -
Alex Phillips
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
One Magnificent Mile
980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago IL, 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
E-mail: aphillips@straussborrelli.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Diane J. Zelmer, Esq.
BERENSON LLP
4495 Military Trial, Suite 203
Jupiter, FL 33458
Telephone: (561) 429-4496
Facsimile: (703) 991-2195
E-mail: djz@berensonllp.com
hcc@berensonllp.com
- and -
G. Wade Leach, III, Esq.
BURR & FORMAN LLP
1221 Main Street, Suite 1800
Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: (803) 799-9800
E-mail: wleach@burr.com
STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Bernard Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Ariel Bernard, Thom M. Gray, Jalonne Rice,
Dean J. Schemanski, Roger Tadjbakhsh, Donald Ng, Rosa Valery,
Nadeem Waqar, Ibrahim Elsalamoni, Mark S. Delmedico, Ekovi
Amenounve, Barbara Selig, Manuel Acevedo, Ipuole Ogar, Jodie
Holmes, Ahmed Adam, John M. Fink, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Strategic Delivery Solutions, LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-07396 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on Jan. 31, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00899-ER to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Zachary Levy Rubin, Esq.
S. Chad Meredith, Esq.
SEPPINNI LAW
40 Broad Street, Fl. 7
NEW YORK, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 859-5085
- and -
Rysten Leigh Connon, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN
729 Boylston St. #2000
Boston, MA 02116
Phone: (617) 994-5800
SUNBELT STAFFING: Richardson Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Rebecca Richardson, as an individual, on
behalf of herself, and all persons similarly situated v. SUNBELT
STAFFING, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24CV025550 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of
Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California on Jan. 29, 2025, and assigned Case No.
2:25-at-00158.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following five causes of
action on behalf of herself and a class of individuals she seeks to
represent: Failure to Provide a Written Disclosure in Compliance
with the ICRAA; Improperly Including a Liability Waiver in a sic
FCRA Disclosure; Failure to Pay for Pre-Employment Consumer Report;
Failure to Pay for Pre-Employment Medical or Physical Examination;
and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Mia Farber, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 689-0404
Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
Email: Mia.Farber@jacksonlewis.com
- and -
Sean M. Bothamley, Esq.
Veena Bhatia, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
160 W. Santa Clara, Suite 400
San Jose, CA 95113
Phone: (408) 579-0404
Facsimile: (408) 454-0290
Email: Sean.Bothamley@jacksonlewis.com
Veena.Bhatia@jacksonlewis.com
SUNPATH LTD: Court Resets Class Cert Briefing Sched in Morales
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Morales, et al., v.
Sunpath Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01376 (D. Del., Filed Oct.
9, 2020), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L Hall entered an order Resetting
briefing schedule regarding motion for class certification:
-- Answering Brief due: Feb. 7. 2025
-- Reply Brief due: March 21, 2025
The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).
SunPath is a motor vehicle manufacturing company.[CC]
SUNSHINE GASOLINE: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property
--------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated mobility-impaired individuals v. SUNSHINE GASOLINE
DISTRIBUTORS, INC. and NADER STATION CORP D/B/A MARATHON NADER,
Case No. 1:25-cv-20464-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 31, 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 Defendants' commercial retail plaza (hereinafter the
"Commercial Property") being inaccessible to people who are
disabled.
Although over 33 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. Congress provided
commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act.
The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant
lead time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since
1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who
are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of
Defendants' property and the businesses therein.
The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses
named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with
ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at
the Commercial Property, and businesses named herein located within
the Commercial Property, and wishes to continue his patronage and
use of each 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 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, as prohibited by the
ADA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae
down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate.
SUNSHINE GASOLINE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., owned and operated a
commercial property.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104
Miami, FL 33144
Phone: (786) 361-9909
Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com
T & T Landscape: Morales et al. Sue Over Wage and Hour Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hermelindo Morales, Antony Vivas, Freddy Jose Castillo, Jesus Abel
Castillo, Moises Escobedo, and Yohander Perez, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Tim
Terlecki in his individual capacity and T and T Landscape
Construction, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00883 (N.D. Ill.,
January 27, 2025) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act for failure to pay at least the minimum wage for all
hours worked, and for failure to pay overtime premium for hours
worked beyond 40 hours per week.
During the course of their employment, the Plaintiffs worked for
Defendants in their business performing landscaping work for the
2024 season. They routinely worked more than 40 hours in a work
week and were not paid an overtime premium for those hours worked
over 40 per week. They also have not been compensated for all hours
worked in that they performed pre-shift and post-shift work off the
clock for varying times between 15 and 30 minutes on a near daily
basis, the suit says.
T and T Landscape Construction, Inc. is a landscaping and snow
plowing and salting company in Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jorge Sanchez, Esq.
LOPEZ & SANCHEZ LLP
77 W. Washington St., Suite 1313
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 420-6784
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FWK Holdings LLC et al v.
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd. et al. (RE AMITIZA ANTITRUST
LITIGATION), Case No. 1:21-cv-11057-MJJ (D. Mass.), the Defendants
ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for leave to
file under seal portions of Defendants' memorandum in opposition to
End Payor Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as well as
materials submitted therewith.
The Class Certification Opposition refers to materials that the
producing parties have designated as "Confidential" pursuant to the
Stipulated Protective Order as conditions for voluntary disclosure
by and between the parties, and discuss and/or quote such
materials.
