250228.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, February 28, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 43
Headlines
3402 BROADWAY: Faces Moreno Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
3M COMPANY: Abbott Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Bennett Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Childers Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Clark Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Cromer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Revised Scheduling Order Entered in Parris Class Suit
3M COMPANY: Zang Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
ADVANCED BIONICS: Gibson Suit Removed to C.D. California
AEG VENTURES: Alatorre Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Exotic Dancers
AMY ROBEY: Huffman Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky
ATKORE INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Suit in N.D. Ill.
BAYHEALTH MEDICAL: Cowden Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI
BENJAMIN MOORE: Reed Suit Removed to E.D. California
BOOKS-A-MILLION: Oh Sues Over Deceptive Advertising
BRYAN COLLIER: Judge Recommends Denial of Class Cert Bid
CAMPBELL SOUP: Powell Appeals Arbitration Bid Ruling to 1st Circuit
CATALENT PHARMA: Kearby Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation
CBD AMERICAN SHAMAN: Ferguson Files Suit in W.D. Missouri
CDE SERVICES: Harris Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
CENTERRA INTEGRATED: Nieves Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Pethick Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
COLES COUNTY, IL: Faces Class Suit Over Jail's Inhumane Conditions
COLUMBUS RADIOLOGY: Oaks Sues Over Illegal Medical Billing Practice
CONNECTONCALL.COM: Picklesimer Files Suit in E.D. New York
CONSTELLATION BRANDS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set April 21
CORTEN INDUSTRIES: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DELTA DENTAL OF CALIFORNIA: Weiler Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DWIVEDI TOWER: Tenants Sue Over Alleged Unlawful Rent Increases
EAGLES NEST: Duhe Sues Over Unlawful Telephonic Calls
ELI LILLY: Baltimore Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
ENVIRI CORP: S&P Alters Outlook to Negative, Affirms 'B+' ICR
FMC CORP: Macomb Sues Over 33.5% Drop of Common Stock Price
FUTURE MOTION: Sierra Sues Over Disregard for Safety
GEN DIGITAL: Jackson Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
GEN DIGITAL: Reisman Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
GENERAL DYNAMICS: Continues to Defend Sherman Act-Related Suit
HAND HOSPITALITY: Son Partially Wins Conditional Cert Bid
HARLEM GROUP: Carcamo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
HCA HEALTHCARE: Fox Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
HEALTHCARE SYSTEM: Court Recommends Partial OK of Class Cert Bid
HYATT CORPORATION: So Files Suit in C.D. California
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Bal Suit
INTELLIA THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Apr. 14
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Griffith Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
JAMIL A. MOSOUD: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property
JPMORGAN CHASE: Ponton Appeals Class Action Dismissal to 9th Cir.
KALEIDA HEALTH: Filing of Response to Class Cert Bid Extended
KERRIGAN GROUP: Collazos Files FLSA Suit in D. New Jersey
KOHL'S INC: Vanderzee Suit Removed to C.D. California
LEAFFILTER NORTH: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
LENDEFIED INC: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls, Samo Alleges
LESLIE REALTY: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property
LIVUNLTD LLC: Fails to Properly Pay Lifeguards, Rivera Suit Claims
LONG BEACH MEMORIAL: Torres Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
LONG ISLAND PLASTIC: Fitzsimons Suit Removed to E.D. New York
MCMURRY UNIVERSITY: Hopper Suit Removed to N.D. Texas
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Collins Files Suit in M.D. Georgia
MICROSOFT CORP: Poaches Content Creators' Commissions, Rhodes Says
NATIONAL TENANT: Rogers Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
NEW YORK, NY: Monasar Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
OMNI LOGISTICS: Magana Suit Removed to C.D. California
PACE UNIVERSITY: Tapinekis Brings Appeal to N.Y. Appellate Div.
PACIFIC MARITIME: Phillips Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PALM SPRINGS: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property
PARADIGM PROPERTIES: Sued Over Unlawful Acceleration of Rent
PASS SKLAR CENTER: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Judge Dismisses Seat Post Recall Class Suit
PERPETUA RESOURCES: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
PFIZER INC: Denelsbeck Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Flick Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Cho Appeals Summary Judgment to 3rd Circuit
QUEBEC: Appeals Court Includes CISSS in Atikamekw Class Action
R&B THE COLONY: Santos Sues Over Unlawful Tip Policies
RIXO RETAIL: Senior Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
SEATED INC: Alvarez Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
SECURITY NATIONAL: Araneo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
SMART FOODS: Ramirez Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit
SPS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Factory Fire
SSS CABLE: Sanchez Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Linemen
TECTA AMERICA: Claytor Sues Over Recent Data Security Incident
TIKTOK INC: Griffith Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 9th Cir.
TOAST INC: Morgan Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
URBAN OUTFITTERS: Alvarez Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
UTAH HIGH: Appeals Prelim. Injunction Order in Szymakowski Suit
[^] Class Action Conference Opening Night Cocktail Reception May 7
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carrier Global Defends Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Estimates $4.3MM Net Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coty Inc. Defends Product Liability Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor Co. Faces Personal Injury Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Still Defends Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l. Accrues $15.8MM Asbestos Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Tech Defends Product Liability Lawsuits
*********
3402 BROADWAY: Faces Moreno Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
ASENCION ROLDAN MORENO, DANIEL MORALES, EBER GARCIA FLORES (AKA
JUNIOR), and JESUS ANGEL GARCIA FLORES, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 3402 BROADWAY
TAVERN INC. (D/B/A THE TRESTLE), JOSEPH BROWN, and JAQUELINE M.
KELLY, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00857 (E.D.N.Y., February 14,
2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide
wage notice, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiffs have been employed as cooks, dishwashers, porters,
and food preparers at the Defendants' restaurant located at 34-02
Broadway, Astoria, New York.
3402 Broadway Tavern Inc. is the owner and operator of a restaurant
called The Trestle located at 34-02 Broadway, Astoria, New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, PC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
3M COMPANY: Abbott Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roland F. Abbott, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK
EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;)
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case No. 2:25-cv-00292-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 16,
2025), is brought for damages for personal injuries resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio-persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his career as a
firefighter and was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis as and/or
other medical related conditions a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave, Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-224-9400
Facsimile: 732-224-9494
3M COMPANY: Bennett Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Bennett, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-00307-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 16,
2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluoro octane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during her working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
thyroid disease and high cholesterol as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Hochman, Esq.
THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC
5411 McPherson Rd Ste. 110
Laredo, TX 78041
Phone: (956) 704-5187
Facsimile: (956) 368-1343
3M COMPANY: Childers Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------
William Childers and Iesha Iwobi, his wife, and other similarly
situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE
NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;) DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case
No. 2:25-cv-00296-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 16, 2025), is brought for
damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio-persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff, William Childers regularly used, and was thereby
directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires
during his working career in the U.S. Navy and was diagnosed with
graves disease and/or other medical related conditions as a result
of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave, Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-224-9400
Facsimile: 732-224-9494
3M COMPANY: Clark Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard F. Clark and Doreen L. Clark, his wife, and other similarly
situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE
NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;) DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case
No. 2:25-cv-00290-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 14, 2025), is brought for
damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio-persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Richard F. Clark regularly used, and was thereby
directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires
during his volunteer firefighting career and was diagnosed with
thyroid cancer and/or other medical related conditions as a result
of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave, Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 732-224-9400
Facsimile: 732-224-9494
3M COMPANY: Cromer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dwayne Cromer, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION;
ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; 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 successorin-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.
(f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE &
ASSOCIATES INC.; and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Case No.
2:25-cv-00299-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 16, 2025), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to
develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged
herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further
seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from
the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed
with Thyroid Disease and High Cholesterol.
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 Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq.
MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP
101 West Elm St., Suite 520
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Phone: (803) 315-3357
Fax: (610) 941-9880
Email: jshenkar@bernllp.com
3M COMPANY: Revised Scheduling Order Entered in Parris Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EARL PARRIS, JR.,
individually, and on behalf of a Class of persons similarly
situated, and CITY OF SUMMERVILLE, GEORGIA, v. 3M COMPANY, et
al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00040-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Thomas
Thrash entered a revised scheduling order:
-- Huntsman shall have through and including 21 days following
the Court's ruling on the Fairness Hearing to be scheduled as
to the parties' settlement within which to serve any response
(if needed).
3M operates in the fields of industry, worker safety, and consumer
goods.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y2Q30T at no extra
charge.[CC]
3M COMPANY: Zang Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
----------------------------------------------------------
Arlene Marie Zang, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-00297-RMG
(D.S.C., Jan. 16, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluoro octane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during her working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
thyroid disease as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Hochman, Esq.
THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC
5411 McPherson Rd Ste. 110
Laredo, TX 78041
Phone: (956) 704-5187
Facsimile: (956) 368-1343
ADVANCED BIONICS: Gibson Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Grant Gibson, Tina Gibson, Brian Gibson,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v.
Advanced Bionics, LLC, Case No. 24STCV33337 was transferred from
the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on Jan. 16, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00423-MCS-SSC to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Advanced Bionics https://www.advancedbionics.com/us/en/home -- is a
global leader providing solutions for severe-to-profound hearing
loss.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Yevgeniy Y. Turin, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW PC
55 West Wacker Drive 9th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 893-7002
Email: eturin@mcgpc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Daniel N Shallman, Esq.
COVINGTON AND BURLING LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-4643
Phone: (424) 332-4800
Fax: (424) 332-4749
Email: dshallman@cov.com
- and –
Andrew J. Soukup, Esq.
Stephen Petkis, Esq.
COVINGTON AND BURLING LLP
One CityCenter
850 Tenth Street NW
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: (202) 662-6000
Fax: (202) 662-6291
Email: asoukup@cov.com
spetkis@cov.com
AEG VENTURES: Alatorre Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Exotic Dancers
---------------------------------------------------------------
INGRID ALATORRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AEG VENTURES, LLC D/B/A THE ATLANTIS
GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01611 (N.D. Ill.,
February 14, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act
including failure to pay wages for all hours worked including
overtime, unlawful wage deductions and withholding of tips, and
collecting kickbacks.
The Defendant employed the Plaintiff to work as an exotic dancer at
The Atlantis Gentlemen's Club from 2018 through late 2019 and again
from 2021 through about January 2024.
AEG Ventures, LLC, doing business as The Atlantis Gentlemen's Club,
is a club owner and operator located at 1897 East Lincoln Highway,
Ford Heights, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
M. Nieves Bolanos, Esq.
HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2300
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 224-2423
Email: mnbolanos@hq-law.com
- and -
Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 587-9373
Email: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com
AMY ROBEY: Huffman Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amy Robey, et al. The
case is styled as James R. Huffman, IV, and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals v. Amy Robey, Kentucky Department of
Corrections, Elaine Smith, Ashley Misti, Vaughn Ashby, Dawn
Patterson, Dr. J. Doe, Denise Burkett, Shawna Markham, Sherrie
Grissinger, Case No. 3:25-cv-00093-CRS (W.D. Pa., Feb. 18, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.
Robey began her career with the Department of Corrections in 2004
as a correctional officer at the Kentucky State Reformatory.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
ATKORE INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Suit in N.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit
(the "Class Action") in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against Atkore Inc. ("Atkore" or the
"Company") (NYSE: ATKR) and certain of its executive officers
(collectively, "Defendants"). The Class Action asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on behalf of all persons
or entities that purchased Atkore common stock between February 1,
2024 and February 3, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were
damaged thereby (the "Class"). The Class Action filed by Saxena
White is captioned Westchester Putnam Counties Heavy & Highway
Laborers Local 60 Benefits Fund v. Atkore Inc., et al., No.
25-cv-1851 (N.D. Ill.).
Based in Harvey, Illinois, Atkore purports to be a leading
manufacturer of electrical, safety, and infrastructure products.
Among other products, the Company manufactures polyvinyl chloride
("PVC") water pipes and electrical conduit pipes (together, "PVC
Pipes"). During the COVID-19 pandemic, shipping costs skyrocketed.
As result, foreign manufacturers found themselves unable to
profitably sell their PVC Pipes in the United States. Atkore and
other U.S.-based PVC Pipe manufacturers took advantage of the
absence of foreign competition, exchanging confidential and
competitively sensitive data in order to artificially inflate PVC
Pipe pricing.
Leading up to the Class Period, shipping prices returned to normal
levels following the pandemic, which led to foreign PVC Pipe
manufactures gradually re-entering the market. Beginning in late
2022, as the sales price of PVC Pipes began declining, Atkore
informed investors that "part of the pricing outperformance that
we've enjoyed over the past several years has started to
normalize."
The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to
disclose that: (1) Atkore engaged in an anticompetitive
price-fixing scheme that artificially inflated the price of PVC
Pipes; (2) in turn, Atkore reaped significant, unsustainable
financial benefits from its anticompetitive conduct; (3) as
Atkore's price-fixing scheme was exposed, the Company and its price
fixing co-conspirators were no longer able to artificially inflate
the price of PVC Pipes, resulting in a substantial decrease in the
price of PVC Pipes; (4) Atkore's business and operations were
negatively impacted; and (5) as a result of the above, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.
The truth emerged before markets opened on February 4, 2025, when
Atkore announced its financial results for the first quarter of
fiscal year 2025, reporting net sales of $661.6 million—below
analysts' estimates of $680.7 million. Additionally, Atkore
significantly reduced its adjusted earnings per share (EPS) and
adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and
amortization (EBITDA) guidance for the rest of fiscal year 2025.
During the corresponding earnings call that same day, CFO Deitzer
disclosed that Atkore's "plastic pipe and conduit product category
declined mid-single digits during the quarter[,]" compared to "high
single digits in the prior year." CFO Deitzer also attributed the
guidance reduction to the forthcoming poor performance of Atkore's
PVC business, stating, "I'd say roughly $75 million or 3/4 of that
is on the PVC side." On this news, the price of Atkore common
stock fell $15.59 per share, or nearly 20%, from a closing price of
$79.72 per share on February 3, 2025, to a closing price of $64.13
per share on February 4, 2025.
If you purchased Atkore common stock during the Class Period and
were damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class" and may be
able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to apply to
be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois no later
than April 23, 2025. The lead plaintiff is a court-appointed
representative for absent members of the Class. You do not need to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any Class recovery
in the Class Action. If you are a Class member and there is a
recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent
Class member.
You may contact Marco A. Dueñas (mduenas@saxenawhite.com), a
Senior Attorney at Saxena White P.A., to discuss your rights
regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the
Class Action. You also may retain counsel of your choice to
represent you in the Class Action. You may obtain a copy of the
Complaint and inquire about actively joining the Class Action at
www.saxenawhite.com.
