/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250314.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, March 14, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 53
Headlines
84 LUMBER: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to April 30
AFRO UNICORN INC: Fagnani Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
AGC CHEMICALS: Aimone Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
AGC CHEMICALS: Klaus Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
AGC CHEMICALS: Marsh Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
ALAMEDA, CA: Bid to Withdraw as Counsel in Gonzalez Suit Granted
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Bid for Settlement Approval in Snow Suit Denied
ALISHA TAFOYA: Riley, et al. Prisoner Civil Rights Case Tossed
ALLEGHENY HEALTH: Couchenour Sues Over Clients' Compromised Info
ALLEGHENY HEALTH: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Lynch Says
ALLEGHENY HEALTH: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in W.W. Suit
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extension Sought
AMAZON.COM INC: Issuance of FLSA Notice Extended to March 30
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to May 12
AMERICAN RENAL: Fails to Protect Patients' Data, Class Suit Says
ASK MEDIA: Seeks to Dismiss Insurance King Class Action
BANK OF AMERICA: Checking Account Holder Class Gets Certification
BIG TEXAN: Stringer Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Collective Action
BITCOIN DEPOT: Bids to Compel Arbitration in Mooneyham Suit OK'd
BLOCK.ONE: Class Member Can't Challenge Cy Press Distribution
BOYKIN FARMS: Lopez Seeks More Time to File Reply to Opposition
BOYNE USA INC: Court Certifies Class in Anderson
BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE: Court Narrows Claims in Caughey Lawsuit
CANALI USA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Isakov Alleges
CARVANA CO: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Zarabi Family Trust Wins Bid for Consolidation
CENGAGE LEARNING: Class Settlement in Bernstein Gets Approval
CHAROEN POKPHAND: Fish Infestation Class Action Goes to Trial
CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Rodriguez Suit in Illinois
CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Waldrop Class Suit
CINEMARK USA: Continues to Defend Bruce Class Suit in Tennessee
CINEMARK USA: Continues to Defend Narayan Class Suit in California
CLARIVATE PLC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
CLEAN SUPPS: Gray Sues Auto Renewed Subscriptions, Fake Discounts
COURIER PLUS: Wins Partial Bid to Dismiss Claims in Hempnotize
DAMERON HOSPITAL: Settles Data Breach Class Lawsuit for $650,000
DAVIDS NATURAL: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Continued to Sept. 4
DELUXE MEDIA: Bid to Certify Richter Class Action Vacated
DISA GLOBAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Durgin Suit Alleges
DOLGENCORP LLC: Wins Bid for Individual Arbitration in Button Suit
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Combs Alleges
E.L.F. COSMETICS: Faces Class Action Over Half Empty Containers
EHEALTHINSURANCE: Court Narrows Claims in Nichols, et al. TCPA Suit
ESSENTIA HEALTH: Court Narrows Claims in Okash Suit
FEMA: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
FERTILITY CENTERS: Discloses Patient Info to 3rd Party, Suit Says
FIELD FRESH FOODS: Jorge Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE: Must Face IWPCA Claim in Graves Suit
FRANKLIN & MARSHALL: Doyle Seeks Prelim. Approval of Settlement
GARDNER TRUCKING: Class Settlement in Leuzinger Gets Final Nod
GCCF: DeHerrera et al. Prisoner Civil Rights Lawsuit Tossed
GENERAC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Consumer Class Suit
GENERAC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Wisconsin
GRAND CANYON: Ogdon Class Suit Trial Date Still Not Set
GRAND CANYON: Smith and Wang Suit Trial Date Still Not Set
GROUNDHOG ENTERPRISES: Catered Fit Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
HERBALIFE LTD: Continues to Defend DeSimone Labor Class Suit
HERSHEY COMPANY: Has Until April 4 to File Class Cert Response
HIGH SPEED ROOTER: Portilla Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
ILEARNINGENGINES INC: Lead Roles Named in Walker Securities Suit
IN RE REGIONAL: Court Consolidates Six Related Data Breach Suits
INTRASYSTEMS LLC: Herman Balks at Unauthorized Personal Info Access
ISU PETASYS CORP: Garfias Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
JENELLE'S KITCHEN: Bonilla Sues Over Unpaid Regular, Overtime Wages
JPMORGAN CHASE: Santourian Labor Case Remanded to State Court
KELLE'S TRANSPORT: Misclassifies Drivers, Bracey Suit Alleges
KRISTI NOEM: Must Produce Operative Guidance Docs by March 17
LFG CORP: Faces Curtis Class Suit Over Telemarketing Calls
LIFE LINE: Sweeden Files Employment Suit in California State Court
LIGHTSPEED COMMERCE: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit
LINEAGE LOGISTICS: Arbitration Bid in Mitchell Suit OK'd in Part
LINEAGE LOGISTICS: Bid for Arbitration in Saul Suit OK'd in Part
LJULJA BEAUTY: Fagnani Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
LOAN DEPOT LLC: Leon Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
MARAVAI LIFESCIENCES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
MATTEL INC: $19-M Deal in Infant Sleeper Suit Granted Final OK
MDL 2873: Faces McGhee Suit Over AFFF/TOG Products' Toxic Elements
MDL 2873: Hoerner Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF/TOG Products
MDL 2873: Kerr Suit Claims Toxic Exposure From AFFF/TOG Products
MERRILL LYNCH: Settlement in Council Suit Has Prelim. Approval
MONEY SOURCE: Hiller Files Bid for Class Certification
MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Continues to Defend Maloney Class Suit
MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Schaub Class Suit Settlement for Court OK
NEW YORK, NY: Abdelrahim Loses Bid to Opt Out of Settlement
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Court Dismisses Amended Securities Complaint
NORTHSTAR CAFE: Court Approves Joint FLSA Notice in Highman Suit
OLIN CORPORATION: Landel Sues Over Unlawful Shortchanging Retirees
PARKHOUSE TIRE: Dubon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PAVEMENT COATINGS: Hart Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PEACHY CORP: S. M. Files Suit in E.D. New York
PHARMAVITE LLC: Bid to Dismiss Hamzeh Class Suit Tossed
PHH MORTGAGE: Dobrosi Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation
PHILLIP MISCH: US Lighting Files Suit in Ohio Ct. of Common Pleas
PILLPACK LLC: Williams Must Seek Final Deal Approval by March 18
PLAID PANTRY: Kay Action Remanded to Multnomah County Cir. Court
POLAR BEVERAGES: Gradney Sues Over Deceptive Advertising
PRIME THERAPEUTICS: Brown Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
QDOBA RESTAURANT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cantwell Says
QUALITY CARRIERS: Smith Seeks Conditional Status of Collective
R.T. FARM: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 28
RAMALES GRILL: Faces Martinez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
RAUL LABRADOR: Transgender Inmates Win Preliminary Injunction
RB ROYAL: Class Settlement in Bohnert Suit Gets Final Nod
READING COOPERATIVE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Bess Alleges
RECOVER-CARE SHAWNEE: Vasquez Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
REDNER'S MARKETS: Chuss Suit Seeks Conditional Certification
REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Loses Bid to Dismiss Washington GBL Class Suit
ROCKET MORTGAGE: Rule 72(a) Objection to Discovery Ruling Overruled
RUGSUSA LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hong Extended to August 26
RURAL MEDIA: Court Refuses to Transfer Wissel Suit to California
SAFE AND SECURE: Cline Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SAFECO INSURANCE: Ginsburg Suit Removed to C.D. California
SAN DIEGO, CA: ADA Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay
SCOTT MCMILLIN: Court Tosses Ecasali Housing Discrimination Suit
SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Court Consolidates Two Securities Class Actions
SERVICE SANITATION: Foster Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
SHERATON OPERATING: Asks Court to Set Class Cert Briefing Schedule
SHIFT4 PAYMENTS: Rule 11 Sanctions Unwarranted in Securities Suit
SHNEUR ZALMAN OSDOBA: Doe Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
SIGNATURE HEALTH: Nelson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
SINGULARITY FUTURE: Continues to Defend Crivellaro Class Suit in NY
SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS: Faces Nunez Class Suit Over Common Stock Drop
SOUTH CAROLINA: Issues Parking Tickets to Nonresidents, Maurer Says
STAKE CENTER: Class Cert Bid Filing Referred to Magistrate Judge
STATE FARM: Loses Bid to Extend Time to File Response
STEVE MADDEN: Faces Class Action Suit Over Telemarketing Calls
SUNRUN INC: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by March 20
SUNRUN INC: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Response
TAPESTRY INC: Del Valle Sues to Recover Delinquent Wage Payments
TELEFLEX INC: Bleichmar Probes Potential Securities Class Suit
TESLA INC: Wins Summary Judgment in Ball Stockholder Class Suit
TMX FINANCE: Kolstedt Suit Seeks Initial OK of Class Settlement
TRACY LOGISTICS: Supplemental Briefing Ordered in Shanley Suit
TRIDENT MARITIME: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Jefferson Claims
TWITTER INC: Class Cert Briefing in Frederick-Osborn Revised