Takeda proposes that the Order sealing the materials be lifted only
upon further order of the Court, and that the sealed documents be
kept in the Clerk's nonpublic information file during any
post-impoundment period. Takeda reserves its right to submit the
materials described above at a future date unsealed on the Court's
public docket.
In accordance with Local Rule 7.1, counsel for Takeda conferred
with counsel for EPPs regarding the relief requested herein.
Counsel indicated that they assent to this Motion.
Takeda is an R&D-driven global biopharmaceutical company.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 29, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zPe3RD at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Fred A. Kelly, Jr., Esq.
Joshua S. Barlow, Esq.
Andre Geverola, Esq.
Laura Shores, Esq.
Wallace Wu, Esq.
Assad Rajani, Esq.
Katie J.L. Scott, Esq.
Ada Añon, Esq.
Michael Sapiro, Esq.
Matthew Wilk, Esq.
Sam Sullivan, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
200 Clarendon Street
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 351-8052
E-mail: fkelly@haugpartners.com
jbarlow@haugpartners.com
andre.geverola@arnoldporter.com
laura.shores@arnoldporter.com
wallace.wu@arnoldporter.com
assad.rajani@arnoldporter.com
katie.scott@arnoldporter.com
ada.anon@arnoldporter.com
michael.saipro@arnoldporter.com
matthew.wilk@arnoldporter.com
sam.sullivan@arnoldporter.com
- and -
Michael F. Brockmeyer, Esq.
Ralph E. Labaton, Esq.
David Shotlander, Esq.
Aakruti Vakharia, Esq.
HAUG PARTNERS LLP
1667 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 292-1530
Facsimile: (202) 292-1531
E-mail: mbrockmeyer@haugpartners.com
rlabaton@haugpartners.com
dshotlander@haugpartners.com
avakharia@haugpartners.com
TARGET CORP: Faces Investor Class Action Lawsuit Over Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sheryl Sheth, writing for TipRanks, reports that American big box
retailer Target Corp. TGT +0.89% is facing a proposed class action
lawsuit for defrauding investors about the risks associated with
its DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) and ESG initiatives. The
lawsuit was filed on January 31 in the Fort Myers, Florida, federal
court by the City of Riviera Beach Police Pension Fund. Target
recently scaled back its DEI initiatives following severe consumer
and activist backlash.
-- Leverage the power of TipRanks' Smart Score, a data-driven
tool to help you uncover top performing stocks and make informed
investment decisions.
-- Monitor your stock picks and compare them to top Wall Street
Analysts' recommendations with Your Smart Portfolio
The plaintiffs stated that the misrepresentation of the risks led
to the ballooning of Target's stock price between August 26, 2022
and November 19, 2024 (Class Period). Also, this led to investors
paying higher prices for purchasing Target's shares during the
Class Period, which ultimately collapsed in the months ahead.
Target shares ended the day down 2.7% yesterday.
Here's Why Investors Are Suing Target
Shareholders allege that Target defrauded them by unknowingly
leading them to support management's "misuse of investor funds to
serve political and social goals." The lawsuit accuses CEO Brian
Cornell and Target's other executives of failing to properly
disclose the risks of consumer boycotts related to the company's
DEI policies.
For instance, Target did not disclose the exact impact of the
backlash faced during the May 2023 Pride Month campaign. At that
time, Target was forced to stop selling some of the LGBTQ themed
merchandise from their stores owing to severe backlash. This also
led to employees fearing for their safety.
Furthermore, on November 20, 2024, Target reported poor Q3 FY24
results, with weaker-than-expected profit and holiday sales
guidance for the December quarter. This resulted in a 22% drop in
TGT stock price and a $15.7 billion reduction in its market cap in
a single day.
This disappointing performance was completely opposite to rival
Walmart's WMT -0.44% bustling results. Investors blamed the
continued backlash from Target's LGBTQ campaign for the poor
performance.
Things became worse when Target said on January 24 that it was
ending its DEI initiatives as well as a program supporting
Black-owned businesses it began in 2020. Target has joined a
growing list of American companies that are rolling back their DEI
policies under pressure from activist and conservative groups. This
was also one of the main agendas of President Trump's campaign last
year, and being in his good books will surely be beneficial for all
companies.
Is Target a Good Investment?
Analysts remain divided on Target stock owing to similar reasons
stated in the lawsuit. On TipRanks, TGT stock has a Moderate Buy
consensus rating based on 15 Buys versus 15 Hold ratings. The
average Target Corp. price target of $146.61 implies 9.3% upside
potential from current levels. Meanwhile, in the past three years,
TGT shares have lost nearly 32%, causing massive damage to
shareholder returns. [GN]
TARGET CORP: Progression Team Members Win Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRYSTAL SADLER, on behalf
of herself, and all others similarly situated, v. TARGET
CORPORATION, Case No. 1:23-cv-00030-CPO-SAK (D.N.J.), the Hon.
Judge Christine O'Hearn entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, the Defendant's opposition, and the
Plaintiffs' reply as follows:
1. This action is certified pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure ("Rule") 23(a) and 23(b)(3) for the following
class:
"All Progression Team Members who have been employed as
hourly, non-exempt workers at any of Target's New Jersey
distribution centers at any time from Aug. 6, 2019 through
the date of final judgment in this matter."
2. The law firm of McOmber McOmber & Luber, P.C. is appointed
as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g)(1).