Saxena White P.A., with offices in Florida, New York, California,
and Delaware, is a leading national law firm focused on prosecuting
securities class actions and other complex litigation on behalf of
injured investors. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous
securities class actions nationwide, Saxena White has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of injured investors.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Marco A. Dueñas, Esq.
mduenas@saxenawhite.com
Saxena White P.A.
10 Bank Street, Suite 882
White Plains, New York 10606
Tel: (914) 437-8551
Fax: (888) 631-3611
www.saxenawhite.com [GN]
BAYHEALTH MEDICAL: Cowden Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Cowden, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. BAYHEALTH MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Case No. K25C-02-017 (Del.
Super. Ct., Feb. 17, 2025), is brought against Bayhealth for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other
similarly situated Bayhealth patients' personally identifiable
information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI"),
including name, date of birth, provider name, Social security
number, medical record number, and medical treatment location, and
health insurance information (the "Private Information"), from
criminal hackers.
On February 3, 2025, Bayhealth filed official notice of a hacking
incident with the Office of the California Attorney General. Under
state and federal law, organizations must report breaches involving
PHI within at least 60 days. On February 3, 2025, Bayhealth also
sent out data breach letters (the "Notice") to individuals whose
information was compromised as a result of the hacking incident.
Based on the Notice sent to Plaintiff and "Class Members" unusual
activity was detected on some of its computer systems. In response,
Defendant launched an investigation. Bayhealth's investigation
revealed that an unauthorized party had access to certain files
that contained sensitive patient information, and that such access
took place between July 27, 2024, and July 31, 2024 (the "Data
Breach"). Yet, Bayhealth waited more than six months to notify the
public that they were at risk.
As a result of this delayed response, Plaintiff and Class Members
had no idea for six months that their Private Information had been
compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant
risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social,
and financial harm. The risk will remain for their respective
lifetimes. Bayhealth failed to properly monitor and implement
security practices with regard to the computer network and systems
that housed the Private Information. Had Bayhealth properly
monitored its networks, it would have discovered the Breach sooner,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff relied on Bayhealth to keep their Private Information
confidential and securely maintained.
Bayhealth is a healthcare system that serves thousands of patients
in Delaware.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
FARNAN LLP
919 North Market Street, 12th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 777-0300
Email: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
- and -
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
Gabrielle Williams, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Phone: (212) 532-1091
Email: tbean@sirillp.com
gwilliams@sirillp.com
BENJAMIN MOORE: Reed Suit Removed to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Ian C. Reed, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. BENJAMIN MOORE & CO.; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24CECG05312 was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of Fresno, to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of California on
Feb. 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-at-00145.
The Complaint alleges the following claims: Failure to Pay Minimum
Wage; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure to Provide Meal
Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks; Failure to
Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; Failure to Timely Pay Final
Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage
Statements; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Andrew J. Mailhot, Esq.
Liam Gaarder-Feingold, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
50 California Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
Phone: (415) 394-9400
Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
Email: Andrew.Mailhot@jacksonlewis.com
Liam.GaarderFeingold@jacksonlewis.com
BOOKS-A-MILLION: Oh Sues Over Deceptive Advertising
---------------------------------------------------
Simon Oh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BOOKS-A-MILLION, INC., a Delaware entity, d/b/a
WWW.BOOKSAMILLION.COM, Case No. 25STCV01198 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan.
16, 2025), is brought against the Defendant's unlawful practice of
deceptive advertising through the use of false reference pricing.
The Defendant, through its Website, offers products for sale to
California consumers. Defendant advertises fictitious prices (and
corresponding phantom discounts) on such products. This practice
allows Defendant to fabricate a fake "reference" price and present
the actual price as "discounted" when it is not.
The product that Plaintiff purchased was not substantially marked
down or discounted, because the product had not been offered on
Defendant's Website at the Reference price for at least the 90-day
period prior to Plaintiff's purchase. In other words, the Reference
Price was a fake price used in Defendant's deceptive marketing
scheme.
The Defendant knows that the prices are fake and artificially
inflated and intentionally uses them in its deceptive pricing
scheme on its Website to increase sales and profits by misleading
consumers to believe that they are buying products at a substantial
discount. Defendant thereby induces customers to buy products they
never would have bought--or at the very least, to pay more for
merchandise than they otherwise would have if Defendant was simply
being truthful about its "sales," says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of California who purchased a product
from Defendant's Website.
The Defendant is a retailer that sells products nationwide and in
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
A Professional Corporation
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 706-6464
Fax: (949) 706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com
BRYAN COLLIER: Judge Recommends Denial of Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON COLBY CALLICOTTE, ET
AL., V. BRYAN COLLIER, ET AL., Case No. 1:24-cv-00465-MJT-ZJH (E.D.
Tex.), the Hon. Judge Zack Hawthorn recommends that the Plaintiffs'
request for class certification be denied.
Because the Plaintiff Jason Colby Callicotte, the lead Plaintiff,
is proceeding pro se, he cannot satisfy the adequacy requirement of
Rule 23(a)(4).
The Plaintiffs, prisoners confined at the Stiles Unit of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
(TDCJ-CID), proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983.
In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs state that they are seeking
class certification of claims related to the excessive heat
conditions in TDCJ. This Report and Recommendation considers the
merits of Plaintiffs' request for class certification.
A copy of the Court's report and recommendation dated Feb. 18,
2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ypidOB at no extra charge.[CC]
CAMPBELL SOUP: Powell Appeals Arbitration Bid Ruling to 1st Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GARY POWELL is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit
entitled Gary Powell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Campbell Soup Company, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-12306-WGY, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendants for unpaid overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Massachusetts Minimum Fair
Wage Law.
On Nov. 15, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration and stay proceedings.
On Nov. 26, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion for Discovery
(Arbitration-Related).
On Dec. 26, 2024, Judge William G. Young entered an order
administratively closing the case, adding that it may be reopened
upon the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings or earlier
should the Defendants obstruct or fail in their obligations to
arbitrate.
On Jan. 13, 2025, the Defendants appealed. The appellate case is
captioned Powell v. The Campbell's Company, et al., Case No.
25-1099, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant GARY POWELL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Patsy Jordan Belcastro, Esq.
Shaun Markley, Esq.
Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
Alex M. Tomasevic, Esq.
NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC LLP
225 Broadway, 19th Fl.
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 325-0492
- and -
Douglas Gregory Blankinship, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON & GARBER LLP
445 Hamilton Ave., Ste. 605
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 298-3290
Defendants-Appellees CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY, et al. are represented
by:
Joshua M. Adler, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1 Federal St.
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 341-7700
- and -
Sari M. Alamuddin, Esq.
Eric Michael Makinen, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
110 N. Wacker Dr., Ste. 2800
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 324-1000
- and -
Jeffrey A. Becker, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
2222 Market St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 963-5000
CATALENT PHARMA: Kearby Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Kearby and Amanda Diehl, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CATALENT PHARMA SOLUTIONS LLC, Case
No. 1:25-cv-00314-RLY-TAB (S.D. Ind., Feb. 17, 2025), is brought
challenging policies and practices of Defendant that violate the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Indiana Wage Payment
Statute ("IWPS") as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay
proper compensation.
The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees were
non-exempt employees under the FLSA and IWPS and were paid an
hourly wage. The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees
were not allowed to take their sanitary clothing and protective
equipment home. Rather they were required to change into and out of
their sanitary clothing and protective equipment at Defendant's
facility. The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees, as
full-time employees, regularly worked 40 or more hours in a
workweek in the three years preceding the filing of this Action,
including donning and doffing time and associated travel.
As a result of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees
not being paid for all hours worked, Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees were not paid overtime compensation for all of
the hours they worked in excess of 40 each workweek. Moreover, in
weeks Plaintiffs and/or similarly situated employees did not work
in excess of 40 hours in a work week, Plaintiffs and similarly
situated employees were not paid wages in full and on time, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant at Defendant's facility in
Bloomington, Monroe County, Indiana from 2021 until Kearby
voluntarily resigned on December 17, 2024.
The Defendant manufactures, packages, distributes, and sells
pharmaceutical products at its facilities in Bloomington, Indiana,
Greendale, Indiana and at other locations in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq.
HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP
100 Cherry St.
Terre Haute, IN 47807
Phone: 812-232-9691
Facsimile: 812-234-2881
Email: kondras@hkmlawfirm.com
- and -
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B
North Canton, OH 44720
Phone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
CBD AMERICAN SHAMAN: Ferguson Files Suit in W.D. Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CBD American Shaman,
LLC. The case is styled as Jason Ferguson, Paul Teitler,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CBD
American Shaman, LLC, Stephen Vincent Sanders II, Case No.
4:25-cv-00028-SRB (W.D. Mo., Jan. 16, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Unfair, Deceptive,
Or Abusive Acts or Practices.
CBD American Shaman -- https://cbdamericanshaman.com/ -- brings
worldwide wellness through ultra-concentrated terpene rich CBD
oil.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Leo Oppenheimer, Esq.
OPPENHEIMER LAW LLC
3145 Broadway Blvd
Kansas City, MO 64111
Phone: (816) 223-6589
Email: Loppenheimer@oppenheimer-law.com
- and –
Jonathan Broc Exposito, Esq.
EXPOSITO LAW LLC
117 W 20th Street, Suite 201
Kansas City, MO 64108
Phone: (816) 225-1222
Email: broc@exposito-law.com
CDE SERVICES: Harris Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Harris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CDE SERVICES LLC, a foreign for-profit Corporation,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00805-AT (N.D. Ga., Feb. 15, 2025), is brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") as a result
of the Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages.
The Plaintiff, and the similarly situated sales rep employees were
not compensated for all hours worked over 40 in each and every work
week, and were knowingly permitted by CDE to suffer to work off the
clock in violation of the FLSA under a scheme by Defendant to evade
its wage pay requirements under the FLSA.
The Defendant CDE has improperly and willfully withheld and refused
to pay Plaintiff and all ISR, overtime wages or any wages for
overtime hours worked and in violation of federal law.
Defendant’s employment and payroll records will demonstrably show
that Plaintiff, and all ISRs were or should have been non-exempt
employees such that Defendant cannot now and should not be able to
claim any exemption to overtime pay, and that Defendant knew that
their failure to pay overtime wages to ISR was a willful violation
of the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has been employed as an inside “sales executive”
since September 2023, primarily working in Defendant's Alpharetta
office, but on occasion worked at the Defendant's principal place
of business in Marietta, Georgia.
CDE provides customized Point of Sale equipment solutions to
businesses that provide payment processing at the industry's latest
standards. Our services include hardware provisioning, encryption,
and even equipment recycling.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell Feldman, Esq.
FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
1201 Peachtree Street, NE 2nd Floor
Atlanta, GA 30361
Phone: (813) 639-9366
Fax: (813) 639-9376
Email: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com
mail@feldmanlegal.us
CENTERRA INTEGRATED: Nieves Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Centerra Integrated
Fleet Services, LLC. The case is styled as Antonio S. Nieves, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Centerra
Integrated Fleet Services, LLC, Case No. 25STCV04361 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 18, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Centerra Integrated Fleet Services, LLC doing business as All Star
Fleet LLC -- https://allstarfleetllc.com/ -- hosts a trusted mobile
mechanic service including truck tires, truck roadside service,
electrical, DOT and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638
Phone: 310-432-0000
Fax: 310-432-0001
Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Pethick Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Gabriel Pethick, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Change Healthcare, Inc.,
CVS Pharmacy Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-01227 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on Feb. 14,
2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:25-cv-00481-DWF-DJF to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Change Healthcare Inc. -- https://www.changehealthcare.com/ -- is a
provider of revenue and payment cycle management that connects
payers, providers, and patients within the U.S. healthcare
system.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chet B. Waldman, Esq.
Emer Burke, Esq.
WOLF, POPPER LLP
845 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212) 451-9625
Fax: (212) 486-2093
Email: cwaldman@wolfpopper.com
eburke@wolfpopper.com
- and -
Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
Seth Marcus Hyatt, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
200 31st Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 244-2202
Fax: (615) 252-3798
Email: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
shyatt@barrettjohnston.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Allison M. Ryan, Esq.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
555 Thirteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: (202) 637-5600
Email: allison.holt@hoganlovells.com
- and -
John-David H. Thomas, Esq.
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP (NASHVILLE)
1600 West End Avenue, Suite 800
Nashville, TN 37203-3447
Phone: (615) 621-6011
Email: jd.thomas@btlaw.com
- and -
Kara Kapke, Esq.
BARNES & THORNBURG
11 South Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: (317) 236-1313
Email: kara.kapke@btlaw.com
- and -
Kristen Lee Richer, Esq.
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
2029 Century Park East, Ste. 300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 284-3896
Fax: (310) 284-3894
Email: kricher@btlaw.com
COLES COUNTY, IL: Faces Class Suit Over Jail's Inhumane Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kraft & Kirk Allen, writing for Illinois Leaks, report that
Redwood Law Office And Laduzinsky & Associates, P.C. are proud to
announce that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Kent
Martin, Sheriff of Coles County, individual Coles County
Correctional Officers and Coles County for maintaining a county
jail with inhumane conditions in violation of the U.S.
Constitution.
The class suit styled as Elijah Burch on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated former and current pre-trial detainees housed at
the Coles County Jail vs Kent Martin, et al, filed in the Federal
District Court for the Central District of Illinois alleges that
Mr. Burch and a large class of other people who were detained in
the Coles County Jail in years 2023, 2024 and 2025 were subjected
to inhumane conditions of confinement by being locked into cells
that have no toilet and no drinking water. The Complaint further
alleges that, in many circumstances, these people were denied the
use of a toilet and/or denied drinking water by various
Correctional Officers and that they were punished for pounding on
the door trying to get some physical relief for their needs. The
Complaint further alleges that Defendant Sheriff Kent Martin had
and has a custom or policy of denying basic human needs of use of a
toilet and providing drinking water to pretrial detainees housed in
these particular cells, which are called "medical observation"
cells, because this denial of basic human needs has gone on for so
long that he knows or should know it is going on and he either
condones it or turns a blind eye.
The Members of the Class of Plaintiffs are all pre-trial detainees.
This means that these are people who have not yet been convicted of
the crime that they are being held in jail for and are waiting for
trial. In other words, these pre-trial detainees are Presumed
Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and, as innocent
citizens, they cannot be punished but must be treated in an
objectively reasonable manner during this pre-trial confinement.
Many of the Class Members who have already complained to these
attorneys about their treatment at Coles County Jail, have been
ignored for so long that they were forced to use the floor as a
toilet because they could simply not hold it that long. The Lawsuit
further alleges that the pre-trial detainees who were left with
only the floor to use as a toilet, were not given toilet paper,
cleaning supplies or clean clothing after having soiled themselves
and were forced to live in these unsanitary conditions.