UDEMY INC: Continues to Defend VPPA Class Suit in New York
UNITED LENDING: Ettenger Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York
UNITED PARCEL: Brown Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Reply
UNITED PARCEL: Saechao Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
UNITED STATES: Court Approves Consent Decree
V.T. MOTORS LLC: Straker Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
VECTRARX MAIL: Maynor Seeks to Appoint Shamis & Gentile as Counsel
VERVENT INC: Plaintiffs Awarded $4M Attorneys' Fees
WALMART INC: Golikov Wins Bid for Class Certification
WARREN TRANSPORT: Beissel Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
WELLS FARGO: Settles Call Recording Class Suit for $19.5-Mil.
WEMLO LLC: Kim Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Loan Processors
WOODLANDS STORE: Carballo Files Labor Suit in Cal. State Court
XACTUS LLC: Rosengarten Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
YESHIVAT SHVUT YEHUDA: Doe Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
ZACKS INVESTMENT: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Bicker Alleges
ZEBRA STRATEGIES: Class Cert Bid Filing in Gross Due Oct. 27
ZETA GLOBAL: Konigsberg, ACERS Approved as Lead Plaintiffs
ZOOMINFO: Court Consolidates Two Shareholder Derivative Suits
[^] Class Action Money & Ethics Conference 2025 -- The Sponsors
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Faces 3,646 Product Liability Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alcoa Corp. Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burlington Northern Defends Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECO Environmental Faces Product Liability Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Still Faces Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enviri Corp. Has 17,000 Pending PI Actions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ESAB Corp. Records $294.1MM Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GATX Corp. Defends Personal Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Genuine Parts Accrues $256MM for Product Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Insurance Reports $10.9MM Net A&E Reserve
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp. Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingredion Inc. Faces Asbestos Related Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Int'l. Paper Records $100MM Claims Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Co-Defends 1,300 Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Defends 1,300 Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Markel Group Reports $122.1MM Gross A&E Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Merck & Co. Has 415 Pending Cases as of Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Faces 2,936 New Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Tech. Defends Over 600 Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Defends Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paramount Global Receives 3,100 New PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair plc Has 690 Pending Claims as of Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Has $45MM Reserves as of Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regal Rexnord Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Reports $5.4MM Current Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Fire Group Has $0.7MM A&E Loss Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. R. Berkley Reports $16MM Net A&E Reserves
*********
84 LUMBER: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to April 30
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGEL RUNCIMAN,
individually, on behalf of the Amended and Restated Savings Fund
Plan for Employees of 84 Lumber Company, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. 84 LUMBER COMPANY, ADMINISTRATIVE
COMMITTEE of the Amended and Restated Savings Fund Plan for
Employees of 84 Lumber Company, JOHN DOES 1-30 in their capacities
as members of the Administrative Committee, Case No.
2:24-cv-00852-MPK (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Maureen Kelly entered
an order granting the Parties' joint motion to extend deadlines in
the Court's scheduling order.
The current deadlines for:
-- Class certification discovery is set for Mar. 30, 2025 is
extended to Apr. 30, 2025.
-- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification, memorandum in
support, and all supporting evidence for May 15, 2025, is
extended to June 15, 2025.
-- The Defendants' memorandum in opposition to class
certification and all supporting evidence for June 12, 2025,
is extended to July 15, 2025.
-- The Plaintiff's reply memorandum in support of class
certification, due by June 27, 2025, is extended to July 31,
2025.
-- Defendants' sur-reply, if necessary, due by July 14, 2025, is
extended to Aug. 14, 2025.
84 Lumber is an operated American building materials supply
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 27, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0rJpuk at no extra
charge.[CC]
AFRO UNICORN INC: Fagnani Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mykayla Fagnani, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons v. AFRO UNICORN, INC., Case No.
1:25-cv-01739 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2025), is brought this civil
rights action against the Defendant for their failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their 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://afrounicorns.com/, including all portions thereof or
accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's
Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen reading software to read website content using the
computer.
AFRO UNICORN, INC., operates the Afro Unicorns online retail store,
as well as the Afro Unicorns 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.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
dana@gottlieb.legal
AGC CHEMICALS: Aimone Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Aimone, and other similarly situated v. AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S.
INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB
FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS,
INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC;
GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA,INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY
LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES,
INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.; a, W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), Case No.
2:25-cv-00482-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 24, 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 testicular cancer, Thyroid Disease and other injuries, as a
result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG 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:
Eric W. Cracken, Esq.
Steven D. Davis, Esq.
TORHOERMAN LAW LLC
210 S. Main Street
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Phone: 618-656-4400
Facsimile: 618-656-4401
AGC CHEMICALS: Klaus Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Klaus, and other similarly situated v. AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S.
INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB
FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS,
INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC;
GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA,INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY
LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES,
INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.; a, W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), Case No.
2:25-cv-00483-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 24, 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 other injuries, as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF or TOG 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:
Eric W. Cracken, Esq.
Steven D. Davis, Esq.
TORHOERMAN LAW LLC
210 S. Main Street
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Phone: 618-656-4400
Facsimile: 618-656-4401
AGC CHEMICALS: Marsh Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lane Marsh, and other similarly situated v. AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S.
INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB
FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS,
INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC;
GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA,INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY
LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES,
INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.; a, W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), Case No.
2:25-cv-00478-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 24, 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 testicular cancer and other injuries, as a result of exposure
to Defendants' AFFF or TOG 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:
Eric W. Cracken, Esq.
Steven D. Davis, Esq.
TORHOERMAN LAW LLC
210 S. Main Street
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Phone: 618-656-4400
Facsimile: 618-656-4401
ALAMEDA, CA: Bid to Withdraw as Counsel in Gonzalez Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants the motion to withdraw as
counsel for Plaintiff Darryl Geyer in the lawsuit captioned DANIEL
GONZALEZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-07423-JSC (N.D. Cal.).