3. Plaintiff Krystal Sadler is appointed as the Class
Representative.
4. The "Notice of Class Action Lawsuit" form attached to
Plaintiff's Motion as Exhibit N is approved because, based
on the Court's review, it "clearly and concisely state[s] in
plain, easily understood language: (i) the nature of the
action; (ii) the definition of the class certified; (iii)
the class claims, issues, or defenses; (iv) that a class
member may enter an appearance through an attorney if the
member so desires; (v) that the court will exclude from the
class any member who requests exclusion; (vi) the time and
manner for requesting exclusion; and (vii) the binding
effect of a class judgment on members under Rule 23(c)(3)."
5. Per Class Counsel's request, Settlement Services, Inc.
("SSI") will administer the distribution of the Notice Form
to the Class Members, and Class Counsel will compensate SSI
for all incurred fees and expenses.
Target Corp. is an American retail corporation that operates a
chain of discount department stores and hypermarket.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WqwvC7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
TELUS INTERNATIONAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set March 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased TELUS
International (Cda) Inc. ("Telus International" or the "Company")
(NYSE: TIXT) securities between February 16, 2023 and August 1,
2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Telus International investors
have until March 31, 2025 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
IF YOU SUFFERED A LOSS ON YOUR TELUS INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS,
CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT A CLAIM TO POTENTIALLY RECOVER YOUR LOSSES IN
THE ONGOING SECURITIES FRAUD LAWSUIT.
You can also contact the Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss
your legal rights by email at info@frankcruzlaw.com, by telephone
at (310) 914-5007, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com.
What Happened?
On May 9, 2024, Telus International released its first quarter 2024
financial results, revealing a $29 million decline in revenue year
over year. On the same day, the Company held an earnings call
during which Chief Financial Officer, Gopi Chande was asked by an
analyst to clarify "what margin should look like on a go-forward
basis" as margins "were down year-over-year and . . . were below
the full year guidance." In response, Gopi Chande revealed that the
margins generated by the Company's AI offerings "can be a bit below
average."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.41 or 18.15%, to
close at $6.36 on May 9, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume.
Then, on August 2, 2024, before the market opened, Telus
International released second quarter 2024 financial results,
revealing a significant slowdown in revenue generation: a $5
million quarter-over-quarter or $15 million year-over-year revenue
decrease; a $23 million or 15% quarter-over-quarter adjusted EBITDA
decrease; and 14.6% quarter-over-quarter reduction in adjusted
EBITDA margin, from 23.3% to 19.9%. As a result, Telus
International announced it had significantly reduced its full year
2024 fiscal guidance. The Company also disclosed that Jeff Puritt,
then-President and Chief Executive Officer, would retire effective
September 3, 2024. In an earnings call held the same day, Puritt
disclosed that the transition of the Company "towards a more
technology centric and specifically AI fueled business,"
"necessitates some cannibalization of our tenured and higher margin
CX work." Puritt concluded that, ultimately, the Company is "going
to have to take it on the chin a little bit in terms of our
historical margin profile" and rely upon "eating our own roommate
cooking internally," referring to the self-cannibalization of the
business, "in order to create the headwind we need to enjoy the
margin yield that we've historically benefited from."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.33 or 35.96%, to
close at $4.15 on August 2, 2024, on unusually heavy trading
volume. The stock continued to decline on the next trading day
available, falling $0.83, or 20%, to close at $3.32 on August 5,
2024, on unusually heavy trading volume.
What Is The Lawsuit About?
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) the Company's AI Data Solutions offerings required
the cannibalization of its higher-margin offerings; (2) that Telus
International's declining profitability was tied to the Company's
drive to develop AI capabilities; (3) that Telus International's
shift toward AI put greater pressure on the Company's margins than
previously disclosed; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Telus International
securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later
than March 31, 2025, to request appointment as lead plaintiff in
this putative class action lawsuit.
Contact Us To Participate or Learn More:
If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact us at:
Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz
212 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800
Telephone: (310) 914-5007
Email: info@frankcruzlaw.com
Visit our website at: www.frankcruzlaw.com
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz
Telephone: (310) 914-5007
Email: info@frankcruzlaw.com
Visit our website at: www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]
TESLA INC: Dismissal of Class Action Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------
Tesla Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 29, 2025, that on October 5, 2022, a proposed
class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York alleging various claims about the
company's driver assistance technology systems under state and
federal law.
On September 30, 2023, the court dismissed this action with leave
to amend the complaint.
On November 20, 2023, the plaintiff moved to amend the complaint,
which Tesla opposed.
On August 8, 2024, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for
leave to file an amended complaint and entered judgment for Tesla.
On September 5, 2024, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the
parties are briefing the matter.
Tesla is an electric car manufacturer based in Palo Alto,
California.
THANG BOTANICALS: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Nov. 3
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as A. et al., v. Thang
Botanicals, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-07029-TLT (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Trina Thompson entered a case management and
scheduling order as follows:
Trial date: Feb. 8, 2027
Final pretrial conference: Jan. 7, 2027
Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Aug. 10, 2026
Class Certification Motion Hearing: Feb. 10, 2026
Class Certification Reply Due: Jan. 6, 2026
Class Certification Opposition Due: Dec. 15, 2025
Class Certification Motion Due: Nov. 3, 2025
The Court further entered an order that the parties and counsel
refer to and comply with Judge Thompson's Civil Standing Order and
Civil Pretrial and Jury Trial Standing Order or Civil Pretrial and
Bench Trial Standing Order located on the court's website
(https://cand.uscourts.gov/trina-l-thompson/).