IF YOU, OR SOMEONE YOU KNOW, HAS BEEN HELD IN A CELL IN THE COLES
COUNTY JAIL IN 2023, 2024 OR 2025, AND WAS IGNORED WHEN THEY ASKED
OR BEGGED TO USE THE TOILET OR TO GET A DRINK OF WATER, PLEASE
CONTACT REDWOOD LAW OFFICE. 217-469-9194 OR 217-493-8718.
IF THIS LAWSUIT IS SUCCESSFUL, EACH CLASS MEMBER MAY BE ENTITLED TO
FINANCIAL COMPENSATION. YOU WILL ALSO EXPERIENCE PRIDE IN BEING
PART OF AN EFFORT TO FORCE COLES COUNTY TO STOP USING THESE
INHUMANE CELLS FOR CONFINEMENT OF THE PEOPLE OF COLES COUNTY. [GN]
COLUMBUS RADIOLOGY: Oaks Sues Over Illegal Medical Billing Practice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LINDSEY OAKS, GERALD JEFFERIES, CONSTANCE QUIGLEY, EMIL MEROLLA,
and CYNTHIA MEROLLA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COLUMBUS RADIOLOGY CORP. and
FROST-ARNETT COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00093-MWM (S.D.
Ohio, February 14, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants
for tortious interference, breach of third party beneficiary
contract, violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
common law fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful medical
billing practice wherein they sought and received payments from
health insured patients rather than from their health insurers.
According to the complaint, patients, including the Plaintiffs, who
were insured with health insuring corporations (HICs), could not be
subjected to attempts to collect medical debt, nor collection
thereof, pursuant to both Ohio and Federal law, other than for
applicable co-payments or deductibles. In addition, Defendant
Frost-Arnett Company violated the federal right of patients to be
free of unlawful debt collection practices by making false
representations regarding the amount and legal status of patient
debts.
Columbus Radiology Corp. is a medical care provider, with its
principal place of business located in Columbus, Ohio.
Frost-Arnett Company is a debt collection and medical billing
services provider, with its principal place of business located in
Nashville, Tennessee. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gary F. Franke, Esq.
Michael D. O'Neill, Esq.
William M. Bristol, Esq.
GARY F. FRANKE CO., L.P.A.
201 East Fifth Street, Suite 910
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 564-9222
Facsimile: (513) 564-9990
Email: mdo@garyfrankelaw.com
- and -
C. David Ewing, Esq.
EWING & WILLIS, PLLC
6009 Brownsboro Park Blvd., Ste. B
Louisville, KY 40207
Telephone: (502) 585-5800
Facsimile: (502) 585-5858
CONNECTONCALL.COM: Picklesimer Files Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ConnectOnCall.com,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Tiffany Picklesimer, on behalf of
herself and a class of similarly situated persons v.
ConnectOnCall.com, LLC, Phreesia, Inc., Case No.
2:25-cv-00324-SJB-JMW (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 17, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. or Personal Injury.
ConnectOnCall is a telehealth platform and after-hours on-call
answering service with automated patient call tracking for
healthcare providers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan David Lindenfeld, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT LLC
305 Broadway, Ste 7th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (332) 216-2101
Fax: (312) 264-0100
Email: jonathan@feganscott.com
CONSTELLATION BRANDS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set April 21
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If you suffered a loss on your Constellation Brands, Inc.
(NYSE:STZ) investment and want to learn about a potential recovery
under the federal securities laws, follow the link below for more
information:
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/constellation-brands-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=131603&wire=1
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team
of experienced shareholder advocates.
THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against
Constellation Brands, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of
shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities
fraud between April 11, 2024 and January 8, 2025.
CASE DETAILS: According to the complaint, defendants provided
investors with material information concerning Constellation's full
year 2024 fiscal results and financial outlook for 2025 which was
based in material part on defendants enhanced focus on improving
mix, inventory and sales execution in its Wine and Spirits
business, specifically focusing efforts within its premium and
above brands to drive more consistent growth. Additionally,
defendants made investments in media spend and price promotions as
well as adjustments in sales capabilities to support distributor
partners.
On January 8, 2025 defendants issued a press release announcing the
Company's third quarter fiscal year 2025 results. In pertinent
part, defendants presented a significant miss on sales performance
in the Beer segment and an even steeper miss for the Wine &
Spirits.
Following this news, the price of Constellation's common stock
declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $219.28 per
share on January 8, 2025 to $181.81 per share on January 10, 2025.
WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Constellation stock during
the relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares - go
to
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/constellation-brands-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=131603&wire=1
to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or
obligation to participate.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP
has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities
litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars
for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning
high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing
investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70
employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi &
Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top
50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the
United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
https://zlk.com/ [GN]
CORTEN INDUSTRIES: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Corten Industries
Inc. The case is styled as Adrian Martinez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general
behalf v. Corten Industries Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0002416
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Feb. 18, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Corten Industries Inc. -- https://www.corten.com/ -- offer the
largest selection of Corten structural components and Corten metal
roofing products designed to meet or exceed your building
requirement needs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Otkupman, Esq.
OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC
28632 Roadside Dr, Ste 203
Agoura Hills, CA 91301-6015
Phone: (818) 293-5623
Fax: (888) 850-1310
Email: roman@OLFLA.com
DELTA DENTAL OF CALIFORNIA: Weiler Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Delta Dental of
California, et al. The case is styled as Erin Weiler, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Delta Dental of
California, Does 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. CGC25622474 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Feb. 18, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Business Tort."
Delta Dental of California -- https://www1.deltadentalins.com/ --
offers cost-effective dental and vision insurance for individuals
and families.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert G. Loewy, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT G. LOWEY, P.C.
20 Enterprise, Suite 310
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Phone: 949-468-7150
DWIVEDI TOWER: Tenants Sue Over Alleged Unlawful Rent Increases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Burns, writing for Lost Coast Outpost, reports that Renters of
Eureka's Hillsdale Apartments have filed a class action lawsuit
against their new landlord -- Dwivedi Tower, LLC, owned by
33-year-old real estate investor Anil Dwivedi -- in order to
prevent unlawful rent increases and other alleged violations of the
California Tenant Protection Act.
The lawsuit, filed Thursday, February 20, in Humboldt County
Superior Court, accuses Dwivedi of evicting tenants without just
cause and refusing to provide relocation assistance as required by
law. It also says Dwivedi has threatened and continues to threaten
to evict tenants who refuse to sign the unlawful new lease terms.
The suit was filed by attorney Jeffrey Slack, a partner with the
Eureka firm of Janssen Malloy, LLP, on behalf of tenants Don Swall
and Vanessa Vachon, as well as any other state residents who are or
were tenants of the two buildings recently purchased by Dwivedi:
the Hillsdale Apartments, at 1140 E Street, and Eureka Central
Residence, at 333 E Street.
"Since purchasing the Eureka Central Residences and Hillsdale
Apartments, Defendants have systematically attempted to impose
unlawful rental increases on its tenants through intimidation and
threats of eviction if their demands for unlawful rental increases
are not met," the complaint says.
In an email to the Outpost, Slack says there's a court hearing
scheduled for Monday, February 24, to request a temporary
restraining to prevent Dwivedi from charging the unlawful rent
increased and from evicting tenants who refuse to pay it.
Some of the residents, including Swall and Vachon, had already
enlisted the help of Legal Services of Northern California, a
nonprofit organization offering free legal assistance to low-income
people and other vulnerable populations. However, this class action
suit is broader in scope. It seeks a court injunction and financial
damages while aiming to represent not just the current tenants but
also those who were evicted or who moved out in response to the new
lease terms.
The suit asks the court to void any and all of the unlawful new
leases and award defendants triple damages, which it says are
warranted because Dwivedi acted "willfully with oppression, fraud
or malice."
After purchasing the Hillsdale Apartments last month, Dwivedi
imposed rent increases ranging from 59 percent to 82 percent, the
lawsuit alleges. Unless he's restrained, the complaint argues,
Dwivedi actions will continue to present his tenants with "the
impossible choice" of becoming homeless and risking their health
"or foregoing necessities of life in order to afford their rent."
[GN]
EAGLES NEST: Duhe Sues Over Unlawful Telephonic Calls
-----------------------------------------------------
Kevin Duhe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EAGLES NEST OUTFITTERS, INC., Case No.
562025CA000277AXXXHC (Fla. 19th Judicial Cir. Ct., Saint Lucie
Cty., Feb. 16, 2025), is brought for injunctive and declaratory
relief, and damages for violations Of the Caller ID Rules, Fla.
Stat. Of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA").
In direct contravention of the Caller ID Rules, however, many
callers, such as Defendant, make Telephonic Sales Calls a central
part of their marketing strategy, and in doing so, intentionally
transmit telephone numbers to recipient's Caller ID services that
are not capable of receiving telephone calls.
As such, Plaintiff, brings this action alleging that Defendant
violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number
that was not capable of receiving phone calls when it made
Telephonic Sales Calls by text message ("Text Message Sales
Calls").
Specifically, Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that promoted
ENO ("ENO Text Message Sales Calls") and violated the Caller ID
Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification
services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving
telephone calls, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is the regular user of a cellular telephone number
that receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls.
The Defendant is Foreign Corporation, which sells various goods to
persons throughout the country through its online store.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Phone: (202) 709-5744
Fax: (866) 893-0416
Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollective.com
ELI LILLY: Baltimore Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. ELI LILLY AND
COMPANY; NOVO NORDISK INC.; SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC; EVERNORTH
HEALTH, INC. (FORMERLY EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDING COMPANY); EXPRESS
SCRIPTS, INC.; EXPRESS SCRIPTS ADMINISTRATORS, LLC; MEDCO HEALTH
SOLUTIONS, INC.; ESI MAIL PHARMACY SERVICES, INC.; EXPRESS SCRIPTS
PHARMACY, INC.; ASCENT HEALTH SERVICES L.L.C.; CVS HEALTH
CORPORATION; CVS PHARMACY, INC.; CAREMARK RX, LLC; CAREMARK PCS
HEALTH, LLC; CAREMARK, LLC; ZINC HEALTH VENTURES, L.L.C., ZINC
HEALTH SERVICES, L.L.C., UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC.; OPTUM, INC.;
OPTUMRX INC.; OPTUMINSIGHT, INC., EMISAR PHARMA SERVICES L.L.C.,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00096 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey on Feb. 18, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01311 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust.
Eli Lilly and Company, doing business as Lilly --
https://www.lilly.com/ -- is an American multinational
pharmaceutical company headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sallie E. Gilbert, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER
209 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Phone: (202) 463-2101
Fax: (202) 463-2103
Email: sgilbert@baileyglasser.com
ENVIRI CORP: S&P Alters Outlook to Negative, Affirms 'B+' ICR
-------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings revised its outlook on Pennsylvania-based
industrial recycling and environmental resource management provider
Enviri Corp. to negative from stable and affirmed its 'B+' issuer
credit rating.
S&P said, "At the same time, we affirmed our 'BB-' issue level
rating on the company's $500 million first-lien term loan due 2028
($483 million outstanding as of Dec. 31, 2024) and our 'B' issue
level rating on the company's $475 million senior unsecured notes
due 2027. The recovery ratings remain '2' and '5', respectively.
"The negative outlook reflects our view that we could downgrade
Enviri if sustained weakness in its operating performance leads to
negative FOCF and elevated leverage above 5x over the next 12
months."
The negative outlook on Enviri reflects its persistently negative
FOCF generation, lower volumes in the Harsco Environmental segment,
and still-limited headroom under the company's recently amended
covenants. For the year ended Dec. 31, 2024, Enviri reported a
total sales decline of about 1% compared to 2023 (including the
Rail segment) as higher service contract and hazardous waste
removal services volumes was offset by the impact of two divested
businesses and modest foreign currency (FX) headwinds. In 2025 S&P
anticipates softness in Enviri's Environmental segment as U.S.
metal production volumes remain muted. This will be offset by
strength in its Clean Earth segment and a moderate turnaround in
the Rail segment, leading to relatively flat organic revenue
growth, excluding the impact of recent divestitures.
The company's ability to improve its Rail segment and generate
positive cash flows is contingent upon the successful completion of
several contracts in its engineered to order (ETO) business.
Starting in the first quarter of 2024, the company reclassified its
Rail segment back into continuing operations (from discontinued
operations) and begun a strategic plan to improve the profitability
of this segment by completing or exiting unfavorable contracts. S&P
assumes that Enviri will be able to complete a portion of these
contracts over the next 12 months, leading to higher cash flow
generation. However, due to the upfront costs associated with ETO
orders, Rail will continue to be a material drag on the total
company's margin profile and failure to complete contracts in a
timely manner could weigh on the company's ability to generate
positive FOCF.
S&P said, "We anticipate modest deleveraging in 2025, although we
expect leverage to be higher than our previous forecast. The
company's 2024 S&P Global Ratings-adjusted EBITDA contracted about
320 basis points (bps) from 2023, including a one-time $27.2
million charge for an environmental matter, leading to leverage of
about 5.3x. In 2025 we expect margins should rebound to the 15%
area as Enviri begins to improve its cost structure in Rail and
one-time costs roll off, partially offset by higher selling and
labor costs. As a result, S&P Global Ratings-adjusted leverage
should improve to the high-4x area over the next 12 months.
However, this metric is still higher than our prior forecast of
leverage in the mid-4x area in 2025 and leaves Enviri with little
cushion in its credit metrics in the event of a more prolonged
downturn in its end-markets or operating underperformance. Our
base-case scenario includes the Rail business over our forecast
horizon."
Enviri's recent covenant amendment provides the company with
near-term covenant relief, however EBITDA cushion could remain
limited. On Feb. 14, 2025, the company amended its maximum net
leverage ratio (MNLR) and its minimum interest coverage covenants
provide greater headroom as it navigates operations over the next
12 months. The MNLR provides a step-up to 5.0x in the second and
third quarter of 2025 before stepping down to 4.75x in the fourth
quarter and ultimately to 4.0x by June of 2027, while the minimum
interest coverage ratio was amended to 2.5x from 3.0x for the
duration of the revolving credit facility (RCF). This amendment
follows a previous covenant amendment that was enacted in September
of 2024, primarily due to the inclusion of the Rail segment.
S&P said, "Under our base case forecast, we believe Enviri will
remain in compliance with its covenants but note that EBITDA
headroom could be slightly less than 15% over the next 12 months.
Additionally, there is a risk that its covenants could pressure
liquidity in the event the company underperforms our forecast or is
unsuccessful in obtaining further amendments.