The Plaintiffs' counsel, Yolanda Huang, Richard Brody, and Thomas
Nanney, seek leave to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff Darryl
Geyer. While Mr. Geyer has submitted several filings alleging
misconduct, he has not explicitly responded to Counsel's request to
withdraw.
Counsel seeks to withdraw from representation of Plaintiff Darryl
Geyer because "irretrievable breakdown in communication between
attorneys and client have resulted in a fundamental disagreement as
to the prosecution of this matter."
Judge Corley finds that good cause exists for Counsel's withdrawal
from representation of Plaintiff Geyer. It is apparent from review
of Mr. Geyer's communications that a fundamental breakdown in
communication has occurred between Counsel and Mr. Geyer. While Mr.
Geyer does not explicitly fire Counsel, he makes several claims of
"misconduct," which make it no longer possible for Counsel to
effectively represent him.
The Court need not resolve those claims here, but they will be
considered in the context of any motion for preliminary approval of
the class action settlement.
Because Counsel's motion was not accompanied by the simultaneous
appearance of substitute counsel for Plaintiff Geyer or Plaintiff
Geyer's agreement to represent himself, Judge Corley says Counsel
will continue to be served for forwarding purposes unless and until
Plaintiff Geyer appears by other counsel or representing himself.
Counsel will provide notice to Plaintiff Geyer of this Order and
her obligation to accept service on Plaintiff Geyer's behalf and
will file proof of service of the same within three days of this
Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2wsbak4e from PacerMonitor.com.
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Bid for Settlement Approval in Snow Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denies the renewed motion for preliminary
settlement approval filed in the lawsuit styled MISTY SNOW, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-03269-VC (N.D. Cal.).
Judge Chhabria holds that the renewed motion for preliminary
approval is denied. Judge Chhabria notes that the Defendant in this
antitrust case is a monopolist. The proposed settlement includes a
coupon program that will direct still more customers to the
monopolist.
"It's not clear that such a settlement would ever be appropriate in
an antitrust class action against a monopolist. But regardless, the
parties have not convinced the Court that it would be fair,
reasonable, and adequate on these facts," Judge Chhabria says.
The parties informed the Court that they would work to achieve an
alternative settlement structure if this one were rejected.
Accordingly, rather than resuming the litigation immediately, the
Court will set a case management conference for April 18, 2025, to
give the parties an opportunity to submit a new settlement for
approval.
In the event none is offered, the Court will issue a more detailed
ruling explaining the denial of this motion, and a new litigation
schedule will be set at the case management conference.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/wfdrc54k from PacerMonitor.com.
ALISHA TAFOYA: Riley, et al. Prisoner Civil Rights Case Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Judge Martha Vazquez of the United States District Court for
the District of New Mexico dismissed the case captioned as TYLER
RILEY, et al, Plaintiffs, v. ALISHA TAFOYA, et al, Defendants, Case
No. 24-cv-0384-MV-KK (D.N.M.) without prejudice.
This matter is before the Court on the Prisoner Civil Rights
Complaints and supplemental filings in this case, which were filed
by or on behalf of the following Inmate-Plaintiffs: Tyler Riley;
Manuel Calvillo; Ryder Timaj Cadena-Powell; Clifton B. Stevenson;
Patrick Hubson; Wesley D. Gilmore; Jaime Gomez; and Dennis Hendren.
The Inmate-Plaintiffs seek to prosecute a pro se class action
lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The claims primarily challenge
their confinement, including prison classifications. As a threshold
issue, the Court must determine whether it is permissible or
feasible for eight Inmate-Plaintiffs to prosecute this case.
The filings in this case implicate a number of these concerns. The
Inmate-Plaintiffs did not all sign one pleading, nor did they each
sign their own pleading limited to their specific claims. It is
therefore not possible to discern the scope of the joined claims.
The Court also cannot discern which Inmate-Plaintiffs still seek to
prosecute claims. In addition, even if the Court were inclined to
permit a joinder, the Inmate-Plaintiffs cannot pursue a pro se
class action as intended. It is well-settled that class
representatives may not appear pro se. For these reasons, the
Court finds the proposed joinder and class action claims are not
permitted.
According to the Court, there is no primary filer in this case.
Manuel Calvillo, Patrick Hubson, and Dennis Hendren have submitted
or signed multiple filings. Moreover, the Court says dismissing the
claims and requiring each Inmate-Plaintiff to file their own case
will not result in any prejudice. The claims arose in 2024 and are
not time-barred.
The Court will therefore dismiss the case and each pleading therein
without prejudice. Each Inmate-Plaintiff may file a new case
limited to their own claims, if they wish to continue litigating.
The Court will finally deny all pending motions as moot and without
prejudice to refiling in the new case.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yenPwV from PacerMonitor.com.
ALLEGHENY HEALTH: Couchenour Sues Over Clients' Compromised Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID COUCHENOUR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLEGHENY HEALTH NETWORK,
Defendant, Case No. _______ (Pa. Comm. Pl., Allegheny Cty., January
27, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence,
breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust
enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected
health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals stored within its network systems following a data
breach beginning on October 11, 2024. The Defendant also failed to
timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals
about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the
Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through
access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third
parties.
Allegheny Health Network is a healthcare company, with its
principal place of business located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com
- and -
Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
65 Overhill Road
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com
ostrow@kolawyers.com
ALLEGHENY HEALTH: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Lynch Says
------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK LYNCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLEGHENY HEALTH NETWORK, Defendant, Case
No. _______ (Pa. Comm. Pl., Allegheny Cty., January 27, 2025) is a
class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per
se, and declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected
health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals stored within its network systems following a data
breach beginning on October 11, 2024. The Defendant also failed to
timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals
about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the
Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through
access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third
parties.
Allegheny Health Network is a healthcare company, with its
principal place of business located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Email: gary@lcllp.com
ALLEGHENY HEALTH: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in W.W. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania denies the Defendant's motion to
compel arbitration in the lawsuit captioned W. W., Plaintiff v.
ALLEGHENY HEALTH NETWORK, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-01163-CCW
(W.D. Pa.).
On June 23, 2023, Plaintiff W.W. filed a putative class action
against Defendant Allegheny Health Network ("AHN"). The Plaintiff
contends that AHN unlawfully collected confidential health
information from users, who visited the AHN website, and then
disclosed their information to third parties, in violation of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act and several Pennsylvania
state laws.
In response, AHN moved to compel arbitration pursuant to an
arbitration agreement appearing in AHN's Terms of Service, a link
to which appears on AHN's website. On May 16, 2024, the Court
denied without prejudice AHN's motion to compel arbitration and
ordered the parties to proceed to limited fact discovery on the
issue of arbitrability. Following fact discovery, AHN renewed its
Motion to Compel Arbitration, which the Plaintiff opposes.
Plaintiff W.W. filed his Complaint pseudonymously to protect his
private health information. The Plaintiff has been AHN's patient
for several years and, since 2015, has frequently and regularly
used AHN's website (www.ahn.org) and the specific "Find a Doctor"
page to obtain treatment and services.
On Dec. 19, 2022, AHN added Terms of Service to its website. These
Terms of Service also contain a Pennsylvania choice-of-law
provision and include an arbitration provision. A link to the Terms
of Service appears on the homepage of AHN's website and on the
"Find a Doctor" page.
On AHN's homepage, the Terms of Service link is located at the very
bottom of the page, requiring the user to first scroll through
several sections of content. The bottom of the homepage contains a
large, dark blue footer with the AHN logo, phone number, and social
media icons, as well as over forty different links displayed in
white font. Among these links is the Terms of Service link.