Thang develops biotechnology solutions for diagnostics,
therapeutics, and personalized medicine.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XueFwc at no extra
charge.[CC]
TOTAL SECURITY: Nygard Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Stephanie Nygard, on behalf of herself and
all other similarly situated v. TOTAL SECURITY LIMITED, SYSTEM 1,
INC., ET AL., Case No. 23STCV29131 was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on Jan. 30, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00846.
The Complaint asserts claims against Defendants for alleged
violations of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"),
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California's
False Advertising Law ("FAL"), and for unjust enrichment.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Patrick C. Justman, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
12670 High Bluff Drive
San Diego, CA 92130
Phone: 858.523.5400
Fax: 858.523.5450
Email: patrick.justman@lw.com
- and -
Gregory W. Swartz, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213.485.1234
Fax: 213.891.8763
Email: gregory.swartz@lw.com
TOYOTA MATERIAL: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Emissions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andy East, writing for The Republic, reports that Toyota Material
Handling and other Toyota-affiliated companies have said they plan
to ask a federal judge to dismiss a proposed class action lawsuit
over allegations of emissions cheating in several forklift
engines.
The lawsuit, made public in September, was initially filed in U.S.
District Court in San Francisco by forklift buyers in California,
New Jersey and New York. The list of plaintiffs has since grown to
include 22 businesses in 17 states, according to court filings.
Toyota Motor Corp., Toyota Industries Corp. (TICO) and Toyota
Material Handling North America and Toyota Material Handling Inc.
are named as defendants.
TICO is an affiliate of Toyota Motor Corp. and the parent company
of Columbus-based Toyota Material Handling North America.
On Friday, January 31, 2025, the Toyota defendants argued in a
court filing that the lawsuit should be dismissed because, among
other reasons, the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the claims and
failed to state a claim. The companies also have denied the
allegations in the lawsuit.
An amended complaint filed in December alleges that TICO and the
other Toyota-affiliated defendants "manipulated and falsified"
engine tests and emissions test data for forklifts sold in the
United States and misled customers to believe the forklifts met
U.S. emissions standards.
The lawsuit cites a January 2024 report from Toyota in which the
Japanese automotive giant details findings from an internal probe
by a "special investigation committee" into irregularities in
emissions data for forklift engines.
Reuters reported that the report found that the company's employees
sometimes were falsifying emissions results, manipulating software
and switching out engines during emissions testing, which allowed
forklifts to perform better than they otherwise would.
Currently, it is unclear the extent to which local employees were
involved with the misconduct detailed in the report, if at all, as
the report largely focuses on events that transpired in Japan.
However, the lawsuit alleges that "the investigations leading to
Toyota's admissions of misconduct in Japan originated in the United
States," and claims that TICO received an inquiry from U.S.
environmental regulators in 2020 with questions over testing data
submitted for its engines and forklifts.
In April 2021, TICO announced that it was suspending shipments of
forklift shipments made in the United States by Toyota Material
Handling due to "delays in obtaining U.S. engine emissions
certification," the complaint alleges.
A few months later, Toyota Material Handling announced that it was
"voluntarily suspending production and sales" of certain diesel
forklift models as company officials worked to "confirm the
compliance of these products with EPA standards," according to the
amended complaint.
"The misconduct first surfaced in the United States, not Japan,
based on U.S. regulators' investigations into misconduct that
affected vehicles sold in the U.S. market," the lawsuit alleges. "
. . . The U.S. investigation is still underway several years later,
and soon after it began, Toyota was forced to issue two different
forklift stop sales in (the) U.S."
The Toyota defendants, for their part, have denied the allegations
in the lawsuit, emphasizing that the special investigation
committee "was convened to audit TICO's internal processes and
issue a report relating to compliance with Japanese emissions
standards," not U.S. emissions rules.
"Although the (special investigation committee) report relates to
compliance with testing of engines for compliance with Japanese
emissions standards, plaintiffs content that Japanese and U.S.
emissions standards are similar and, therefore, the alleged
misconduct highlighted in the (special investigation committee)
report is equally applicable to engines certified to be sold in the
U.S. and demonstrates a failure to comply with U.S. emissions
standards. . . . The (amended complaint), however, contains no
facts demonstrating that any (U.S.) regulatory agency has taken
final action against defendants," the Toyota defendants state in
their motion to dismiss.
It is currently unclear if any of the forklift engines named in the
lawsuit were ever made in Columbus. Some of the model years of the
engines date back more than a decade.
In a statement to The Republic in September, Toyota Material
Handling North America said it was aware of the lawsuit but did not
say if any of the engines were ever made locally.
"Toyota Material Handling's mission is to build the industry's best
products for the benefit of our customers," said company spokesman
Justin Albers. "We are aware of the filing and will respond to the
allegations in the proper legal forum. Importantly, the January
2024 announcement by our parent company, TICO, and the special
investigation committee report referenced in the lawsuit have no
impact on TMH's current manufacturing and distribution of its new
products in the U.S."
As of Monday, February 3, 2025, the lawsuit against Toyota Material
Handling North America was pending in federal court. [GN]
TRANS UNION: Bids for Class Certification in Christian Due May 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICKY CHRISTIAN, et al.,
v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02253-MSG (E.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Mitchell Goldberg entered an order amending the
Scheduling Order such that:
1. Plaintiffs' expert reply reports are due no later than
Feb. 4, 2025.