"The negative outlook reflects our view that we could downgrade
Enviri if sustained weakness in its operating performance leads to
negative FOCF and elevated leverage above 5x over the next 12
months."
S&P could lower its rating on Enviri if:
-- S&P does not expect the company to generate positive FOCF; or
-- Its S&P Global Ratings-adjusted debt leverage remains above 5x.
This could occur if the company experiences weaker than forecasted
demand or is unable to improve the profitability of its Rail
segment; or
-- EBITDA headroom under its covenants falls below 10%.
S&P could revise its outlook back to stable on Enviri if:
-- It is able to generate moderately positive FOCF on a sustained
basis; and
-- It reduces its S&P Global Ratings-adjusted leverage below 5x
and sustains it at this level (inclusive of any acquisitions or
shareholder returns); and
-- Cushion under its covenants is at least 15%.
FMC CORP: Macomb Sues Over 33.5% Drop of Common Stock Price
-----------------------------------------------------------
MACOMB COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM and MACOMB COUNTY
RETIREMENT HEALTH CARE FUND, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FMC CORPORATION, MARK A.
DOUGLAS, ANDREW D. SANDIFER, and PIERRE R. BRONDEAU, Defendants,
Case No. 2:25-cv-00815 (E.D. Pa., February 14, 2025) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding FMC's business, operations, and
prospects in order to trade FMC common stock at artificially
inflated prices between November 16, 2023, and February 4, 2025.
Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that: (a) Project
Focus was not succeeding in its goal of significantly lowering FMC
inventory in the distribution channel; (b) FMC's channel
inventories were not rebalancing or normalizing, and in fact were
getting worse; (c) Project Focus was lagging in its goal of
accelerating manufacturing cost reductions; (d) FMC's cost-plus
pricing arrangements with key distributors would significantly
lower FMC's revenues and profits in the near-term; (e) FMC's risk
disclosures were materially false and misleading because they
characterized adverse facts that had already materialized as mere
possibilities; and (f) as a result of the foregoing, the
Defendants' positive statements about the company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading
or lacked a reasonable basis.
When the truth emerged, FMC's stock price dropped $18.12 per share,
or 33.5 percent, to close at $35.92 per share on February 5, 2025.
FMC lost over $2 billion in market capitalization in a single day.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the company's common
stock, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the suit.
FMC Corporation is an agricultural sciences company headquartered
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey A. Barrack, Esq.
Danielle M. Weiss, Esq.
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
3300 Two Commerce Square
2001 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 963-0600
Facsimile: (215) 963-0838
Email: jbarrack@barrack.com
dweiss@barrack.com
- and -
Jacob Sabo, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JACOB SABO
22a Mazzeh Street
Tel-Aviv, Israel
Telephone: (972) 39070770
- and -
Francis P. McConville, Esq.
Guillaume Buell, Esq.
Connor Boehme, Esq.
LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
Email: fmcconville@labaton.com
gbuell@labaton.com
cboehme@labaton.com
- and -
Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
Aaron L. Castle, Esq.
VANOVERBEKE MICHAUD & TIMMONY PC
79 Alfred Street
Detroit, MI 48201
Telephone: (313) 578-1200
Facsimile: (313) 578-1201
Email: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com
acastle@vmtlaw.com
FUTURE MOTION: Sierra Sues Over Disregard for Safety
----------------------------------------------------
Maria Elena Sierra, an individual, and others similarly situated v.
FUTURE MOTION, INC., a California Corporation, Case No.
5:25-cv-01649 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 17, 2025), is brought as a direct
and proximate result of the strict products liability and
negligence of Defendant Future Motion, and also seeks an award of
punitive damages for Future Motion's deliberate disregard for the
rights or safety of others.
The Onewheel is operated, controlled, and monitored, in part, by an
application ("app") that users can download and install on their
phones. The app allows users to customize their ride with what the
company refers to as "Digital Shaping" and allows the user to
monitor battery status, toggle the LED lights on the board, and
track riding data. Upon information and belief, the Onewheel
application was also developed and designed by Defendant Future
Motion.
On February 19, 2023, Maria was riding her Onewheel Pint in her
backyard. When Maria went to dismount the Subject One Wheel, the
board began to accelerate of its own accord toward a tree. Maria
fell backwards, but the board kept moving forward, twisting and
snapping her left ankle. As a result of the incident, Maria
sustained, inter alia, an unstable Weber B ankle fracture requiring
surgical intervention.
The CPSC's investigation found that Onewheels can additionally fail
by either failing to balance the rider or by stopping suddenly
while in motion, causing the rider to be suddenly and forcefully
ejected from the product, which can result in serious injury or
death to the rider The CPSC also stated that between 2019 and 2021,
there were at least four deaths reported and multiple reports of
serious injuries after the product failed to balance the rider or
suddenly stopped while in motion.
Despite the CPSC's findings and urgent warnings, Future Motion
refused for nearly a year to agree to recall its remaining Onewheel
models, demonstrating a callous disregard for the rights and safety
of consumers, including Maria. Future Motion manufactured its
Onewheels with a defect that made them inherently dangerous. As a
direct and proximate result of Defendant Future Motion's conduct,
the Plaintiff in this case incurred significant and painful bodily
injuries, medical expenses, physical pain, mental anguish, and
diminished enjoyment of life, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of the City of San Antonio,
County of Bexar, State of Texas.
Future Motion designs, develops, manufactures, produces,
distributes, markets, and sells a line of personal "riding
machines" commonly referred to as "Onewheel(s)."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael K. Johnson, Esq.
Adam J. Kress, Esq.
JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
St. Paul, MN 55101
Phone: (612) 436-1800
Fax: (612) 436-1801
Email: mjohnson@johnonsbecker.com
akress@johnsonbecker.com
GEN DIGITAL: Jackson Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gen Digital
Incorporated. The case is styled as Michelle Jackson, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. Gen Digital Incorporated,
Case No. 2:25-cv-00535-MTL (D. Ariz., Feb. 18, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Gen Digital Inc. -- https://www.gendigital.com/us/en/ -- is a
multinational software company co-headquartered in Tempe, Arizona
and Prague, Czech Republic.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
5550 Glades Rd., Ste. 500
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Phone: (561) 826-5477
Email: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
GEN DIGITAL: Reisman Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gen Digital
Incorporated. The case is styled as Eli Reisman, individually, and
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Gen
Digital Incorporated, Case No. 2:25-cv-01316-BRM-SDA (D.N.J., Feb.
18, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Gen Digital Inc. -- https://www.gendigital.com/us/en/ -- is a
multinational software company co-headquartered in Tempe, Arizona
and Prague, Czech Republic.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Max S. Morgan, Esq.
THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC
1515 Market Street, Ste. #1100
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: (267) 587-6240
Fax: (215) 689-0875
Email: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com
GENERAL DYNAMICS: Continues to Defend Sherman Act-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Dynamics Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
annual period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2025, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Sherman Act class suit in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
On October 6, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia against General Dynamics Corporation, certain of its
subsidiaries and various other companies alleging that they
conspired, in violation of the Sherman Act, not to solicit naval
architects and marine engineers from each other. The named
plaintiffs purport to represent a class of individuals consisting
of all naval architects and marine engineers employed by the
shipyard and consultancy defendants, their predecessors, their
subsidiaries and/or their related entities in the United States at
any time since January 1, 2000.
The plaintiffs allege that the conspiracy suppressed compensation
paid to the putative class members, and the plaintiffs seek trebled
monetary damages, attorneys' fees, injunctive and other equitable
relief.
The Company is defending the matter. On April 19, 2024, the
District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint.
Plaintiffs initiated an appeal of the dismissal of their complaint
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on May 20,
2024.
Given the current status of this matter, the Company is unable to
express a view regarding the ultimate outcome or, if the outcome is
adverse, to estimate an amount or range of reasonably possible
loss.
Depending on the outcome of this matter, there could be a material
impact on the Company's results of operations, financial condition
and cash flows.
General Dynamics Corporation is a diversified defense company. The
Company offers a broad portfolio of products and services in
business aviation, combat vehicles, weapons systems, munitions,
shipbuilding design and construction, information systems, and
technologies. [BN]
HAND HOSPITALITY: Son Partially Wins Conditional Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SOONJA SON, MI AE KANG,
and IN HYEONG SUR, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly, situated, v. HAND HOSPITALITY, CHO DANG GOL, LLC, TOLEDO
53 INC., YEONKHEE KIM, CHANGHONG MIN, and KIHYUN LEE, Case No.
1:22-cv-04639-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Robert Lehrburger
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify an Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) collective action as follows:
1. The Defendants shall provide contact information (names,
last known home addresses, cell phone numbers, and email
addresses) for the conditionally certified FLSA collective
within 10 days of this Order;
2. The Plaintiffs' counsel shall modify the notices of
pendency;
3. The Plaintiffs' counsel shall disseminate all notices of
pendency to the conditionally certified FLSA Collective
within 21 days of this Order;
4. The notice period shall remain open for a period of 90 days
from the issuance of the notices of pendency;
5. The workplace notice of pendency shall be posted in the
Restaurant within seven (7) days of this Order and remain up
through the end of the notice period;
6. The Plaintiffs' request to equitably toll the statute of
limitations is denied at this time without prejudice to
further consideration of individual circumstances.
Given the Second Circuit's requirement that plaintiffs in a
collective action need only share "a similar issue of law or fact
material to the disposition of their FLSA claims," the Court
readily concludes that – at this preliminary stage –
conditional certification is warranted.
The Plaintiffs seek certification of a collective that includes
"all current and former employees who worked at the
restaurant Cho Dang Gol as servers, bussers, bartenders,
kitchen workers, dishwashers, food preparers, cooks and/or
other similarly situated positions at any time from Oct. 11,
2021, through the date of trial."
The Plaintiffs filed this action against the Defendants claiming
violations of the FLSA and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), through
a common policy and practice of not paying the Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated employees for all the hours they worked, not
paying all overtime hours worked, improperly retaining tips
belonging to employees, and failing to provide accurate pay
statements listing their true hours worked or correct amount of
tips.
The Plaintiff Son worked as a server at the Restaurant from May 4,
2021 to Dec. 6, 2023.
Hand Hospitality operates 13 restaurants in New York.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wjHhGe at no extra
charge.[CC]
HARLEM GROUP: Carcamo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcelo Carcamo and Jose Pastrana, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. HARLEM GROUP PR CORP. (D/B/A BISTRO),
HARLEM GROUP DR CORP. (D/B/A BRONX DRAFT HOUSE), BRUCKNER GARDEN
CORP. (D/B/A BRICKS AND HOPS), BODEGA SOCIAL LLC. (D/B/A BODEGA
SOCIAL), ALFREDO M. ANGUEIRA, RAMON MARTINEZ JR., CARLOS DOE AND
DAVE DOE, Case No. 1:25-cv-01397 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2025), is
brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the
N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and overtime
wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor (herein the
"Spread of Hours Wage Order"), including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather,
Defendants failed to maintain accurate record keeping of the hours
worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium.
Further, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the required "spread
of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10 hours a
day. Furthermore, Defendants repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiff
Pastrana his wages on a timely basis. The Defendants' conduct
extended beyond Plaintiffs to all other similarly situated
employees.
The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring
Plaintiffs and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per
week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation
required by federal and state law and regulations, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed as a cook, a food preparer, and a
drain cleaner at the 3 restaurants and a catering service located
at various locations in the Bronx.
The Defendants operate 3 restaurants and a catering service located
in the South Bronx and Highbridge sections of the Bronx in New York
City.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
HCA HEALTHCARE: Fox Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
--------------------------------------------------------
Mary Ann Fox, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. HCA HEALTHCARE INC., UNDER 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(2)
and THE HCA 401(K) PLAN ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE, Case No.
3:25-cv-00178 (M.D. Tenn., Feb. 17, 2025), is brought under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") as a result od
the Defendant's breach of fiduciary duties.
Each year, Defendants HCA Healthcare Inc. and the HCA 401(K) Plan
Administration Committee must decide between using certain assets
of the HCA 401(k) Plan to either cover participant's costs or to
cover HCA Healthcare Inc.'s costs. In every year since 2019, they
chose to cover HCA Healthcare Inc.'s costs, without any regard for,
or consideration of, what was in the best interest of the plan, its
participants, and their beneficiaries. These actions were
unlawful.
In managing a plan and its assets, plan fiduciaries must act
"solely in the interest of participants." And they must do so "with
the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances
then prevailing that a prudent man acting in a like capacity and
familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an
enterprise of a like character and with like aims."
HCA Healthcare Inc. ("HCA" or the "Company") and the HCA 401(K)
Plan Administration Committee (the "Committee") (collectively
"Defendants") violated ERISA by breaching their fiduciary duties of
loyalty and prudence, using plan assets for the benefit of
participant employer Defendant HCA, dealing with the assets of the
plan in its own interest, and causing the plan to engage in
prohibited transactions. In addition to these violations, HCA also
violated ERISA by failing to monitor the Committee to ensure that
it was performing its delegated fiduciary obligation, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was a participant in the Plan.
HCA Healthcare Inc. is a for-profit operator of health care
facilities organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and
headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
William A. Ladnier, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37938
Phone: 865-247-0080
Email: aedwards@milberg.com
wladnier@milberg.com
- and -
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
Elijah G. Savage, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: 312-214-7900
Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
dferri@dicellolevitt.com
esavage@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM
950 West University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Phone: 248-841-2200
Email: ssa@millerlawpc.com
HEALTHCARE SYSTEM: Court Recommends Partial OK of Class Cert Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN MCFALLS,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated and
the Proposed Rule 23 Class, v. HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC. and NAPLES
COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00572-SPC-KCD (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Kyle Dudek recommends that the Plaintiff
Lauren McFalls' motion for class certification be granted in part
and denied in part:
a. McFalls' request to certify a class under FDUTPA of
"[a]ll nurses who are or were subject to NCH's Specialty
Fellowship Program Employment Agreement and the training
repayment provisions therein at any point from July 31,
2019, through" the date of certification be granted;
b. McFalls' request to certify the same class under Florida's
Declaratory Judgment Act be denied;
c. The Court appoint Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Towards Justice, and
Varnell & Warwick as class counsel to represent the
certified class; and
d. McFalls' motion be denied to the extent it seeks any
different or further relief.
McFalls' declaratory judgment action "appears designed simply to
lay the basis for a damage award" elsewhere. Class certification is
thus inappropriate for McFalls’ declaratory judgment claim.
Because McFalls has sufficiently alleged an injury that is "fairly
traceable to" NCH's conduct and "likely to be redressed by a
favorable judicial decision," she has standing to bring a claim
under FDUTPA.
McFalls brought this suit to challenge the Fellowship Program fee.