The link to the Terms of Service also appears on AHN's "Find a
Doctor" page. This webpage contains a mint green background with a
search bar in the middle of the screen. At the bottom of the page,
there is a dark blue footer containing the AHN logo and phone
number in bright-white font. Below this, there is a second, much
thinner footer, in dark navy with four links displayed in a
grayish-white font. One of these links is the Terms of Service.
The parties dispute whether the Plaintiff accessed and viewed AHN's
Terms of Service. The Plaintiff maintains that he never scrolled to
the bottom of AHN's webpages where the Terms of Service link is
located, and to date, has not seen the link on AHN's website. He
further asserts that he never clicked a link to AHN's Terms of
Service. And he never reviewed or agreed to any Terms of Service
with AHN that required him to participate in arbitration. He also
contends that he never saw a notice advising him that continued use
of the AHN website constitutes acceptance of AHN's Terms of
Service.
AHN, however, counters that when the Plaintiff was shown the Dec.
19, 2022 Terms of Service during his June 26, 2024 deposition, he
said "yes," he had previously seen them. But when asked "when" he
had seen them, the Plaintiff responded "Not in depth, but I seen
[sic] them a couple of years back when they tried to get me to sign
them. It may not be the exact pages."
Now AHN seeks to compel arbitration, contending that the Terms of
Service--containing the arbitration provision--constitute a valid
and enforceable contract. The Plaintiff responds that there is no
valid arbitration agreement because the Terms of Service--and
therefore the arbitration provision contained within--are not
enforceable.
Because the parties have conducted fact discovery on this issue,
the Court decides the Motion to Compel under the summary judgment
standard set forth by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
Judge Wiegand finds that the Arbitration Agreement is unenforceable
under Pennsylvania law because the Plaintiff did not have actual or
constructive notice.
Merely showing that the Plaintiff saw a set of terms several years
ago is insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact
requiring trial, Judge Wiegand holds. Rather, viewing the facts in
the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the Court finds that he
did not have actual notice of the arbitration agreement in the
Terms of Service as they have appeared on AHN's website since
December 2022.
For these reasons, the Court will not compel arbitration of the
Plaintiff's claims, and AHN's Motion to Compel Arbitration is
denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4dx5jte7 from PacerMonitor.com.
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extension Sought
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Amazon Prime Video Litigation, Case
No. 2:22-cv-00401-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order:
Event Current Date Proposed Date
Close of Fact Discovery: April 25, 2025 July 24, 2025
Close of Expert Discovery: July 11, 2025 Oct. 13, 2025
Close of Rebuttal Expert Aug. 25, 2025 Nov. 25, 2025
Discovery:
Deadline for Motion for Oct. 9, 2025 Jan. 9, 2026
Class Certification:
Deadline for Amazon's Nov. 24, 2025 Feb. 24, 2026
Opposition to Class
Certification Motion:
Deadline for Plaintiffs' Dec. 15, 2025 Mar. 16, 2026
Reply Brief in Support of
Motion for Class
Certification:
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 27, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mwd5ri at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Carlos F. Ramirez, Esq.
Michael Robert Reese, Esq.
George V. Granade, II, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, Suite 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643‐0500
E-mail: cramirez@reesellp.com
mreese@reesellp.com
ggranade@reesellp.com
- and -
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 303‐0552
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
- and -
Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 682‐5600
E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
rsolomon@tousley.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Charles C. Sipos, Esq.
Mallory Gitt Webster, Esq.
Thomas J. Tobin, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: (206) 359-8000
Facsimile: (206) 359-9000
E-mail: CSipos@perkinscoie.com
MWebster@perkinscoie.com
TTobin@perkinscoie.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Issuance of FLSA Notice Extended to March 30
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNADEAN RITTMANN et al.,
v. AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., Case No.
2:16-cv-01554-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order as follows:
1. The date by which Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) notice
shall be issued is extended by 30 days, to March 30, 2025.
2. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their motion for
class certification and for the Defendants to file their
renewed motion to compel arbitration, as outlined in the
Court's Dec. 13 order, is extended by 30 days, to April 16,
2025.
3. The deadline for the Defendants to file their opposition to
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is extended
by 30 days, to June 16, 2025.
4. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their reply is
extended by 30 days, to July 7, 2025.
On Jan. 31, 2025, Plaintiffs and Defendants filed their proposed
forms of FLSA notice, which are pending the Court's approval.
The parties contends that they have met and conferred, and the
Plaintiffs' counsel anticipates that it will require 14 days to
facilitate the administration of issuing the notice once the Court
approves the form of the notice.
Because the form of notice has not yet been ruled upon, it will not
be possible for Plaintiffs to have the notice issued tomorrow. The
Parties also agree that extensions to the briefing schedule for
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the deadline for
Defendants' renewed motion to compel arbitration are appropriate
based on the agreed-upon extension of the date for FLSA notice and
other conflicts arising from the current deadlines.
Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of
products.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 27, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kYgubR at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
Jeremy Abay, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
hlichten@llrlaw.com
jabay@llrlaw.com
- and -
Michael C. Subit, Esq.
FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS LLP
705 Second Avenue, Suite 1200
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 682-6711
E-mail: msubit@frankfreed.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jason C. Schwartz, Esq.
Lucas C. Townsend, Esq.
Dhananjay S. Manthripragada, Esq.
Megan Cooney, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1700 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-4504
Telephone: (202) 955-8500
E-mail: schwartz@gibsondunn.com
ltownsend@gibsondunn.com
dmanthripragada@gibsondunn.com
mcooney@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Andrew DeCarlow, Esq.
Richard G. Rosenblatt, Esq.
James P. Walsh, Jr., Esq.
Sarah Zenewicz, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 3000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 274-0154
E-mail: andrew.decarlow@morganlewis.com
richard.rosenblatt@morganlewis.com
james.walsh@morganlewis.com
sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
annual period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2025, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Private Party Antitrust class
suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York.
On December 5, 2022 and December 7, 2022, two private party
plaintiffs filed putative class action antitrust complaints against
American and JetBlue in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York alleging that American and JetBlue violated
U.S. antitrust law in connection with the previously disclosed NEA.
These actions were consolidated on January 10, 2023. The private
party plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on
February 3, 2023.
On February 2, 2023 and February 15, 2023, private party plaintiffs
filed two additional putative class action antitrust complaints
against American and JetBlue in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts and the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, respectively.
In March 2023, American filed a motion in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts case asking to transfer the case
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and
consolidate it with the cases pending in that venue.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted
that motion. The remaining cases were consolidated with the other
actions in the Eastern District of New York. In June 2023, the
private party plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated
complaint, followed by a third amended complaint filed in August
2023.
In September 2023, American, together with JetBlue, filed a motion
to dismiss the third amended complaint. In September 2024, the
court denied that motion.
The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and are
defending against them vigorously.
American Airlines provides scheduled air transportation services
for passengers and cargo.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to May 12
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANTRISE WHITE, v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00935-O (N.D. Tex.), the
Hon. Judge Reed O'Connor entered an order granting the parties'
joint emergency motion to extend deadline for the motion for class
certification.
Accordingly, the deadline for a motion for class certification is
extended to May 12, 2025.
American Airlines provides scheduled air transportation services
for passengers and cargo.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 27, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=05dYHL at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMERICAN RENAL: Fails to Protect Patients' Data, Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
AMERICAN RENAL MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a INNOVATIVE RENAL CARE, Case No.