2. Defendant's expert rebuttal reports (in response to newly
disclosed Plaintiffs' experts), if any are due no later than
March 14, 2025.
3. All expert discovery shall be completed by May 9, 2025.
4. Motions for Class Certification and related Daubert motions
are due no later than May 30, 2025.
5. Responses to Motions for Class Certification and related
Daubert motions are due no later than July 11, 2025.
6. Reply Briefs on Class Certification and related Daubert
motions are due no later than Aug. 15, 2025.
7. Dispositive Motions to are to be filed within 30 days of the
ruling on class certification.
8. All other deadlines will be set following the resolution of
dispositive motions.
Trans Union operates as a global information and insights company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d2uKLn at no extra
charge.[CC]
TRIUMPH GROUP: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Warburg Pincus
-------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has
recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as
a Top 50 Firm by ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We
are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and
are investigating Triumph Group, Inc. (NYSE: TGI), relating to the
proposed merger with Warburg Pincus and Berkshire Partners. Under
the terms of the agreement, shareholders of Triumph will receive
$26.00 per share in cash.
Click here for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/triumph-group-inc-tgi/. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and
we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a
national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to
obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our
website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
TYCON MEDICAL SYSTEMS: Baysmore Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tycon Medical
Systems, Inc. The case is styled as William Baysmore, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tycon Medical
Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00052-AWA-RJK (E.D. Va., Jan. 28,
2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Other Contract.
Tycon Medical -- https://tyconmedical.com/ -- is a locally and
family-owned business in Norfolk & Richmond, Virginia, offers
custom manual & power wheelchairs, CPAP, and mobility
equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth R. Carroll, Esq.
COMMONWEALTH LAW GROUP
3311 West Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23230
Phone: (804) 999-9999
Email: scarroll@hurtinva.com
UBER FREIGHT LLC: Worrell Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Uber Freight LLC, et al. The
case is styled as David Worrell doing business as: Daviexpress
Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Uber Freight LLC, J.B. Hunt Transport Inc., RXO Capacity
Solutions, LLC, Flexport Freight LLC doing business as: Convoy
Inc., Total Quantity Logistics LLC, C.H. Robinson Worldwide Inc.,
Amazon Logistics, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00361-AT (N.D. Ga., Jan.
27, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Uber Freight -- https://www.uberfreight.com/ -- delivers an
end-to-end enterprise suite of Relational Logistics to advance
supply chains and move the world’s goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Bonfiglio Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Uber Technologies,
Inc. The case is styled as Matt Bonfiglio, as an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc.,
Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CU005387C (Cal. Super.
Ct., San Diego Cty., Jan. 30, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Disability Discrimination."
Uber Technologies, Inc. -- https://www.uber.com/ -- is an American
multinational transportation company that provides ride-hailing
services, courier services, food delivery, and freight
transport.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Simon L. Yang, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
Phone: 213-488-6555
Fax: 213-488-6554
Email: sly@diversitylaw.com
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Johnson Seeks Prelim. OK of Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Elaine Johnson, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. United HealthCare
Services, Inc., Case No. 5:23-cv-00522-GAP-PRL (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting unopposed
motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement:
Ms. Johnson requests that the Court enter the accompanying order --
agreed to by the parties -- certifying the settlement class for
settlement purposes; preliminarily approving the settlement as
fair, reasonable, and adequate; appointing Ms. Johnson as the
settlement class representative, and Aaron Radbil of GDR as class
counsel; approving and directing notice of the settlement to
settlement class members; and setting a final fairness hearing
date.
The parties' settlement resolves this matter on behalf of the
following class:
"All persons and entities throughout the United States (1) to
whom United HealthCare Services, Inc. placed a call regarding
the Optum (TM) HouseCalls program relating to a
UnitedHealthcare plan, (2) directed to a cellular telephone
number customarily used by a person who is not and was not a
UnitedHealthcare member or plan holder, (3) in connection with
which United HealthCare Services, Inc. used an artificial or
prerecorded voice, (4) from Oct. 12, 2019 through [the date of
preliminary approval of the parties' class action
settlement]."
To compensate settlement class members, United will create, within
30 days after this Court preliminarily approves the settlement, a
non-reversionary settlement fund in the amount of $3,495,000.
Elaine Johnson filed this class action against United, asserting
that United violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA")
by using an artificial or prerecorded voice in connection with
non-emergency calls it placed to cellular telephone numbers, absent
prior express consent.
United Healthcare was founded in 1974. The company's line of
business includes providing hospital, medical, and other health
services to subscribers or members.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 30, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ABD9CW at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
James L. Davidson, Esq.
Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL
PLLC
5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 826-5477
E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com
jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com
UNITED SERVICES: Scheduling Order Amended in Tomczak Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tomczak, et al., v. United
Services Automobile Association, et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-01564
(D.S.C., Filed May 26, 2021), the Hon. Judge Mary Geiger Lewis
entered an order amending the scheduling order as follows:
-- The Plaintiffs' request is granted to the extent the due date
for their motion for class certification and expert reports is
extended until at least March 5, 2025.
-- The Court will make a final determination on this matter,
however, once briefing on the motion to amend is complete.
The nature of suit states Insurance Contract.