She claims NCH represented the Fellowship Program training would be
worth at least $5,000. But—according to McFalls—it's worthless.
McFalls claims that the Fellowship Program fee violates the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Florida Minimum Wage Act (FMWA),
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), and
Florida's prohibition of restraints on trade.
Health Care is an innovative software provider for Behavioral
Health.
A copy of the Court's report and recommendation dated Feb. 18,
2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eOnL8D at no extra charge.[CC]
HYATT CORPORATION: So Files Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hyatt Hotels
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Juhyun So, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hyatt Hotels
Corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-01298 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 14, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Hyatt Hotels Corporation -- http://www.hyatt.com/-- commonly known
as Hyatt Hotels & Resorts, is an American multinational hospitality
company headquartered in the Riverside Plaza area of Chicago that
manages and franchises luxury and business hotels, resorts, and
vacation properties.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Fax: (212) 989-9163
Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Bal Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order
denying its motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled
Dana Jaye Bal, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Hyundai Motor America, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-01657-HDV-KES, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought by the Plaintiffs seeking relief for themselves and classes
of similarly situated Texas and Missouri consumers because at the
time of sale, the Class Vehicles contained defective tow hitch
wiring harness modules that cause the vehicles to catch on fire,
which Hyundai failed to repair within a reasonable period of time.
The Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, which Judge
Hernan D. Vera denied on Jan. 21, 2025.
The appellate case is captioned Bal, et al. v. Hyundai Motor
America, Inc., Case No. 25-656, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 31, 2025.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on February 5,
2025;
-- Appellant's Transcript Order was due on February 13, 2025;
-- Appellant's Transcript is due on March 17, 2025;
-- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on April 24, 2025;
and
-- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on May 27, 2025.
[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees DANA JAYE BAL, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Trinette G. Kent, Esq.
KENT LAW OFFICES
3219 E. Camelback Road, Suite 588
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Defendant-Appellant HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC. is represented by:
William A. Delgado, Esq.
Shilpa A. Coorg, Esq.
Destiny Lopez, Esq.
DTO LAW
915 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1950
Los Angeles, CA 90017
- and -
Richard Lee, Esq.
DTO LAW
702 Marshall Street, Suite 640
Redwood City, CA 94063
INTELLIA THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Apr. 14
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If you suffered a loss on your Intellia Therapeutics, Inc.
(NASDAQ:NTLA) investment and want to learn about a potential
recovery under the federal securities laws, follow the link below
for more information:
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/intellia-therapeutics-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=131520&wire=1
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team
of experienced shareholder advocates.
THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against
Intellia Therapeutics, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of
shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities
fraud between July 30, 2024 and January 8, 2025.
CASE DETAILS: According to the complaint, defendants provided
investors with material information concerning Intellia's Phase 1/2
study evaluating NTLA-3001 for the treatment of alpha-1 antitrypsin
deficiency (AATD) -- associated lung disease. Defendants'
statements included, among other things, confidence in the
Company's timeline for the aforementioned study, specifically that
Intellia expected to dose the first patient in the second half of
2024. Defendants failed to disclose inter alia that the demand for
viral-based editing was rapidly dwindling as non-viral delivery
methods became a main target of the scientific research community
due to their cost-effectiveness and more efficient development,
thus making NTLA-3001 an inefficient program for Intellia to
maintain.
The truth emerged on January 9, 2025, when Intellia published a
press release announcing Company reorganization. In pertinent part,
defendants disclosed that Intellia would be halting all NTLA-3001
research and studies and that the Company would be reducing its
workforce by 27% in 2025. Specifically, the Company announced that
management decided to focus Intellia's resources on other
pharmaceutical development and would be implementing cost saving in
the form of a major reduction in force. As a result, defendants
pipeline priority readjustment resulted in the Company's
once-touted NTLA-3001's discontinuation.
Following this news, Intellia's stock price fell from a closing
market price of $12.02 per share on January 8, 2025 to $10.20 per
share on January 10, 2025.
WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Intellia stock during the
relevant time frame -- even if you still hold your shares - go to
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/intellia-therapeutics-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=131520&wire=1
to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or
obligation to participate.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP
has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities
litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars
for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning
high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing
investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70
employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi &
Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top
50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the
United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
https://zlk.com/ [GN]
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Griffith Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Kent Griffith and Wess Shellenbarger, on
behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated,
known and unknown v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, Case No.
2025CH00038 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on Feb. 14, 2025, and assigned Case No.
1:25-cv-01593.
The Plaintiffs' purported class action complaint seeks to recover
allegedly unpaid vacation pay, prejudgment interest, and attorney
fees and costs pursuant to the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection
Act.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Kathryn Montgomery Moran
Michele D. Dougherty
Jackson Lewis P.C.
150 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 787-4949
Fax: 312) 787-4995
Email: Kathryn.Moran@jacksonlewis.com
Michele.Dougherty@jacksonlewis.com
JAMIL A. MOSOUD: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property
--------------------------------------------------------
Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. JAMIL A MOSOUD; REDLAND MEAT, LLC d/b/a
STOP & SHOP SUPER MEAT MARKET, and MR TUTTYS FRUITIES CORP d/b/a MR
TUTTYS FRUITIES, Case No. 1:25-cv-20714-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 14,
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 the business located within the
commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff
encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and
the 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.
JAMIL A MOSOUD, owns, operates, and oversees the Commercial
Property, its general parking lot and parking spots specific to the
businesses therein, located in Miami Dade County, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beverly Virues, Esq.
Armando Mejias, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, Fl 33134
Phone: (305) 553-3464
Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com
Secondary Emails: amejias@lawgmp.com
jacosta@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL, 33155
Phone: (305) 350-3103
Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com
JPMORGAN CHASE: Ponton Appeals Class Action Dismissal to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD PONTON, SR., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Ronald Ponton, Sr., et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-00248-RAJ, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against JPMorgan Chase for alleged unfair and deceptive
practices in the area of bank account garnishments.
On June 21, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
On July 3, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint for failure to state a claim, which Judge Richard
A. Jones granted on Dec. 31, 2024. The Plaintiffs' amended
complaint was dismissed with prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned Ponton, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase &
Co., et al., Case No. 25-578, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 29, 2025.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on February 3,
2025;
-- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on March 10, 2025;
and
-- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on April 9, 2025.
[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants RONALD PONTON, SR., et al., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Christina Latta Henry, Esq.
DEVLIN LAW FIRM, LLC
6100 219th Street, SW Suite 480, PMB 398
Seattle, WA 98043
Defendants-Appellees JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., et al. are represented
by:
Brigid F. Cech Samole, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, PA
333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 4400
Miami, FL 33131
- and -
Katherine Marie Clemente, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
One Vanderbilt Avenue
New York, NY 10017
- and -
Michael Cedillos, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
77 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60601
- and -
John S. Devlin, III, Esq.
BALLARD SPAHR LLP
Seattle 1420 5th Avenue, Suite 4200
Seattle, WA 98101
KALEIDA HEALTH: Filing of Response to Class Cert Bid Extended
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cleary, et al., v. Kaleida
Health, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00026 (W.D.N.Y., Filed Jan. 7,
2022), the Hon. Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo entered an order granting
the Defendants' letter motion for an extension of time to respond
to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification:
-- The Defendants' response to the motion April 11, 2025
for class certification shall be filed
on or before:
-- The Plaintiffs' reply, if any, shall be May 12, 2025
filed on or before:
The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (E.R.I.S.A.)
Kaleida Health, founded in 1998, is a not-for-profit healthcare
network that manages five hospitals in the Buffalo–Niagara Falls
metropolitan area.[CC]
KERRIGAN GROUP: Collazos Files FLSA Suit in D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against KERRIGAN GROUP
ASSOCIATES, LLC. The case is styled as Ginneth Collazos, Matias
Hernandez, on behalf of themselves, individually, and all other
persons similarly situated v. KERRIGAN GROUP ASSOCIATES, LLC d/b/a
LAS PALMAS RESTAURANT, ARIEL CARTAGENA, OLGA CARTAGENA, Case No.
2:25-cv-01298 (D.N.J., Feb. 17, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Kerrigan Group Associates, LLC d/b/a Las Palmas Restaurant was and
is a domestic limited liability corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appear pro se.
KOHL'S INC: Vanderzee Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jessica Eugenia Vanderzee, an individual and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KOHL'S, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; BRENCY HERNANDEZ, an individual; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV29603 was removed from the
Superior Court for the State of California, in and for the County
of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on Feb. 18, 2025, and assigned Case No.
2:25-cv-01373.
The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts the following eleven causes of
action: failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum
wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest
periods; waiting time penalties; wage statement violations; failure
to pay timely wages; failure to indemnify; failure to pay interests
on deposits; violation of Labor Code; and unfair competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Sophia B. Collins, Esq.
Michael W. Nelson, Esq.
Nicholas Gioiello, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Treat Towers, 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Phone: 925.932.2468
Facsimile: 925.946.9809
Email: scollins@littler.com
mwnelson@littler.com
ngioiello@littler.com
LEAFFILTER NORTH: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LeafFilter North,
LLC. The case is styled as Chet Michael Wilson, Antwane Johnson, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. LeafFilter
North, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00039-MHW-CMV (D. Ariz., Jan. 16,
2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
LeafFilter -- https://www.leaffilter.com/ -- is the largest gutter
protection company in the nation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian T. Giles, Esq.
GILES & HARPER, LLC
7247 Beechmont Ave.
Cincinnati, OH 45230
Phone: (513) 379-2715
Email: bgiles@gilesharper.com
LENDEFIED INC: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls, Samo Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH SAMO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LENDEFIED INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:25-cv-00330-MMA-AHG (S.D. Cal., February 14, 2025) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in a practice
of calling the telephone numbers of consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in an attempt to promote its products and services
without prior express written consent. As a result of the
Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff and Class members were harmed.
Lendefied Inc. is a financial institution in Melville, New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph B. Swigart, Esq.
SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino del Rio S., Ste. 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (866) 219-3343
Email: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com
LESLIE REALTY: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property
------------------------------------------------------
Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. LESLIE REALTY, INC.; and MILLY'S
FACTORY INC d/b/a MILLY'S EMPANADA FACTORY, Case No.
1:25-cv-20716-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 14, 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 the business located within the
commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff
encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and
the 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.
LESLIE REALTY, INC., owns, operates, and oversees the Commercial
Property, its general parking lot and parking spots specific to the
businesses therein, located in Miami Dade County, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beverly Virues, Esq.
Armando Mejias, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, Fl 33134
Phone: (305) 553-3464
Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com
Secondary Emails: amejias@lawgmp.com
jacosta@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL, 33155
Phone: (305) 350-3103
Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com
LIVUNLTD LLC: Fails to Properly Pay Lifeguards, Rivera Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
TIRSON RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIVUNLTD LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-01348 (S.D.N.Y., February 14, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay timely wages,
and failure to furnish wage statements.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a lifeguard from
approximately July 2021 to December 7, 2024.
LIVunLTD LLC is a global hospitality company, with its principal
place of business in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven Arenson, Esq.
ARENSON, DITTMAR & KARBAN
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1402
New York, NY 10170
Telephone: (212) 490-3600
Facsimile: (212) 682-0278
Email: avi@adklawfirm.com
LONG BEACH MEMORIAL: Torres Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Long Beach Memorial
Medical Center. The case is styled as Misty Torres, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. Long Beach Memorial
Medical Center, Case No. 25STCV04251 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., Feb. 18, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
MemorialCare Long Beach Medical Center --
https://www.memorialcare.org -- formerly known as Long Beach
Memorial Medical Center, is a hospital in Long Beach,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638
Phone: 310-432-0000
Fax: 310-432-0001
Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
LONG ISLAND PLASTIC: Fitzsimons Suit Removed to E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Dawn Fitzsimons, individually and a class
similarly situated v. Long Island Plastic Surgical Group, PC doing
business as: New York Plastic Surgery Group, Case No. 619353/2024
was transferred from the Nassau County Supreme Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Jan. 17,
2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00309-LGD to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Long Island Plastic Surgical Group -- https://www.lipsg.com/ -- is
a medical group practice located in Manhasset, New York that
specializes in Cosmetic, Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Elan Ariel Ginzberg, Esq.
Randy Edward Kleinman, Esq.
KLEINMAN GINZBERG LLP
One Old Country Road, Suite 320
Carle Place, NY 11514
Phone: (516) 951-0955
Email: eginzberg@kg-llp.com
rkleinman@kg-llp.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael Marcucci, Esq.
JONES DAY
100 High Street
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617) 449-6887
Email: mmarcucci@jonesday.com
MCMURRY UNIVERSITY: Hopper Suit Removed to N.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Kylee Hopper, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. McMURRY UNIVERSITY, Case No. 13479
was removed from the 350th District Court of Taylor County, Texas,
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas on Feb. 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00031.
This is a civil action over which this Court has subject matter
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Gregory S. Hudson, Esq.
LyondellBasell Tower
1221 McKinney St., Suite 2900
Houston, TX 77010
Phone: 832.214.3900
Fax: 832.214.3905
Email: ghudson@cozen.com
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Collins Files Suit in M.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Memorial Hospital and
Manor Auxiliary Inc. The case is styled as Joyce Collins,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Memorial Hospital and Manor Auxiliary Inc., Case No.
1:25-cv-00030-LAG (M.D. Ga.., Feb. 14, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Memorial Hospital and Manor in Bainbridge, Georgia --
https://www.mh-m.org/ -- has served the healthcare needs of Decatur
County and surrounding communities for over 50 years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq.
200 13th Street
Columbus, GA 31901
Phone: (706) 322-6226
Email: njackson@thefinleyfirm.com
MICROSOFT CORP: Poaches Content Creators' Commissions, Rhodes Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
TESSA RHODES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-00306 (W.D. Wash., February 14, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for unjust enrichment, interference with
prospective economic advantage, intentional interference with
contractual relations, conversion, and violations of the Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and the
California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged deceptive scheme in a
form online marketing fraud where a malicious affiliate marketer,
Microsoft Shopping, secretly places tracking cookies on a user's
browser, making it appear as if the user came to a website through
its affiliate link, even if the user did not. This deceptive tactic
has allowed Microsoft to profit off of the promotional efforts of
online content creators like the Plaintiff and Class members, by
maliciously replacing the legitimate affiliate cookies of the
Plaintiff and Class members with Microsoft's own affiliate cookies
just as users begin the checkout process. By implementing this
malicious cookie-stuffing scheme, the Defendant is able to poach
the commissions of the Plaintiff and other online content creators,
says the suit.
Microsoft Corporation is a technology company with its principal
place of business in King County, Washington. [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 -
James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
Amanda V. Boltax, Esq.