1:25-cv-10518 (D. Mass., Mar. 4, 2025) arises from Defendant's
continued failure to protect its patients' highly sensitive data.
Accordingly, the Defendant is a "comprehensive kidney care company"
with "nearly 250 dialysis centers, over 400 affiliated
nephrologists, and a vast network of health system partnerships".
As such, Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal
identifiable information about its current and former employees.
But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals
infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data
breach (the "Data Breach").
An unauthorized actor accessed Defendant's computer systems between
Feb. 21, 2024 and March 1, 2024; meaning they had access to
Defendant’s network for ten days before Defendant was able to put
a stop to the breach. In other words, Defendant had no effective
means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems
-- thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its
current and former employees' PII, the Plaintiff contends.
The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim, having received a breach
notice.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N Michigan Ave, Suite 1610
Chicago, I: 60611-4501
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 863-1109
E-mail: straussborrelli.com
sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
- and -
Kimberly A. Dougherty, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW COLLABORATIVE, LLC
210 Washington Street
North Easton, MA 02356
Telephone: (508) 230-2700
Facsimile: (285) 278-0287
E-mail: kim@justicelc.com
- and -
Toops, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com
ASK MEDIA: Seeks to Dismiss Insurance King Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as INSURANCE KING AGENCY,
INC., an Illinois corporation, individually, and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. ASK MEDIA GROUP,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No.
3:24-cv-09509-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant, on April 22, 2025,
will move the Court to dismiss the action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1), and to strike the Plaintiff's class
allegations pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).
The Plaintiff alleges that Ask's practice of bidding on the keyword
"insurance king" (or a misspelling like "isnurance king") and using
such search terms in advertisements promoting Ask's search services
is deceptive and misleading because users who
(i) click on those ads and are directed to search results on
websites owned and controlled by Ask,
(ii) click on search results on those websites, and
(iii) ultimately purchase insurance as a result of that website
navigation somehow believe that they are purchasing
insurance from the Plaintiff.
Ask is a "performance marketing company that utilizes advanced
technology and data science to buy traffic at scale and monetize
audiences" through the sale of advertising on its websites.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 27, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9V6S9o at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Bethany G. Lukitsch, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 820-8800
Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
E-mail: blukitsch@bakerlaw.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Checking Account Holder Class Gets Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTEN SCHERTZER; et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BANK
OF AMERICA, N.A.; et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00264-DMS-MSB (S.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dana Sabraw entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification.
The Court certifies a class of:
"All Defendant checking account holders in the United States
who were assessed more than one OON balance inquiry fee during
the same visit to a FCTI, Inc.-owned ATM located in a 7-Eleven
store from May 1, 2018, to Nov. 16, 2021.
Within 30 days from the filing of this Order, the parties shall
meet and confer on the form of class notice to be provided for this
Court's approval and contact the assigned magistrate judge to
schedule a case management conference, at which time all dates will
be set.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff meets all applicable requirements for
class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The
Court grants the Plaintiff's motion.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant "charged Plaintiff two
separate $2.50 out-of-network ("OON") balance inquiry fees when she
used her BOA debit card at a non-BOA ATM." The Plaintiff claims the
second fee is invalid because the parties' contract allows the
Defendant to charge fees only in response to a card holder's
"balance inquiry" at a non-BOA ATM.
On Oc. 16, 2021, the Plaintiff filed her first Motion for Class
Certification.
Bank of America is a financial institution, serving individuals,
small- and middle-market businesses and large corporations.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 27, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tZEkLD at no extra
charge.[CC]
BIG TEXAN: Stringer Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THERESA STRINGER, a/k/a
THERESA LOPEZ-GONZALES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. BIG TEXAN STEAK RANCH, INC., Case No.
2:23-cv-00181-Z-BR (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for court-authorized notice.
Specifically, the Court:
-- grants Plaintiffs' request to certify a collection action and
issue notice covering a three-year period;
-- Denies the Plaintiffs' request to measure the limitations
period from the date the Complaint was filed, instead
requiring the limitations period to be measured from the date
of this Order;
-- Grants Plaintiffs' request to issue notice using mail,
electronic mail, and text message, but denies Plaintiffs'
request to maintain a website;
-- Grants the Plaintiffs' request for a 90-day opt-in period and
follow-up communication 30 days after initial notice is
issued;
-- Denies any inferred request by Plaintiffs to toll the statute
of limitations; and
-- Directs the Defendant to produce a list of names, last known
addresses, telephone numbers, electronic mail addresses, and
dates of employment for all potential members of the
collective in a usable electronic format within 14 days of
this Order.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs and prospective collective members
are similarly situated as to their tip-pooling, uniform, and
dual-job claims, such that certification of a collective on these
matters is appropriate.
Big Texan is a steakhouse located in Amarillo, Texas, often
recognized for its "72-Ounce Steak Challenge."
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 27, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xnq4Jq at no extra
charge.[CC]
BITCOIN DEPOT: Bids to Compel Arbitration in Mooneyham Suit OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin of the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina, Columbia Division, grants the
Defendants' motions to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled
Glenda J. Mooneyham, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Bitcoin Depot, Inc.; Bitcoin Depot
Operating, LLC d/b/a Bitcoin Depot; Circle K Stores, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01774-JDA (D.S.C.).
The matter is before the Court on a motion to compel arbitration
and to stay or, in the alternative, to strike class allegations and
to dismiss filed by Defendant Circle K Stores, Inc. ("Circle K")
and a motion to compel arbitration and stay action or, in the
alternative, to dismiss and strike class allegations filed by
Defendants Bitcoin Depot Operating, LLC and Bitcoin Depot, Inc.
(collectively, the "Bitcoin Depot Defendants").
The Plaintiff filed this action in the Richland County Court of
Common Pleas, and the Defendants removed it to this Court based on
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a). Circle K
and the Bitcoin Depot Defendants filed their motions on June 3,
2024. The Plaintiff filed responses to the motions, and Circle K
and the Bitcoin Depot Defendants filed replies.
The Plaintiff alleges that she is a recently widowed, 73-year-old
woman, who was the target and victim of a cryptocurrency ATM scam.
Imposters claiming to represent the Plaintiff's bank and the
Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") called her on Nov. 15, 2023, and
told her that her bank account had been compromised and was being
investigated by the FTC. The caller advised that someone was
attempting to withdraw all of the Plaintiff's money from her
account via online transfers and that, to protect her money, she
had to withdraw it from the bank and deposit it into a Bitcoin
wallet created for her by the bank via a Bitcoin Depot ATM at the
local Circle K convenience store.
That same day, at the instruction of the alleged scammers, the
Plaintiff withdrew $15,000 in cash from her savings account, took
the cash to a Circle K store located in Lexington, South Carolina,
and deposited the entirety of the cash into the Bitcoin Depot ATM
located there using a QR code sent by the scammers. The Plaintiff
did this while receiving instructions from a person on her
cellphone.
The Plaintiff alleges that Circle K and its employees made no
meaningful effort to intervene, to warn her that the Bitcoin Depot
ATM was known for being part of such scams, or to warn her that she
may be in the process of being scammed. Less than 48 hours later,
the Plaintiff withdrew another $15,000 in cash from her savings
account at the instruction of the scammers. Again, she took the
cash to the same Circle K store and deposited the entirety of the
cash into the Bitcoin Depot ATM located there.