USAA offers competitive auto rates, no-monthly service fee banking
and retirement options to all branches of the military and their
family.[CC]
UNITED STATES: FBI Agents Sue Over President Trump's Retribution
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Woodward, writing for The Independent, reports that FBI agents
who worked on cases surrounding the January 6 attack and
investigations into Donald Trump are suing the Department of
Justice to block the administration from "unlawful" and
"retaliatory" purges as the president and his allies launch a
campaign of "retribution" against government agencies.
A class action lawsuit brought by nine anonymous agents in
Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, February 4, includes a copy of a
three-page survey that Justice Department leadership is using to
identify agents who worked on cases involving the president and the
prosecution of hundreds of people in connection with the Capitol
assault.
Another group of agents in a separate lawsuit are seeking a court's
protection from the "anticipated retaliatory decision to expose
their personal information" and for the "potential vigilante action
by those who they were investigating."
Agents fear that Justice Department leadership, under Trump's
instruction, will use the list to "identify agents and other FBI
personnel to be terminated as a form of politically motivated
retribution," according to the first complaint.
"Plaintiffs assert that the very act of compiling lists of persons
who worked on matters that upset Donald Trump is retaliatory in
nature, intended to intimidate FBI agents and other personnel and
to discourage them from reporting any future malfeasance and by
Donald Trump and his agents," the lawsuit states.
The lawsuit also notes that Elon Musk and his allies are working to
"access government databases that house personal information,
without regard to security protocols, and without a legitimate
business purpose," and that their personal information has been
published on the "dark web" by convicted rioters.
"Plaintiffs legitimately fear that the information being compiled
will be accessed by persons who are not authorized to have access
to it, and who lack the requisite security clearances to handle
such information," according to the lawsuit. "Plaintiffs further
assert that even if they are not targeted for termination, they may
face other retaliatory acts such as demotion, denial of job
opportunities or denial of promotions in the future."
A redacted copy of the questionnaire was attached in court
documents, showing that agents were asked to identify their
specific roles in the investigations stemming from Trump's attempts
to overturn the 2020 presidential election and his possession of
classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.
The publication of those surveys could place them in "immediate
risk of serious harm," according to the agents, who are asking a
judge to block the dissemination or publication of the surveys.
The agents claim violations of their First Amendment rights and a
breach of federal privacy laws that prohibit the Justice Department
from disseminating the identities of FBI personnel.
A second lawsuit — filed by a separate group of seven FBI agents
represented by the Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents
Association and nonpartisan watchdog group State Democracy
Defenders Fund — seeks a temporary restraining order to block the
release of names of any FBI personnel targeted by Trump's
administration.
"The individuals being targeted have served in law enforcement for
decades, often putting their lives on the line for the citizens of
this country," according to a statement from Norm Eisen, executive
chair of State Democracy Defenders Fund, which filed the complaint
on the agents' behalf. "Their rights and privacy must be
preserved."
Chris Mattei, an attorney for FBI agents seeking an injunction to
block the release of their names, called the Justice Department's
reported plans "an appalling attack on non-partisan public servants
who have dedicated their lives to protecting our communities and
our nation."
"It is clear that the threatened disclosure is a prelude to an
unlawful purge of the FBI solely driven by the Trump
Administration's vengeful and political motivations," Mattei said
in a statement shared with The Independent. "Releasing the names of
these agents would ignite a firestorm of harassment towards them
and their families and it must be stopped immediately."
The Independent has requested comment from the Justice Department
and White House. [GN]
UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Seek to File Complaint as "Jane Does"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOES 1-2, v. OFFICE
OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Case No. 1:25-cv-00234-UNA (D.D.C.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiffs'
renewed ex parte motion for leave to file complaint using "Jane
Does 1-2" in violation of lcvr 5.1(c) in order to protect their
identity and avoid retaliation.
The Plaintiffs rely on the declaration of their undersigned counsel
attached as Ex. A. Similar relief was granted to the plaintiff in
Doe v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 451 F. Supp. 2d 156 (D.D.C. 2006).
In sum, the Plaintiffs' very real concerns about retaliation and
the lack of any meaningful effect the knowledge of their identities
would have on the litigation significantly outweigh any minimal
apparent interest in disclosure.
Office of Personnel Management is an independent agency of the
United States government that manages the United States federal
civil service.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 30, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vBaTgd at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kelly B. McClanahan, Esq.
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS
1451 Rockville Pike, Suite 250
Rockville, MD 20852
Telephone: (501) 301-4672
Facsimile: (240) 681-2189
E-mail: Kel@NationalSecurityLaw.org
UTAH LIFE REAL ESTATE: Butera Files TCPA Suit in D. Utah
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Utah Life Real Estate
Group, LLC. The case is styled as Eric Butera, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Utah Life Real Estate
Group, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00065-JNP (D. Utah, Jan. 29, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Utah Life Real Estate Group, LLC -- https://www.liveutah.com/ --
specialize in helping navigate the home buying and selling process,
regardless of how complex the transaction may be.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Morrison, Esq.
MORRISON LAW OFFICE
1887 N 270 E
Orem, UT 84057
Phone: (801) 845-2581
Email: matt@oremlawoffice.com
VANGUARD GROUP: Kelly Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ARTHUR KELLY JR., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE VANGUARD GROUP,
Defendant, Case No. 2024-10317-CT, was removed from the Court of
Common Pleas, Chester County, to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on January 29, 2025.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00507 to the proceeding.