Ian E. Engdahl, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street N.W., Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
mboltax@hausfeld.com
iengdahl@hausfeld.com
- and -
Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street
Fourteenth Floor
New York, NY 10004
- and -
Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
Catherine B. Derenze, Esq.
Collin J. Schaffhauser, Esq.
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC
570 Broad St., Suite 1201
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 623-3000
Email: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
cderenze@litedepalma.com
cschaffhauser@litedepalma.com
NATIONAL TENANT: Rogers Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ikea Rogers, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. National Tenant Network, Inc., Case No.
GLO-L-000765-24 was transferred from the Nassau County Supreme
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on
Jan. 16, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00585-KMW-SAK to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Long Island Plastic Surgical Group -- https://www.lipsg.com/ -- is
a medical group practice located in Manhasset, New York that
specializes in Cosmetic, Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James A. Francis, Esq.
Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 735-8600
Email: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Mitchell Evan Zipkin, Esq.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
343 Thornall Street, Suite 640
Edison, NJ 08837
Phone: (908) 374-0324
Fax: (908) 374-0345
Email: mzipkin@hinshawlaw.com
NEW YORK, NY: Monasar Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MOHAMED MONASAR, GABRIELLE WALLS, GABRIEL ABREU,
JESUS HERNANDEZ TORRES, LUIS MARTINEZ, BRANDON ROMAN, and OSAMA
ALI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, TARGET CORPORATION, THE NEW YORK TIMES
COMPANY, BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY WAREHOUSE CORP., BJ's WHOLESALE
CLUB INC., SAM ASH MUSIC CORPORATION, THE TJX COMPANIES, LLC D/B/A
MARSHALLS, 180 MAIDEN LANE, LLC, SHOP-RITE SUPERMARKETS, INC., and
BARCLAYS BANK PLC AKA BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE and BNOS BAIS YAAKOV
OF FAR ROCKAWAY, Index No. 150717/2025, was removed from the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
February 14, 2025.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:25-cv-01337 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to pay, or failure to
timely pay, wages for work performed by the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated workers in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.
The City of New York is a municipal government in New York.
Target Corporation is a retail company in Minnesota.
The New York Times Company is a media corporation in New York.
Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp. is a department store
company in New Jersey.
BJ's Wholesale Club Inc. is a variety shop company in
Massachusetts.
Sam Ash Music Corporation is an operator of a chain of musical
instrument retail stores headquartered in New York.
The TJX Companies, LLC, doing business as Marshalls,
180 Maiden Lane, LLC is a multinational off-price department store
corporation, headquartered in Framingham, Massachusetts.
Shop-Rite Supermarkets, Inc. is a retail company in New Jersey.
Barclays Bank PLC, also known as Barclays Bank Delaware, is a
multinational universal bank, headquartered in London, England.
Bnos Bais Yaakov of Far Rockaway is a private school located in Far
Rockaway, New York. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Eric Arbizo, Esq.
Muriel Goode-Trufant
100 Church Street, Room 2-124
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 356-3580
Email: earbizo@law.nyc.gov
OMNI LOGISTICS: Magana Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Gian Magana, individually and on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. OMNI LOGISTICS, LLC;
and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV24638 was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on Feb. 17, 2025, and assigned Case No.
2:25-cv-01337.
On September 23, 2024, Plaintiff commenced an action against OMNI
asserting eight causes of action for failure to pay wages and/or
overtime; failure to keep records and wage order; failure to
provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; violation of
Labor Code; failure to reimburse expenses; penalties pursuant to
Labor Code; and violation of Business & Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Sarah K. Hamilton, Esq.
Dongying Zhang, Esq.
CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP
601 Montgomery Street, Suite 350
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415.918.3000
Email: shamilton@constangy.com
dzhang@constangy.com
PACE UNIVERSITY: Tapinekis Brings Appeal to N.Y. Appellate Div.
---------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH TAPINEKIS has filed an appeal in her lawsuit entitled
Elizabeth Tapinekis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Pace University, Defendant, Case No.
652902/2022, in the lower court of New York.
The appellate case is captioned Elizabeth Tapinekis vs. Pace
University, Case No. 25-00027, in the New York Appellate Division's
First Judicial Department, filed on January 2, 2025.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks refunds of the tuition and fees the Plaintiff and other
members of the proposed class are owed on a pro-rata basis,
together with other damages. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ELIZABETH TAPINEKIS, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, is represented by:
Peter Bryan Katzman, Esq.
MAZZEO SONG & BRADHAM LLP
708 Third Ave., 19th Fl.
New York, NY 10017
PACIFIC MARITIME: Phillips Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacific Maritime
Association, et al. The case is styled as Jasmine Phillips, an
individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Pacific Maritime Association, et al., Case
No. CGC25622431 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Feb. 18,
2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
The Pacific Maritime Association -- https://www.pmanet.org/ -- is a
non-profit organization based in San Francisco, California that
represents employers of the shipping industry on the Pacific
coast.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas James De Blouw, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037-3107
Phone: 858-551-1223
Fax: 858-551-1232
Email: norm@bamlawca.com
PALM SPRINGS: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property
-----------------------------------------------------
Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. PALM SPRINGS MILE ASSOCIATES, LTD.; and
HIALEAH GAS STATION, CORP d/b/a PALM SPRING MILE VALERO, Case No.
1:25-cv-20715-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 14, 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 the business located within the
commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff
encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and
the 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.
PALM SPRINGS MILE ASSOCIATES, LTD., owns, operates, and oversees
the Commercial Property, its general parking lot and parking spots
specific to the business therein, located in Miami Dade County,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beverly Virues, Esq.
Armando Mejias, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, Fl 33134
Phone: (305) 553-3464
Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com
Secondary Emails: amejias@lawgmp.com
jacosta@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL, 33155
Phone: (305) 350-3103
Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com
PARADIGM PROPERTIES: Sued Over Unlawful Acceleration of Rent
------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Crabtree, an individual, and David T. Sheehan, and
individual, on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly
situated v. PARADIGM PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT TEAM, INC., a Florida
corporation, d/b/a "Franklin Point Apartments," and HUNTER
WARFIELD, INC., a Maryland corporation, Case No.
4:25-cv-00066-AW-MAF (N.D. Fla., Feb. 16, 2025), is brought under
the Florida Residential Landlord and Tenant Act ("FRLTA"), the
Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA"), the Federal
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), and for unjust
enrichment/restitution, arising out of the unlawful acceleration of
rent allegedly due following termination of the residential lease
by Paradigm Properties.
Paradigm Properties has violated the FRLTA after terminating the
lease agreement, immediately declaring, and collecting, all future
rents through the end of the lease term owing and due pursuant to
the unlawful Acceleration Provision. Paradigm Properties further
violated the FRLTA by referring the Class Representatives' and
class members’ accounts to a collection agency for the balance of
the accelerated rent prior to the date of expiration of the lease.
In addition, Paradigm Properties' collection practices violate the
FCCPA by asserting legal rights Paradigm Properties knows do not
exist and by engaging in conduct which can reasonably be expected
to abuse or harass consumers. Specifically, Paradigm Properties'
collection communications assert the right to continue to collect
rent and to accelerate the rental payments through the end of the
lease term.
Paradigm Properties has retained Hunter Warfield to collect
unlawful accelerated rent. As with Paradigm Properties, the
collection communications from Hunter Warfield also asserted the
right to collect accelerated rent when no such legal authority
exists. Accordingly, the collection efforts of Hunter Warfield
violated both the FCCPA and FDCPA by inter alia asserting legal
rights Hunter Warfield knew did not exist and by engaging in
conduct which can reasonably be expected to abuse or harass
consumers, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs entered into a residential lease agreement.
Paradigm Properties is engaged in an on-going business as a
residential landlord of rental properties that are marketed towards
young adults and college students.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert W. Murphy, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. MURPHY
440 Premier Circle, Suite 240
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Phone: (434) 328-3100
Fax: (954)763-8660
Email: rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com
PASS SKLAR CENTER: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property
--------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated mobility-impaired individuals v. PASS SKLAR CENTER LTD.
and ALTAS CAFE CORP D/B/A ALTAS CAFE RESTAURANT, Case No.
1:25-cv-20685-JAL (S.D. Fla., Feb. 14, 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 commercial restaurant business within
the subject restaurant in violation of the ADA 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
commercial restaurant. The barriers to access at Defendants'
commercial property and commercial restaurant business 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.
PASS SKLAR CENTER LTD., owns, operates, and oversees the commercial
plaza property, with all areas open to the public.[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
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Judge Dismisses Seat Post Recall Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pelo Buddy reports that a judge has dismissed a proposed class
action lawsuit against Peloton. The suit had alleged that Peloton
had intentionally misled investors related to the original Peloton
Bike seat post recall.
The original lawsuit, which was filed in the summer of 2023 was
centered around how Peloton handled and disclosed a recall over the
Peloton Bike seat post which was issued in May of 2023. The recall
started due to how the seat post could snap off -- which you can
see reports from members with that issue here.
A main concern of the lawsuit was that Peloton had initially
estimated that the seat post recall would cost the company around
$8.4 million. However, the recall ending up costing an additional
$40 million. According to the lawsuit, this, along with other
statements made at the time, ended up causing the stock price to
drop, and impacted Peloton investors.
Based on this, the lawsuit was filed, and had been seeking class
action status for anyone who bought Peloton stock between February
11, 2021, and May 11, 2023.
Peloton had filed a motion for the lawsuit to be dismissed -- and a
judge granted that motion this week. However, the judge is leaving
the door open for the investors to file an updated lawsuit. The
ruling this week said:
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint. The Court grants Plaintiffs leave to
file a second amended complaint. Any second amended complaint must
be filed within 30 days from the filing of this Memorandum and
Order. If a second amended complaint is not timely filed, the Court
will direct the Clerk of Court to enter judgment and close this
case.
In granting Peloton's motion to dismiss, the judge ruled that many
of the statements Peloton had made were protected under the
standard caveats and disclosures that accompany quarterly earnings
reports. Their disclosures at the time had mentioned that recalls
were possible -- providing the company some protection against this
suit.
The judge also decided in their ruling that "Plaintiffs fail to
plead that Defendants made materially misleading statements or
omissions." It went on to note that "Peloton's risk disclosures are
not materially misleading because they explicitly warned investors
that their products "may be affected from time to time by design
and manufacturing defects" that could "adversely affect our
business and result in harm to our reputation."
There was also debate around whether the recall was considered
voluntary or not -- but the judge sided with Peloton here, stating
"Defendants' statements that the Bike recall was "voluntary," and
that Defendants worked cooperatively with the CPSC on the recall
were not false or misleading."
This ruling in Peloton's favor comes after a separate lawsuit
related to Tread & Tread+ patents was dismissed last month. [GN]
PERPETUA RESOURCES: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Perpetua Resources Corp. (NASDAQ: PPTA) resulting
from allegations that Perpetua Resources may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.
So What: If you purchased Perpetua Resources securities you may be
entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees
or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm
is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=35099
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=28937or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
What is this about: On February 13, 2025, after market hours,
Perpetua Resources filed a current report on Form 8-K with the SEC.
This current report stated, in part, that the company had "released
an updated cash flow model for the Stibnite Gold Project (the
"Project"), which is based, in part, on basic engineering work
completed by Ausenco Engineering USA South Inc. ("Ausenco") in
January 2025 (the "Financial Update")." It further stated that the
"Financial Update also applies fourth quarter 2024 cost estimates
for construction and operations, consistent with the Basic
Engineering analysis, as well as current and consensus commodity
pricing for sales. While the Financial Model reflects an increase
in initial and total capital expenditures and LOM AISC compared to
the base model included in the 2020 Feasibility Study, the
corresponding increase in commodity prices resulted in overall
improvements to key economic metrics of Annual Average EBITDA and
Annual Average Free Cash Flow while maintaining a similar after-tax
NPV 5% at consensus pricing."
On this news, Perpetua Resources' common stock fell $2.68 per
share, or 22.3%, to close at $9.29 per share on February 14, 2025.
Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
PFIZER INC: Denelsbeck Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pfizer, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Christine Denelsbeck, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. PFIZER, INC., PHARMACIA
& UPJOHN CO., LLC, PHARMACIA, LLC, PRASCO, LLC doing business as:
PRASCO LABS, GREENSTONE, LLC, VIATRIS, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00230
(W.D. Pa., Feb. 18, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury for Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury.
Pfizer Inc. -- https://www.pfizer.com/ -- is an American
multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology corporation
headquartered at The Spiral in Manhattan, New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 322-9243
Email: kelly@lcllp.com
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Flick Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Flick, for herself and as parent and natural guardian of
M.C., a minor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC, and BAIN CAPITAL, L.P., Case
No. 2:25-cv-00232-DJC-CSK (E.D. Cal., Jan. 16, 2025), is brought
against Defendants for their failure to properly secure and
safeguard Plaintiffs' and other similar situated individuals'
personal identifiable information ("PII"), including but not
limited to students', their parents', and teachers' contact details
such as names and addresses, Social Security numbers (SSNs),
medical information, and grades. (collectively referred to as
"Private Information").
This class action arises out of the Defendants' failure to secure
their cloud storage systems, enabling third party criminals to
access and misuse highly sensitive Private Information from
PowerSchool's cloud storage and systems (the "Data Breach").
The Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendants' failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and
protocols necessary to protect the Private Information exfiltrated.
Defendants could have easily prevented the Data Breach by ensuring
that industry standard cybersecurity practices were implemented and
followed. Had the Defendants implemented and followed cybersecurity
protocol such as limiting individuals' access to files to the
minimum necessary, limiting the quantity of information that could
be downloaded or exported from the system, regularly logged and
limited file access, and otherwise followed applicable standards,
this data breach likely would have been prevented.
The Defendants knew that they carried an important responsibility
to protect the data they collected, assuring their customers –
school districts, students, and staff that they were "committed
being a good custodian of student data, taking all reasonable and
appropriate countermeasures to ensure data confidentiality,
integrity, and availability." Despite these assurances to the
school districts, the Defendants failed to protect the very
customer information they were entrusted to collect, compromising
the personal information of an undisclosed number of their
clients.
As a result of the Defendants' inadequate security and breach of
their duties and obligations, the Private Information of Plaintiffs
and Class Members was compromised through disclosure to an
unauthorized criminal third party. The Plaintiffs and Class Members
have suffered injuries as a direct and proximate result of the
Defendants' conduct, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Flick provided her and her son, M.C.s, Private
Information to San Diego Unified School District, and as a result
to the Defendants.