The Plaintiff now seeks to bring a class action on behalf of all
persons who have suffered damages as a result of the dangers
created and/or enabled by the Defendants' lack of due care in
attending to the use of Bitcoin Depot ATM machines in predatory
scams against the elderly. She asserts causes of action against the
Bitcoin Depot Defendants under South Carolina's Omnibus Adult
Protection Act ("SCOAA"); for negligence, gross negligence,
recklessness, and willful and wanton conduct; for voluntary
assumption of a duty; for negligent design and failure to warn; for
strict products liability under S.C. Code Ann. Section 15-73-10;
and for breach of implied warranties.
The Plaintiff also asserts claims against the Bitcoin Depot
Defendants and Circle K under the South Carolina Unfair Trade
Practice Act ("SCUTPA") and for public nuisance, and against Circle
K for premises liability.
In support of their motion to compel arbitration, the Bitcoin Depot
Defendants attached the declaration of Scott Buchanan, Chief
Operating Officer at Bitcoin Depot, Inc., and Bitcoin Depot's Terms
and Conditions in place at the time of the Plaintiff's
transactions. Buchanan explained that Bitcoin Depot ATMs are
located inside various convenience stores across the country,
including Circle K stores, and that Circle K is a marketing partner
of Bitcoin Depot Operating, LLC.
Mr. Buchanan further explained that, upon initiating a transaction
with the ATM, the machine displays numerous informational prompts
to the user, requiring the user to read and accept the prompts to
complete a transaction at the ATM. One such prompt requires the
user to accept Bitcoin Depot's Terms and Conditions by selecting "I
accept these terms and conditions" to continue the transaction. He
explained that the Plaintiff selected "I accept these terms and
conditions" to continue her transactions while using the ATM on two
occasions, as she would not have been able to proceed with her
transactions without agreeing to the Terms and Conditions.
The Defendants seek to compel arbitration of the claims alleged in
the Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to the Terms and Conditions she
accepted to complete her transactions at the Bitcoin Depot ATM. The
Plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that the Defendants' motions
to compel arbitration must be denied because she was under duress
when she "agreed" to the Terms and Conditions at issue and, thus,
there is no legally enforceable agreement under the Federal
Arbitration Act ("FAA").
The Court concludes that the Defendants have established each of
the elements required to compel arbitration. Judge Austin explains
that the Agreement is related to interstate commerce, as the
Plaintiff deposited cash into a Bitcoin Depot ATM in South
Carolina, and the cash was then converted into Bitcoin by the
Bitcoin Depot Defendants, which are Delaware companies. Judge
Austin says the only disputed element is whether the parties
entered into a written agreement that includes an arbitration
provision purporting to cover the dispute.
Judge Austin finds that the Defendants have carried their initial
burden of persuading the Court that the parties entered into an
enforceable arbitration agreement through Buchanan's declaration
that the Plaintiff selected "I accept these terms and conditions"
to continue her transactions while using the ATM on two occasions
and that she would not have been able to proceed with her
transactions without agreeing to the Terms and Conditions, which
included an agreement to arbitrate.
Judge Austin notes that the Plaintiff challenges her agreement to
the Terms and Conditions as a whole and not just the arbitration
clause. Accordingly, Judge Austin holds that the issue of the
validity of the contract is for an arbitrator to decide.
Moreover, the Court concludes, and the Plaintiff does not dispute,
that the Plaintiff's claims in this action are covered by the
arbitration provisions in the Terms and Conditions. Judge Austin
points out that the arbitration provisions in the Terms and
Conditions cover the claims at issue in this case because the
Plaintiff's claims are all related to her use of the Bitcoin Depot
ATM and are against the Bitcoin Defendants and Circle K, a
marketing partner of Bitcoin Depot Operating, LLC.
Accordingly, Judge Austin finds the Defendants have satisfied the
second element required to compel arbitration––a written
agreement that includes an arbitration provision purporting to
cover the dispute––and the Defendants' motions to compel
arbitration are, therefore, granted.
Because each cause of action in the Plaintiff's Complaint falls
within the scope of the arbitration provisions in the Terms and
Conditions, the Court concludes that dismissal of this matter is
appropriate.
Based on the foregoing, the Court rules that the motions to compel
arbitration filed by Defendants Circle K Stores, Inc., Bitcoin
Depot Operating, LLC; and Bitcoin Depot, Inc., are granted, and
this action is dismissed without prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2hzkj2zr from PacerMonitor.com.
BLOCK.ONE: Class Member Can't Challenge Cy Press Distribution
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York denied class member Joseph Keith
Johnson's motion for reconsideration of an order approving the cy
pres distribution of excess funds in the settlement fund in the
cases captioned as CHASE WILLIAMS, et al., Plaintiffs, -against-
BLOCK.ONE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-03829-LAK (S.D.N.Y.)
and CRYPTO ASSETS OPPORTUNITY FUND LLC, et al., Plaintiffs,
-against- BLOCK.ONE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-3829-LAK
(S.D.N.Y.).
Mr. Johnson requests that the Court reconsider the allocation of
unclaimed settlement funds and allow claimants the opportunity to
receive additional compensation before resorting to cy pres.
As an initial matter, Mr. Johnson is not a party to, and has not
moved to intervene in, this lawsuit. In order to file a motion for
reconsideration in a class action, an absent class member first
must obtain leave to intervene under Rule 24.
Mr. Johnson has not filed any application, let alone a timely one.
Nor has he shown that his interests are not protected adequately by
the class representative, who fairly and adequately protected the
interests of the class. Mr. Johnson therefore may not intervene by
right, the Court finds. Permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)
likewise would be inappropriate in this case given Mr. Johnson's
failure to file a motion to intervene, the stage of the litigation,
and the lack of merit to the position he seeks to advance, the
Court concludes. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion for the
reconsideration on the basis that it is not properly raised by a
party to this action.
Even if the motion were properly raised, the Court would deny it on
the merits.
The Distribution Order authorized the Claims Administrator to
distribute the net settlement fund to authorized claimants based on
their recognized losses plus interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1961. After the completion of the initial distribution, the
Distribution Order authorized any amount remaining in the net
settlement fund to be donated equally among five non-profit
charitable organizations, which the Court determined to be
appropriate and relevant 501(c)(3) charities deserving of those
funds pursuant to the cy pres doctrine. Mr. Johnson challenges both
the interest calculation and the cy pres distribution.
Mr. Johnson contends that the Court should have applied New York's
statutory nine percent prejudgment interest rate instead of the
rate fixed by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1961. Mr. Johnson argues that the New
York statutory rate was appropriate because the claims at issue
were tied to New York securities law and would typically fall under
New York financial regulations. The New York statutory rate is far
higher than the rate the Court likely would have used had there
been a judgment in this case. Accordingly, the Court declines to
reconsider its authorization of interest payments calculated based
on the rate fixed by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1961.
Mr. Johnson asserts that a cy pres distribution should be used only
when redistribution of excess funds is impractical.
Mr. Johnson asserts also that cy pres distribution is inappropriate
because the purpose of class actions is to compensate the harmed,
not to divert funds to third-party charities. But distributing
funds to claimants in excess of recognized loss amounts does not
compensate the harmed it provides a windfall.
Judge Kaplan says there are myriad absent class members who have
not filed claims. The Court therefore must determine how best to
serve the interests of those class members. It is unclear how
distributing excess funds to claimants would serve non-claimant
class members's interests.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NXwxft from PacerMonitor.com.