The case asserts putative causes of action for breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment,
and violations of New York General Business Law, and Pennsylvania's
Unfair Trade Practices And Consumer Protection Law.
The Vanguard Group is a registered investment advisor based in
Malvern, PA. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A.
65 Overhill Road
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com
- and -
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
- and -
Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
490 43rd Street, No. 122
Oakland, CA 94609
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com
VELIC TRANSPORTATION: Hasic Sues Over Unlawful Payment Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Haris Hasic; Hasic, LLC; Richard R. Boone; Aziz Fetinci; and Armada
Trucking Services, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v VELIC TRANSPORTATION INC., a Michigan company;
and ALIS VELIC, Case No. 2:25-cv-10288-RJW-EAS (E.D. Mich., Jan.
30, 2025), is brought against Defendants VTI and Velic pursuant to
which Plaintiffs who are independent truck owner-operators,
challenge unlawful violations by Defendants through Defendants'
Contractor Agreements (the "Leases") and payment practices.
The Defendant violated the Federal commercial transportation laws
and regulations as follows: Defendants' Leases and payment
practices unlawfully require Plaintiffs and Class Members to accept
reduced and delayed compensation based on false or misleading
information regarding the gross revenue paid for the freight
hauled. Defendants' Leases and payment practices unlawfully require
Plaintiffs and Class Members to provide escrow payments for
unsupported and improper purposes. The Defendants' Leases and
payment practices unlawfully fail to provide Plaintiffs and Class
Members with written terms that comply with Federal laws and
regulations in addressing receipts for equipment, insurance costs
and documentation, charge back items and documentation, escrow
payments and refunds, and compensation and shipment revenue
information, among other things. Defendants' Leases and payment
practices unlawfully conceal, misrepresent, and/or omit information
necessary for Plaintiffs and Class Members to protect their rights
and interests.
The Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants' Leases and payment
practices violate the laws of the State of Michigan as to all Class
Members, who each contracted with and engaged in business with
Michigan Defendants, through breaches of contract and fraudulent
concealment, among other things, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are owner-operators are small businesspersons who
own or control truck tractors and/or truck trailers that are used
to transport property over the highways of the United States.
Alis Velic is an individual residing in the State of Michigan who
does business in the County of Macomb, State of Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steve J. Weiss, Esq.
Daniel W. Rucker, Esq.
HERTZ SCHRAM PC
1760 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 300
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
Phone: (248) 335-5000
VENTURA FOODS: Dominick Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH DOMINICK, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VENTURA FOODS, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 TO 50, Defendants, Case No.
8:25-cv-00168 (C.D. Cal., January 29, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs,
and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a machine operator from
October 18, 2022, through April 23, 2024. Allegedly, the Defendant
has implemented a standardized timekeeping system that does not
credit Plaintiff and other hourly-paid machine operators for
certain mandatory tasks that occur on Defendant's premises and fall
within Plaintiff's and similarly situated employees' duties and
responsibilities. As a result, the Plaintiff and hourly-paid
machine operators were deprived of proper overtime pay.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's
unlawful conduct and asserts additional claims for breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the Pennsylvania
Wage Acts.
Headquartered in Brea, CA, Ventura Foods, LLC produces and markets
dressings, sauces, mayos, oils, shortenings, margarines, bases, and
pan coatings. Its supplies its products to customers throughout the
US. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
Meghan N. Higday, Esq.
Emily G. Horrigan, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP P.C.
1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 824-3828
Facsimile: (310) 862-6851
E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com
mh@melmedlaw.com
eh@melmedlaw.com
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Town Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
VHG SANTA MONICA: Wu Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against VHG SANTA MONICA,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as John Wu, an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. VHG SANTA MONICA, LLC,
SAUCEDO LIZETTE, Case No. 25STCV02540 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., Jan. 30, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
VHG SANTA MONICA, LLC -- https://www.viceroyhotelsandresorts.com/
-- is positioned as a full-service lifestyle luxury hotel brand,
Viceroy has an exciting portfolio of the finest hotels and resorts
located throughout the world.[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
- and -
Robert David Wilson, Esq.
WILSON LAW
5173 Waring Rd. Ste. A Pmb 70
San Diego, CA 92120-2705
Phone: 858-833-8611
Email: wilsonesq3@gmail.com
VILLAGRANA LOGISTICS: Maalouf Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against VILLAGRANA LOGISTICS,
INC., et al. The case is styled as Elie Maalouf, an individual and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v VILLAGRANA LOGISTICS,
AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
2025CUOE036978 (Cal. Super. Ct., Ventura Cty., Jan. 7, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Villagrana Logistics, Inc. is a logistics service in Industry,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
1460 Westwood Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: 310-438-5555
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
VIRGINIA MASON: Settles Privacy Class Action Suit for $3.5-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that Virginia Mason
Medical Center and Virginia Mason Health System have agreed to pay
a $3.5 million settlement to resolve a proposed class action
lawsuit that alleged the healthcare providers unlawfully disclosed
patients' personal and medical data to third parties, including
Facebook and Google, via tracking tools embedded into
VirginiaMason.org and the MyVirginiaMason patient portal.
The official website for the Virginia Mason class action settlement
can be found at VirginiaMasonPrivacyClassAction.com.