PowerSchool is a cloud-based software solutions provider for K-12
schools and districts that collects and manages the data of over 60
million students and over 18,000 customers worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Yana Hart, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Phone: (213) 788-4050
Email: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Cho Appeals Summary Judgment to 3rd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG CHO is taking an appeal from a court order granting the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled
Young Cho, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-19886, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA) seeking to remedy losses to the Plan caused by the
Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty and violations of ERISA's
prohibited transaction provisions.
On May 9, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment,
which Judge Jamel K. Semper granted on Dec. 19, 2024. The
Plaintiff's motion to strike the declaration of Russel R. Wermers
was denied. The Defendants' and the Plaintiff's respective motions
to preclude expert testimony were denied as moot.
The appellate case is captioned Young Cho v. Prudential Insurance
Co. of America, et al., Case No. 25-1134, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on January 29, 2025.
[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant YOUNG CHO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Caroline F. Bartlett, Esq.
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
- and -
Alec Berin, Esq.
James C. Shah, Esq.
Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq.
MILLER SHAH
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (610) 891-9880
- and -
James E. Miller, Esq.
MILLER SHAH
65 Main Street
Chester, CT 06412
Telephone: (860) 526-1100
Defendants-Appellees PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA, et al.
are represented by:
Joseph L. Linares, Esq.
Tricia B. O'Reilly, Esq.
WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY & FALANGA
100 Mulberry Street
Three Gateway Center, 15th Floor
Newark, NJ 07102
- and -
Marion R. Harris, Esq.
PRYOR CASHMAN
7 Times Square, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 421-4100
QUEBEC: Appeals Court Includes CISSS in Atikamekw Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marisela Amador and Erika Morris, writing for CTV News, report that
Quebec's Court of Appeal ruled that the Lanaudiere regional health
board can also be included in a class action lawsuit filed by
Atikamekw women from Manawan who claim that they were sterilized
without free and informed consent.
In her ruling, Justice Christine Baudouin found that the health
board, le Centre integre de sante et de services sociaux (CISSS) de
Lanaudiere, could be held liable for faults committed by the board
and some of its employees, including nurses.
"I therefore consider that the representatives have satisfied their
burden of demonstrating the existence of a possibility of winning
the case on the merits against the CISSS for the direct faults
alleged against it," Baudouin wrote.
The judge further stated that "the existence of racism, the CISSS's
failure to take measures to prevent or stop these abuses --
especially given its positive obligations incumbent on it to ensure
the well-being and safety of patients, as alleged -- can form the
basis of an arguable case that is neither frivolous nor manifestly
unfounded."
In August 2023, Quebec Superior Court Justice Lukasz Granosik
authorized a class action lawsuit against three doctors who worked
at the CISSS and were accused of sterilizing Atikamekw women
against their will.
However, Granosik refused to include the Lanaudiere regional health
board in the lawsuit -- Baudouin's judgment overturns that
decision.
The plaintiffs first requested the class action in November 2021.
In the complaint, the women, who are only identified as U.T. and
M.X, state that they went to the CISSS for pregnancy follow-ups and
allege that they were sterilized without their consent following
births at the Joliette hospital, the same hospital where Joyce
Echaquan died in 2020.
Moreover, they argue that the doctors and the regional health board
committed wrongful actions that made them legally responsible and
infringed on their rights, which were protected by the Quebec
Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
"The CISSS failed in its duties and obligations to provide
Indigenous patients with an adequate and safe care environment,"
Baudouin wrote.
"Even if the practice of imposed sterilizations is poorly
documented in Quebec, its systemic nature in the province, as well
as its knowledge by the CISSS, can be considered proven at the
authorization stage."
The judge also found that certain employees of the Lanaudiere
regional health board could have committed faults and be held
liable.
"Finally, the failure of nurses and other hospital staff to report
the accident, despite the alleged knowledge of the doctors'
actions, could serve as a basis for other misconduct against CISSS
employees."
In a statement, the Lanaudiere regional health board said that
given the legal proceedings and its ongoing analysis, it would not
be making any comment.
Recognizing systemic racism
Quebec Native Women Inc., an organization that received intervener
status in the appeal case, welcomed the ruling.
"This decision overturns part of the trial judgment and represents
an essential step towards justice for the survivors and their
families," the organization said in a press release.
"This ruling recognizes the importance of ensuring that victims
have a voice and that institutions are held accountable for their
actions."
President Marjolaine Etienne said that targeting not only the
individual doctors but the CISSS itself shows the issue is also
institutional.
She pointed to a 2022 report by Universite du Quebec en
Abitibi-Temiscamingue researcher Sylvie Basil that included 30
testimonies from Indigenous women who had been sterilized without
their knowledge, consent or knowledge between 1980 and 2019. The
report made prevention recommendations, including that Quebec
officially recognize systemic racism and discrimination.
"It's a larger problem and we have to get to the source of the
issue and make sure concrete measures are taken so Indigenous women
won't be subjected to further unacceptable acts … in our
institutions, namely in hospitals," said Etienne in an interview.
She added that the women are seeking justice as their right to
carry life was infringed on, affecting not only the individual
women but their entire communities.
"This touches many other nations, as per Sylvie Basil's report,"
she said, adding that she admired the Atikamekw women's strength
and courage as they navigate the legal system.
"It's important that the institutional violence that touches women
from different nations . . . stops," she added. "Women want
justice, and with reason."
The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages for
what they claim they suffered.
The allegations included in the class action have not been proven
in court. [GN]
R&B THE COLONY: Santos Sues Over Unlawful Tip Policies
------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Santos and Michael Harris, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. R&B THE COLONY RESTAURANT, LLC AND
BRETT ANZ, INDIVIDUALLY, Case No. 4:25-cv-00156 (E.D. Tex., Feb.
17, 2025), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of unlawful tip
policies and practices.
The Defendants have a policy and practice of paying tipped
employees, including the Plaintiff, a subminimum wage of between
$2.13 and $3.25 per hour pursuant to the tip credit provisions of
the FLSA. However, Defendants failed to provide all the predicate
notice required by the FLSA for employers utilizing the tip
credit.
The Defendants have also failed to pay their tipped employees,
including the Plaintiff, the required federal minimum wage for the
performance of nontipped work unrelated to their tipped occupation.
Additionally, Defendants require all tipped employees, regardless
of whether they are paid above or below minimum wage, to share tips
with Defendants' managers and supervisory personnel. The
Defendants' illegal practices in violation of the FLSA have
resulted in a forfeiture of the "tip credit." Consequently,
Defendants are liable tothe Plaintiff for the full minimum wage for
every hour worked during the statutory time period, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a busser and a server
during the three-year period preceding the filing of this lawsuit.
R&B The Colony Restaurant, LLC and Brett Anz operate a chain of
restaurants in Texas under the assumed name of Rock & Brews
Restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas B. Welmaker
WELMAKER LAW, PLLC
409 N. Fredonia, Suite 118
Longview, TX 75601
Phone: (512) 799-2048
Email: doug@welmakerlaw.com
RIXO RETAIL: Senior Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------
Frank Senior, for himself and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, v. RIXO RETAIL, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01369
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website,
https://rixolondon.com/en-us, including all portions thereof or
accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's
Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.
RIXO RETAIL, LLC, operates the Rixo London online retail store and
physical retail stores, as well as the Rixo London interactive
Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New
York and throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
dana@gottlieb.legal
jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
SEATED INC: Alvarez Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------
Alexandria Alvarez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SEATED, INC., Case No. 8:25-cv-00079-CBM-DFM
(C.D. Cal., Jan. 16, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") as a result of unsolicited
telemarketing text messages.
To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in
telemarketing text messages at unlawful times. Through this action,
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful
conduct which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in
a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class
members. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of
themselves and members of the Class, and any other available legal
or equitable remedies, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person entitled to bring this action
under the TCPA.
The Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
located in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (754) 444-7539
Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com
SECURITY NATIONAL: Araneo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dina Araneo and Kindra Knutson, on behalf themselves and all others
similarly situated v. SECURITY NATIONAL MORTGAGE COMPANY, Case No.
2:25-cv-00119-JNP (D. Utah, Feb. 19, 2025), is brought brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to remedy
Defendant's violations of federal law which have deprived
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees of earned
overtime compensation.
Because they are classified as non-exempt under the FLSA, the
Plaintiffs and the similarly situated non-exempt employees are
entitled to overtime compensation at the rate of one-and-one-half
times their regular rate of pay for all time worked over 40 hours
in a work week. The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiffs and the
other similarly situated non-exempt employees, including but not
limited to Loan Processors, Loan Closers, and Loan Officers, for
all time worked, including overtime hours, in violation of the
FLSA. Specifically, the Defendant has a common, uniform, and
widespread policy and practice which discouraged these non-exempt
employees from reporting overtime hours, that is, any hours over 40
in an individual work week, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Security National as a loan
employee in Scottsdale, Arizona, from November 2021 to
approximately March 2023.
Security National a mortgage lender based in Salt Lake City,
Utah.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
Tamra Givens, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
622 Banyan Rd, Suite 200
Phone: (561) 447-8888
Email: pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com
tgivens@shavitzlaw.com
- and -
David S. Head, Esq.
HEAD LAW, PLLC
5411 S. Vine St., #4A
Murray, UT 84107
Phone: (801) 691-7511
Facsimile: (801) 691-7512
Email: dhead@headlawusa.com
SMART FOODS: Ramirez Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN MARCELO RAMIREZ is taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing his lawsuit entitled Adrian Marcelo Ramirez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Smart Foods Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-12408, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New
Jersey Wage Payment Law.
On July 12, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment, which Judge William J. Martini granted on Dec. 23, 2024.
Count One (overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act)
was dismissed with prejudice. Counts Two (overtime violations under
the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law), Three (minimum wage violations
under the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law), and Four (failure to
timely pay wages in violation of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law)
were dismissed without prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned Adrian Ramirez v. Smart Foods Inc.,
et al., Case No. 25-1184, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit, filed on January 31, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ADRIAN MARCELO RAMIREZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP
225 Broadway, Suite 1700
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 571-0700
Defendants-Appellees SMART FOODS INC., et al. are represented by:
Claudia A. Costa, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI
One Battery Park Plaza, 28th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 269-5500
- and -
David P. Hiester, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI
Three Logan Square
1717 Arch Street, Suite 610
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (856) 261-1329
SPS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Factory Fire
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hayden Mitman, writing for NBC Philadelphia, reports that a group
of attorneys have filed a lawsuit against SPS Technologies after a
factory in Abington Township was destroyed in a fire.
On Thursday, Feb. 20, attorneys from the law offices of Saltz
Mongeluzzi Bendesky and Stranch, Jennings & Garvey jointly filed a
first class-action lawsuit against SPS Technologies on behalf of
one person -- Marlo Jones, who is described in a statement on the
suit as a Wyncote resident and a bus driver for a school district
impacted by the recent fire -- along with "prospective" members of
the class-action suit.
In a statement, the attorneys involved said they believe "hundreds
if not thousands of persons" have been impacted by, what the
attorneys called, a "ferocious four-alarm fire and explosion."
"The fire and explosion was caused by defendant's failures to
inspect, properly maintain, and/or operate its facility, including
the location of the origin of the fire," attorneys claimed in a
statement on the filing. They also claimed that SPS "failed to
uphold industry standards" in facility operations and as a result
"hundreds if not thousands of persons have been damaged."
The fire at SPS Technologies warehouse on 301 Highland Avenue began
on Monday, Feb. 17, at 9:43 p.m. after an explosion was heard at
the site.
Officials said at least 60 employees were inside the building at
the time. They were all evacuated and accounted for. No injuries
were reported.
However, the fire led to school shutdowns and residents were told
to shelter in place after officials initially said there were
concerns that firefighting materials could have reacted with
chemicals onsite to create arsenic -- though, they found no
evidence of that occurring. [GN]
SSS CABLE: Sanchez Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Linemen
---------------------------------------------------------------
RUBEN SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SSS CABLE LLC and FLAVIA S. FERNANDEZ,
Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-20690 (S.D. Fla., February 14, 2025)
is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a lineman from March
2024 until his termination on October 9, 2024.
SSS Cable LLC is a company doing business in Miami-Dade County,
Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julisse Jimenez, Esq.
THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, PA
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 482-1475
Email: julisse@legalopinionusa.com
TECTA AMERICA: Claytor Sues Over Recent Data Security Incident
--------------------------------------------------------------
Danella Claytor, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. TECTA AMERICA CORP., Case No. 1:25-cv-00525 (N.D. Ill.,
Jan. 16, 2025), is brought arising out of the recent data security
incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant
(the "Data Breach"), which held in its possession certain
personally identifiable information ("PII" or the "Private
Information") of Plaintiff and other customers of Defendant, the
putative class members ("Class").
This Data Breach occurred between September 20 and October 2, 2024.
The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included
certain personal information of Defendant's customers, including
Plaintiff. TAC informed Plaintiff, "Our investigation determined
that your Social Security number, driver's license number, and/or
financial account information and name were potentially accessed
and/or acquired by an unknown, unauthorized actor as a result of
this incident."
The Private Information was acquired by cyber-criminals who
perpetrated the attack and remains in the hands of those
cyber-criminals. The Defendant has reported to the Maine Attorney
General's office that the personal information of 22,573
individuals was affected in the data breach. The Data Breach
resulted from Defendant's failure to implement adequate and
reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to
protect individuals' Private Information with which it was
entrusted for business relationships.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those
similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding
of Class Members' Private Information that it collected and
maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice
to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information was
subjected to unauthorized access by an unknown third party and
precisely what type of information was accessed, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff provided Defendant with her sensitive PII as part of
the process of doing business with Defendant.
The Defendant is a nationwide roofing contractor.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sean Short, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AK 72211
Phone: (800) 615-4946
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
Email: sean@sanfordlawfirm.com
- and -
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
EKSM, LLP
4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (888) 350-3931
Fax: (888) 276-3455
Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com
TIKTOK INC: Griffith Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
BERNADINE GRIFFITH, et al. are taking an appeal from court orders
in the lawsuit entitled Bernadine Griffith, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
TikTok Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-00964-SB-E, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of the
California Consumer Privacy Act ("CCPA").
On June 21, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class,
which Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. denied on Sept. 9, 2024. The
Court ruled that the Plaintiffs have not met their burden under
Rule 23 to show that any of the proposed classes should be
certified.
On Sept. 23, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Sept. 9 Order, which Judge Blumenfeld denied
on Oct. 22, 2024.
On Dec. 24, 2024, Judge Blumenfeld entered an Order granting the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Court held that the
Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
claims for statutory larceny and conversion. The Plaintiffs'
remaining claims were dismissed on the merits with prejudice.
On Dec. 27, 2024, final judgment was entered in favor of the
Defendants.