BOYKIN FARMS: Lopez Seeks More Time to File Reply to Opposition
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRISTOBAL LOPEZ LOPEZ and
GILBERTO FLORES LOZANO, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated persons, v. BOYKIN FARMS, INC., RHODES FARMING,
LLC, WILLIE C. BOYKIN, III, MATTHEW Z. RHODES, TONY D. LEE, d/b/a
LEE AND SONS FARMS, TONY CAMERON LEE, d/b/a LEE AND SONS FARMS, and
CLINT LEE, d/b/a LEE AND SONS FARMS, Case No. 5:22-cv-00491-BO-RN
(E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
them a 30-day extension of time for filing a reply to the
Defendants' response in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for
certification of NCWHA and Contract Classes and Subclasses and to
approve class notice, through and including March 31, 2025.
The Plaintiffs also request an Order granting Plaintiffs a
thirty-day extension of time for filing a response to the
Defendants Boykin Farms, Inc., Willie C. Boykin, III, Matthew Z.
Rhodes and Rhodes Farming, LLC's motion for summary judgment and
motion to decertify conditionally-certified FLSA collective and the
corresponding Statement of Material Facts, Lee Defendants' motion
for partial summary judgment and the corresponding Statement of
Material Facts, and Lee Defendants' Motion to decertify collective
action, through and including April 7, 2025.
The Plaintiffs need additional time to respond and, therefore, in
good faith request extensions of time to respond to these four
filings.
The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on Dec. 2, 2022, alleging and
seeking to represent three classes under Rule 23(b)(3), Fed. R.
Civ. P., and a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action, 29
U.S.C. section 216(b).
On Dec. 26, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification.
Boykin specializes in the cultivation and distribution of a variety
of crops.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 26, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LSHb2m at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Clermont F. Ripley, Esq.
Carol L. Brooke, Esq.
NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER
Raleigh, NC 27611
Telephone: (919)856-2144
Facsimile: (919)856-2175
E-mail: clermont@ncjustice.org
carol@ncjustice.org
- and -
Jonathan Wall, Esq.
HIGGINS BENJAMIN, PLLC
301 n. Elm St., Suite 800
Greensboro, NC 27401
Telephone: (336) 273-1600
Facsimile: (336) 274-4650
E-mail: jwall@greensborolaw.com
BOYNE USA INC: Court Certifies Class in Anderson
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE ANDERSON, as
trustee for the LAWRENCE T. ANDERSON AND SUZANNE M. ANDERSON JOINT
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, ROBERT AND NORA ERHART, and TJARDA CLAGETT,
v. BOYNE USA, INC., BOYNE PROPERTIES, INC., AND SUMMIT HOTEL, LLC,
et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00095-BMM (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Brian
Morris entered a preliminary approval order as follows:
The Court certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class, for potential
injunctive and declaratory relief, and a Rule 23(b)(3)
class, for potential damages, consisting of:
"all persons and entities, other than Boyne, that (i) own or
have owned a unit in the Summit Hotel, the Shoshone
Condominium Hotel, or the Village Center Condominium
(collectively "Condo-Hotels") and (ii) participated in
Boyne's Rental Management Program."
For purposes of determining whether the terms of the
proposed Settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate, the
Court reaffirms its prior certification for the Rule
23(b)(2) Settlement Class as follows:
"All persons and entities, other than Defendants, that
currently own one or more residential units in the Condo-
Hotels, as well as any persons or entities that acquire
ownership of one or more residential units in the Condo-
Hotels before the Effective Date."
For purposes of determining whether the terms of the
proposed Settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate, the
Court reaffirms its prior certification of the Rule 23(b)(3)
Settlement Class as follows:
"All persons and entities, other than Defendants, that: (i)
own or have owned a unit in the Condo-Hotels; (ii) have
participated in Boyne’s Rental Management Program on or
after December 31, 2013; and (iii) did not give timely
notice of their election to opt out of the Rule 23(b)(3)
class during the opt-out period, i.e., on or before
Sept. 20, 2024."
A hearing to consider objections, if any, and to finally
determine if the Settlement Agreement is fair and equitable
shall be heard at the Mike Mansfield Federal Courthouse on
June 12, 2025, in Butte, Montana at 1:30 P.M. ("Final
Settlement Hearing").
Boyne owns and operates mountain resorts.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 27, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WySO2o at no extra
charge.[CC]
BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE: Court Narrows Claims in Caughey Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as MATTHEW CAUGHEY, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BRIDGECREST ACCEPTANCE
CORPORATION and BRIDGECREST CREDIT COMPANY, LLC., Defendants, Case
No. 23-cv-00264 (W.D. Pa.), Senior Judge David Stewart Cercone of
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania adopted the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Christopher B. Brown that defendants' motion to
dismiss for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim be
granted in part and denied in part.
Matthew Caughey commenced this consumer protection class action in
the Court of Common Plea of Allegheny County alleging defendants
were charging and collecting "pay-to-pay" fees and excess interest
on a motor vehicle installment sales contract in violation of
Chapter 62 of Pennsylvania's Consumer Credit Code, 12 Pa. C. S.
Sec. 6201, et seq. Defendants removed the action on Feb. 17, 2023.
The motion is granted as to plaintiff's Loan Interest and
Protection Law claim and his unjust enrichment claim. The motion is
denied to the extent it seeks dismissal of plaintiff's excessive
interest claims for lack of standing and plaintiff's Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law claim.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c5Vs72 from PacerMonitor.com.
CANALI USA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Isakov Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
SIMON ISAKOV, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Canali U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01804 (S.D.N.Y.,
Mar. 4, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, Us.canali.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the services
Parched Hospitality Group provides to their non-disabled customers
through its website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal
access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and
services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations,
is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the suit says.
Us.canali.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials and other programs offered by Canali
U.S.A. Yet, Us.canali.com contains significant access barriers that
make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired
customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it
impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a
transaction on the website. Thus, Canali U.S.A. excludes the blind
and visually-impaired from the full and equal participation in the
growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of
the common marketplace and daily living, the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of
formalwear on Us.canali.com. Despite his efforts, however,
Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted
individual due to the Website's lack of a variety of features and
accommodations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher H. Cohen, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC
Telephone: (718) 914-9694
Flushing, NY 11367
68-29 Main Street,
E-mail: acohen@ealg.law
CARVANA CO: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Carvana Co. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period
ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 19, 2025, that the Company continues to
defend itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
On August 3, 2022, a putative class action complaint titled John
Brent v. Carvana Co., et al. was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company
and certain of the Company's executive officers. The complaint was
filed on behalf of a purported class of stockholders and asserts
violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5. The complaint sought unspecified damages and an award of
fees, costs, and expenses.
On September 29, 2022, a second putative class action complaint
titled Rodeo Collection Ltd. v. Carvana Co., et al. was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
alleging similar claims against the same defendants, and seeking
the same form of relief. The two cases were then consolidated and
subsequently transferred to the United States District Court for
the District of Arizona (the "Arizona District Court") as In re
Carvana Co. Securities Litigation, United States District Court for
the District of Arizona (Case No. CV-22-2126-PHX-MTL).
On February 14, 2023, a consolidated complaint was filed in the
Arizona District Court, alleging new claims for violation of
Section 20A of the Exchange Act and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"),
and naming as new defendants certain Carvana directors, officers,
and underwriters.
The Arizona District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint on February 29, 2024 and gave the
plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, which was filed on
March 29, 2024.