The deal covers Washington residents who are or were patients of
Virginia Mason or one of its affiliates between October 10, 2015
and May 18, 2023 and logged into the patient portal or used
VirginiaMason.org to view or search for medical-related
information, such as symptoms, conditions or treatment options
related to their own healthcare.
According to the website, the $3,500,000 settlement will resolve
the data-sharing allegations made in the Virginia Mason class
action lawsuit and provide cash payouts to class members who submit
timely, valid claims.
To receive a Virginia Mason settlement cash payout, class members
must file a claim form online or by mail by April 28, 2025.
To submit a claim form online, head to this page. You will need
your unique settlement claim ID, which is located on the
personalized notice you may have received by mail or via email.
Alternatively, you can print the PDF claim form and return it by
mail to the settlement administrator.
As part of the deal, class members who logged into the
MyVirginiaMason patient portal are eligible to receive a $90 cash
payment if they file a timely, valid claim form, the settlement
website says.
Consumers who used VirginiaMason.org are entitled to a $45 cash
payout if they submit a valid claim, the site relays.
Per the website, qualifying class members may file a claim for both
cash payments. Final payout amounts are subject to pro-rated
adjustment depending on the total number of valid claims that are
submitted, the site adds.
Notably, Virginia Mason has agreed to pay up to $3.25 million in
addition to the initial $3.5 million settlement fund should it fail
to cover the amount of claims that are filed, the website shares.
The Seattle-based healthcare system will also create and maintain a
web governance committee to oversee the use of analytics and
advertising technology on its online properties, settlement
materials state. Virginia Mason will also stop using web-tracking
tools such as the Meta pixel, Google Analytics, Google DoubleClick
and others for a two-year period, unless the committee makes the
requisite determination and the defendants properly disclose the
use of the tools online.
The settlement agreement with Virginia Mason received preliminary
court approval on December 24, 2024. It is now up to the court to
decide whether to grant final approval to the terms of the
settlement at a hearing set for May 23, 2025.
According to the agreement, should the deal receive ultimate
approval, settlement payouts will be issued to eligible class
members within 30 days following the date the deal goes into
effect. [GN]
VITAC CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Anderson Says
----------------------------------------------------
KATELYN ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VITAC CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-00329-NRN (D. Colo., Jan. 31, 2025) seeks to recover
from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Anderson was employed by the Defendat as a voice
captioner.
Vitac Corporation provides translation services. The Company offers
captioning, subtitling, audio description, encoding services. Vitac
serves media and entertainment, education, and government sectors,
as well as corporations, networks, cable channels, program
producers in the State of Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sara A. Green, Esq.
HARDIN THOMPSON, P.C.
2301 Blake Street, Suite 100,
Denver, CO 80205
Telephone: (813) 940-811
Email: sgreen@hardinlawpc.net
WEST COAST CLIPS: Rosales Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against West Coast Clips,
Inc. The case is styled as Leticia Rosales, an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. West Coast Clips, Inc.,
Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0001567 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin
Cty., Jan. 31, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
West Coast Video was a chain of video rental stores founded in
1983.[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
WESTERN REFINING RETAIL: Gaston Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as John David Gaston, an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. WESTERN REFINING RETAIL,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; WESTERN REFINING
SOUTHWEST, INC., an Arizona corporation; WESTERN REFINING COMPANY,
LLC; a Delaware limited liability company; WESTERN REFINING
WHOLESALE, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24CI-000334 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Tehama,
to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California on Jan. 31, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-at-00100.
The Plaintiff’s Complaint generally purports to bring his claims
on behalf of himself and several classes based on alleged
violations of the California Labor Code, seeking to recover among
other claims, unpaid wages, including minimum wages; overtime
wages; lawful meal and/or rest periods; accurate wage statements;
timely payment of wages; and failure to indemnify (reimburse).[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Julie R. Trotter, Esq.
Mireya A.R. Llaurado, Esq.
Mia A. Lomedico, Esq.
CALL & JENSEN
A Professional Corporation
610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 717-3000
Email: jtrotter@calljensen.com
mllaurado@calljensen.com
mlomedico@calljensen.com
YALE NEW: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Pastor Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY PASTOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. YALE NEW HAVEN HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant,
Case No. 3:25-cv-00158 (D. Conn., Feb. 3, 2025) seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Pastor was employed by the Defendant as an off-shift
administrative manager.
Yale New Haven Health System provides health care facilities and
services. The Company offers emergency care, cardiology,
orthopedic, neurology, transplantation, and oncology services.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
Christopher M. Timmel, Esq.
Jessica Rado, Esq.
KLAFTER LESSER LLP
Two International Drive, Suite 350
Rye Brook, NY 10573
Telephone: (914) 934-9200
Email: seth@klafterlesser.com
christopher.timmel@klafterlesser.com
jessica.rado@klafterlesser.com
- and -
Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 308
Strongsville, OH 44136
Telephone: (216) 912-2221
Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Defends Personal Injury Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc. is subject to liabilities from claims alleging
personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "Such claims result from indemnification
obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with the sale of Riley
and the acquisition of Hercules in November 2008. Although Riley, a
former subsidiary, was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of
asbestos, its industrial boilers contained some asbestos-containing
components provided by other companies. Hercules, an indirect
wholly-owned subsidiary of Ashland, has liabilities from claims
alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. Such
claims typically arise from alleged exposure to asbestos fibers
from resin encapsulated pipe and tank products sold by one of
Hercules' former subsidiaries to a limited industrial market."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0mTD37
*********
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 ***