The appellate case is captioned Griffith, et al. v. TikTok Inc., et
al., Case No. 25-553, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, filed on January 28, 2025.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on February 3,
2025;
-- Appellant's Transcript Order was due on February 6, 2025;
-- Appellant's Transcript is due on March 10, 2025;
-- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on April 17, 2025;
and
-- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on May 19, 2025.
[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants BERNADINE GRIFFITH, et al., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Ekwan E. Rhow, Esq.
Marc Masters, Esq.
BIRD, MARELLA, RHOW, LINCENBERG, DROOKS, & NESSIM, LLP
1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
- and -
Jonathan M. Rotter, Esq.
Kara Wolke, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY, LLP
1925 Century Park, E. Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
- and -
Kalpana Srinivasan, Esq.
Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Defendants-Appellees TIKTOK INC., et al. are represented by:
Victor Hao-Jan Jih, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, PC
633 W. 5th Street, Suite 1550
Los Angeles, CA 90071
- and -
Anthony Weibell, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
3000 El Camino Real Two
Palo Alto Square
Palo Alto, CA 94306
- and -
Dylan Grace Savage, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, PC
1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10019
- and -
Mark Remy Yohalem, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, PC
953 East Third Street
Los Angeles, CA 90013
- and -
Thomas Robert Wakefield, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, PC
Spear Tower One Market Plaza, Suite 3300
San Francisco, CA 94105
TOAST INC: Morgan Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
----------------------------------------------------------------
PARADISE MORGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TOAST, INC. and GOOD SUGAR LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 1:25-cv-01333 (S.D.N.Y., February 14, 2025) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of Title III of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights
Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, the New York City Human
Rights Law, and declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendants' website,
www.order.toasttab.com/online/goodsugar, contains access barriers
which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits
of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public
through the website. The accessibility issues on the website
include but not limited to: lack of alt-text on graphics,
inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, the
lack of adequate prompting and labeling, the denial of keyboard
access, empty links that contain no text, redundant links where
adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that
transactions be performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendants' corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that their website will become and remain accessible
to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Toast, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in
New York.
Good Sugar LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, PC
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Telephone: (917) 373-9128
Email: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com
URBAN OUTFITTERS: Alvarez Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandria Alvarez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. URBAN OUTFITTERS, INC., Case No.
8:25-cv-00080-FMO-DFM (C.D. Cal., Jan. 16, 2025), is brought
pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") as a
result of unsolicited telemarketing text messages.
To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in
telemarketing text messages at unlawful times. Through this action,
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful
conduct which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in
a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class
members. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of
themselves and members of the Class, and any other available legal
or equitable remedies, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person entitled to bring this action
under the TCPA.
The Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (754) 444-7539
Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com
UTAH HIGH: Appeals Prelim. Injunction Order in Szymakowski Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
UTAH HIGH SCHOOL ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATION, et al. are taking an
appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion for
preliminary injunction in the lawsuit entitled Zachary Szymakowski,
et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Utah High School Activities Association,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-CV-00751-RJS-CMR, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Utah.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
arises from the unjust and discriminatory actions taken by the Utah
High School Activities Association, Inc. (UHSAA), which have
adversely impacted the Plaintiff, an international student-athlete,
and other foreign students.
On Oct. 31, 2024, Plaintiff Zachary Szymakowski filed a motion for
preliminary injunction and memorandum, which Judge Robert J. Shelby
granted on Jan. 2, 2025. Judge Shelby held that UHSAA is enjoined
from enforcing the challenged portion of the Student Visa
Eligibility Rule, Interps & Guidelines 1.9.3(B)(1), pending the
final resolution of the case. The court further held that it finds
no need for the Plaintiffs to pay a bond under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 65(c).
The appellate case is captioned Szymakowski, et al. v. Utah High
School Activities Association, et al., Case No. 25-4013, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on
January 30, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees ZACHARY SZYMAKOWSKI, et al., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Tanner Brad Camp, Esq.
Tyler Anne Dever, Esq.
Wesley F. Harward, Esq.
David J. Jordan, Esq.
Charles Dennis Morr, Esq.
FOLEY & LARDNER
95 South State Street, Suite 2500
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 401-8900
Defendants-Appellants UTAH HIGH SCHOOL ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATION, et
al. are represented by:
Chaunceton Bird, Esq.
Daniel J. Nelson, Esq.
Douglas Craig Parry, Esq.
PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS
101 South 200 East, Suite 700
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 532-7840
- and -
Mark O. Van Wagoner, Esq.
SAVAGE YEATES & WALDRON
2455 E. Parleys Way, Suite 200
Salt Lake City, UT 84109
Telephone: (801) 328-2200
[^] Class Action Conference Opening Night Cocktail Reception May 7
------------------------------------------------------------------
Registration is now open for the 9TH ANNUAL CLASS ACTION MONEY &
ETHICS CONFERENCE, to be held May 7-8, 2025, at The Harmonie Club,
New York City. The 2025 Conference Agenda will be announced
shortly so stay tuned for updates.
Once a year, the top industry experts gather together to discuss
the latest topics and trends in class action. This value-packed
event features special presentations from keynote speakers and live
panel discussions with industry experts, and provides networking
opportunities with other professionals.
Register at https://www.classactionconference.com Breakfast and
lunch included.
Join us for the OPENING NIGHT COCKTAIL RECEPTION on May 7 from 5-7
p.m. also at The Harmonie Club. Enjoy specialty cocktails and hors
d'oeuvres with other professionals attending the conference. There
is no additional cost to attend the opening reception. The
reception is included in the cost of conference registration so
join us!
Missed last year's event? Check the 2024 CAME conference agenda at
https://www.classactionconference.com/agenda.html Videos of the
conference are available on-demand at
https://www.classactionconference.com/2024-video-replays.html
For sponsorship opportunities, contact:
Will Etchison
Tel: 305-707-7493
E-mail: will@beardgroup.com
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carrier Global Defends Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
Carrier Global Corporation has been named as a defendant in
lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos allegedly integrated into certain Carrier products or
business premises, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Carrier Global states, "While the Company has never manufactured
asbestos and no longer incorporates it into any
currently-manufactured products, certain products that the Company
no longer manufactures contained components incorporating asbestos.
A substantial majority of these asbestos-related claims have been
dismissed without payment or have been covered in full or in part
by insurance or other forms of indemnity. Additional cases were
litigated and settled without any insurance reimbursement. The
amounts involved in asbestos-related claims were not material
individually or in the aggregate in any period. The amounts
recorded for asbestos-related liabilities are based on currently
available information and assumptions that the Company believes are
reasonable and are made with input from outside actuarial experts.
These amounts are undiscounted and exclude the Company's legal fees
to defend the asbestos claims, which are expensed as incurred. In
addition, the Company has recorded insurance recovery receivables
for probable asbestos-related recoveries."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i1UPZY
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Estimates $4.3MM Net Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation has estimated its net
asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs
to range between $4,300,000 and $7,900,000, net of insurance
recoveries, using actuarial parameters of continued claims for a
period of 38 years from December 31, 2024, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Columbus McKinnon states, "Like many industrial manufacturers, the
Company is involved in asbestos-related litigation. In continually
evaluating costs relating to its estimated asbestos-related
liability, the Company reviews, among other things, the incidence
of past and recent claims, the historical case dismissal rate, the
mix of the claimed illnesses and occupations of the plaintiffs, its
recent and historical resolution of the cases, the number of cases
pending against it, the status and results of broad-based
settlement discussions, and the number of years such activity might
continue. Based on this review, the Company has estimated its share
of liability to defend and resolve probable asbestos-related
personal injury claims. This estimate is highly uncertain due to
the limitations of the available data and the difficulty of
forecasting with any certainty the numerous variables that can
affect the range of the liability. The Company will continue to
study the variables in light of additional information in order to
identify trends that may become evident and to assess their impact
on the range of liability that is probable and estimable."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XcKJfa
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coty Inc. Defends Product Liability Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
Coty Inc. has been named as a defendant in numerous civil actions
alleging that certain cosmetic talcum powder products sold by them
were contaminated with asbestos leading to bodily injury, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Most of these actions involve a number of
co-defendants and, to date, many such actions have been resolved by
settlement or other resolution acceptable to the Company. In each
of the previous fiscal years the value of settlements, both
individually and in the aggregate, has not been material but, due
to the rising number of filed and pending cases against the
Company, as well as the evolving litigation landscape, settlement
values and other costs associated with these cases are likely to
increase in the future. The Company believes that a limited portion
of its costs incurred in defending and resolving certain of these
claims will be covered by insurance policies issued by several
insurance carriers, subject to deductibles, exclusions, retentions
and policy limits and in some cases there may be indemnity
obligations of third parties. While the Company and its legal
counsel intend to continue to defend these cases vigorously, there
can be no assurances regarding the ultimate resolution of these
matters, individually or collectively. The Company has accrued for
such litigation when the likelihood of loss is probable and a
reasonable estimate of such loss can be made, and such accruals are
not material to the Company's condensed consolidated financial
statements. However, the range of reasonably possible losses in
excess of accrued liabilities currently cannot be reasonably
estimated.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=F2ssY5
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor Co. Faces Personal Injury Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company, along with other vehicle manufacturers, has
been the target of asbestos litigation and, as a result, a
defendant in various actions for injuries claimed to have resulted
from alleged exposure to Ford parts and other products containing
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Plaintiffs in these personal injury cases
allege various health problems as a result of asbestos exposure,
either from component parts found in older vehicles, insulation or
other asbestos products in our facilities, or asbestos aboard our
former maritime fleet. We believe that we are targeted more
aggressively in asbestos suits because many previously targeted
companies have filed for bankruptcy or emerged from bankruptcy
relieved of liability for such claims.
"Most of the asbestos litigation we face involves individuals who
claim to have worked on the brakes of our vehicles. We are prepared
to defend these cases and believe that the scientific evidence
confirms our long-standing position that there is no increased risk
of asbestos-related disease as a result of exposure to the type of
asbestos formerly used in the brakes on our vehicles. The extent of
our financial exposure to asbestos litigation remains very
difficult to estimate and could include both compensatory and
punitive damage awards. The majority of our asbestos cases do not
specify a dollar amount for damages; in many of the other cases the
dollar amount specified is the jurisdictional minimum, and the vast
majority of these cases involve multiple defendants. Some of these
cases may also involve multiple plaintiffs, and we may be unable to
tell from the pleadings which plaintiffs are making claims against
us (as opposed to other defendants). Annual payout and defense
costs may become significant in the future. Our accrual for
asbestos matters includes probable losses for both asserted and
unasserted claims.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=92rXSq
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation has been named as a defendant in lawsuits
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos allegedly
contained in or accompanying its products or from exposure to
asbestos at the Company's facilities, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We are a co-defendant with numerous other
defendants in these lawsuits and intend to vigorously defend
ourselves against these claims. The claims in most of our current
lawsuits are similar to those made in previous asbestos lawsuits
that named us as a defendant. Such previous lawsuits either were
dismissed when it was shown that we had not supplied products to
the plaintiffs' places of work, or were settled by us for
immaterial amounts. We believe that the resolution of these
asbestos-related lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect
on our financial position or results of operations. However, legal
matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and there exists the
possibility that the ultimate resolution of these asbestos-related
lawsuits could have a material adverse impact on our financial
position and results of operations."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=my28qd
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Still Defends Exposure Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. (HII) and its
predecessors-in-interest are defendants in a longstanding series of
cases that have been and continue to be filed in various
jurisdictions around the country, wherein former and current
employees and various third parties allege exposure to asbestos
containing materials while on or associated with HII premises or
while working on vessels constructed or repaired by HII, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
Huntington Ingalls states, "The costs to resolve cases during the
years ended December 31, 2024, 2023, and 2022 were not material
individually or in the aggregate. The Company's estimate of
asbestos-related liabilities is subject to uncertainty because
liabilities are influenced by many variables that are inherently
difficult to predict. Although the Company believes the ultimate
resolution of current cases will not have a material effect on its
consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash
flows, it cannot predict what new or revised claims or litigation
might be asserted or what information might come to light and can,
therefore, give no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of
asbestos related litigation."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hTywbA
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l. Accrues $15.8MM Asbestos Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lennox International Inc. has reported accrued asbestos reserves of
$15.8 million as of December 31, 2024, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We are involved in various claims and lawsuits
incidental to our business, including those involving intellectual
property infringement, labor relations, alleged exposure to
asbestos-containing materials, and environmental matters, some of
which claim significant damages. Estimates related to our claims
and lawsuits, including estimates for asbestos-related claims and
related insurance recoveries, involve numerous uncertainties. Given
the inherent uncertainty of litigation and estimates, we cannot be
certain that existing claims or litigation or any future adverse
legal developments will not have a material adverse impact on our
financial condition."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2gSGcR
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc., (including its subsidiaries) have been
named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components
of its products many years ago, including products from divested
businesses for which they have agreed to defend and indemnify
claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Currently there are lawsuits that name us as
defendants, together with hundreds of other companies. But in all
cases, for those claimants who do show that they worked with our
products or products of divested businesses for which we are
responsible, we nevertheless believe we have meritorious defenses,
in substantial part due to the integrity of the products, the
encapsulated nature of any asbestos-containing components, and the
lack of any impairing medical condition caused by our products. We
defend those cases vigorously. However, in the case of claims
involving a small number of our divested businesses, certain of our
agreements relating to those divestitures do not provide us the
ability to directly control management of those asbestos claims,
and our ongoing reimbursement of outside counsel and other expenses
relating to defense of such claims represent the vast majority of
our annual asbestos net litigation spend. Historically, we have
been dismissed from the vast majority of asbestos claims with no
payment to claimants.
"Additionally, we have maintained insurance coverage that includes
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for many of these claims. We believe these arrangements
will provide substantial coverage for future defense and indemnity
costs for these asbestos claims for many years into the future. The
uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation make it difficult to
predict accurately the ultimate outcome of asbestos claims. That
uncertainty is increased by the possibility of adverse rulings or
new legislation affecting asbestos claim litigation or the
settlement process. Subject to these uncertainties and based on our
experience defending asbestos claims, we do not believe these
lawsuits will have a material effect on our business, financial
condition, or results of operations."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LA1yJY
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trane Tech Defends Product Liability Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trane Technologies plc's wholly-owned subsidiaries and former
companies of the Company have been named as defendants in
asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal courts, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The vast majority of those claims were filed against predecessors
of Aldrich and Murray and generally allege injury caused by
exposure to asbestos contained in certain historical products sold
by predecessors of Aldrich or Murray, primarily pumps, boilers and
railroad brake shoes. None of the Company's existing or
previously-owned businesses were a producer or manufacturer of
asbestos.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dtIYCR
*********
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 ***