On December 16, 2024, the Company's motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint, as amended, was granted with respect to
alleged violations of Section 20A of the Exchange Act and Section
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, granted in part and denied in part
with respect to alleged violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
of the Exchange Act and Section 11 of the Securities Act, and
denied with respect to alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Section 15 of the Securities Act.
The Company intends to vigorously defend the remaining claims under
this action in all respects.
Carvana Co. and its wholly-owned subsidiary Carvana Co. Sub LLC
and, together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is an e-commerce
platform for buying and selling used cars.
CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Zarabi Family Trust Wins Bid for Consolidation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robin L. Rosenberg of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida granted Plaintiff Zarabi Family
Trust’s motion for consolidation, appointment as lead plaintiff
and approval of selection of counsel in the case captioned as
SHELBY TOWNSHIP POLICE & FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CELSIUS
HOLDINGS, INC.; JOHN FIELDLY; and JARROD LANGHANS, Defendants, Case
No. 24-cv-81472-RLR (S.D. Fla.). Plaintiff the Vucekovich Family
678 Trust’s motion for consolidation, appointment as lead
plaintiff, and approval of selection of counsel is granted as to
consolidation, but otherwise denied.
This is a securities class action brought under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5,
against Defendants Celsius Holdings, Inc. and its officers for the
period between Feb. 29, 2024, and Sept. 4, 2024. The putative class
includes "all persons who acquired Celsius common stock during the
Class Period." There is another related class action pending before
this Court, Abraham v. Celsius Holdings, Inc., No. 25-cv-80053
(S.D. Fla.). The factual allegations in that matter are nearly
identical to those in this litigation, but the putative class in
Abraham includes "all persons who purchased Celsius stock or sold
Celsius puts during the Class Period."
In the motions before the Court, two proposed lead plaintiffs seek
appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of their selected
counsel as lead and liaison counsel. The first is Gary J.
Vucekovich and the Vucekovich Family 678 Trust. The second is the
Zarabi Family Trust. Both proposed lead plaintiffs seek
consolidation with the Abraham class action (No. 25-cv-80053).
The Court agrees that these cases should be consolidated. The
factual allegations in the two lawsuits involve the same defendants
and the same alleged misrepresentations and omissions. The only
difference between the two complaints is the scope of the putative
class. The complaint in Shelby Township is limited to purchasers of
common stock, whereas the putative class in Abraham includes anyone
who sold put options during the Class Period. But the allegations
against the defendants are the same. Consolidation of these class
actions is therefore appropriate, the Court finds.
In this case, the Zarabi Trust is presumptively the most adequate
plaintiff because it filed a timely motion, has the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class, and has made
a preliminary showing of adequacy and typicality. Under the
last-in, first-out calculation for losses, the Zarabi Trust has the
largest financial interest based on losses incurred. The Zarabi
Trust incurred losses of approximately $44,599,802, while the
Vucekovich Trust incurred losses of $2,894,699.20.
The Court is satisfied that the Zarabi Trust has made a prima facie
showing of the Rule 23 adequacy of representation requirement. The
Court is also satisfied that the counsel selected by the Zarabi
Trust are qualified for purposes of this litigation, which the
Vucekovich Trust does not challenge.
The Zarabi Trust has the greatest losses, and it has made a prima
facie showing of adequacy and typicality. It is therefore entitled
to the presumption that it is the most adequate lead plaintiff, the
Court concludes.
The Court appoints the Zarabi Family Trust as Lead Plaintiff and
approves its selection of Grant & Eisenhoffer P.A. as Lead Counsel
for the Class and Josh Dubin, P.A. as Liaison Counsel for the
Class. If the Zarabi Family Trust as Lead Plaintiff seeks to file
an Amended Complaint, it shall do so no later than March 17, 2025.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0cTmXu from PacerMonitor.com.
CENGAGE LEARNING: Class Settlement in Bernstein Gets Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUGLAS BERNSTEIN, ELAINE
INGULLI, TERRY HALBERT, EDWARD ROY, LOUIS PENNER, and ROSS PARKE,
as personal representative of THE ESTATE OF ALISON CLARKE-STEWART,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. CENGAGE
LEARNING, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-07541-ALC-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Andrew Carter, Jr. entered an order approving class action
settlement and certifying settlement class
1. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and in light
of the proposed Settlement, the Court certifies the
Settlement Class, consisting of:
"All authors of royalty-bearing works who entered into a
publishing agreement with Cengage Learning, Inc., or one of
its predecessors-in-interest, and whose royalty-bearing
works have (a) been sold as a component of a MindTap product
and have been assigned a Digital Royalty Allocation other
than 100%; or (b) been available on Cengage Unlimited."
.
Included in this definition are the heirs of any author who
meets the foregoing criteria or the assignee of the
contractual rights of any such author.
For purposes of the Settlement and this Order, the
definition excludes the following authors, who previously
released claims against Cengage: David Knox, Caroline
Schact, Jonathan Duchac, Grafton Hall, Karen Kirst-Ashman,
Behrouz A. Forouzan for Computer Science: A Structured
Approach Using C only, Cecie Starr for all works except
Biology: The Dynamic Sciences, Lisa Starr Goodin for all
works except Biology: The Dynamic Sciences, and Christine
Ever for all works except Biology: The Dynamic Sciences.
Also excluded is Diane L. France, who submitted a timely and
valid written request to be excluded from the Settlement
Class.
Finally, the definition excludes Defendant Cengage and its
officers and directors, members of their immediate families,
and the heirs, successors, or assigns of any of the
foregoing and the Court, the Court's immediate family, and
Court staff, as well as any appellate court to which this
matter is ever assigned and the staff and immediate family
members of the Court.
2. The Settlement is fully and finally approved because its
terms are fair, reasonable, and adequate within the meaning
of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the
Court directs its consummation pursuant to its terms and
conditions. In reaching this conclusion, the Court
considered the four factors listed in Rule 23(e)(2) and the
nine factors listed in City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp.,
495 F.2d 448, 463 (2d Cir. 1974), abrogated on other grounds
by Goldberg v. Integrated Res., Inc., 209 F.3d 43 (2d Cir.
2000).
Cengage is an American educational content, technology, and
services company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 26, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QhCInI at no extra
charge.[CC]
CHAROEN POKPHAND: Fish Infestation Class Action Goes to Trial
-------------------------------------------------------------
www.nationthailand.com reports that a Thai court has accepted a
class-action lawsuit against CPF over the blackchin tilapia
infestation. Fishermen and farmers claim CPF's imported fish spread
across 79 districts, harming local ecosystems. CPF denies
responsibility and vows to fight the case.
The South Bangkok Civil Court on Tuesday, March 4, accepted a
class-action lawsuit filed by fishermen and fish and shrimp farmers
in Samut Sakhon against Charoen Pokphand Foods Plc (CPF), blaming
the company for the devastating infestation of alien blackchin
tilapia in the province and other parts of the country.
Court Accepts Case for Trial
Both the Thailand Consumers Council and a CPF representative, who
wished to remain anonymous, confirmed that the court had accepted
the lawsuit for trial.
The council announced the decision on its Facebook page, while the
CPF representative stated that the company would defend itself in
court using scientific and circumstantial evidence.
The representative added that if the court ruled against CPF, the
company would appeal the decision and fight the case to the final
or Supreme Court if necessary.
Fishermen and Farmers Take Legal Action
A group of local fishermen and fish and shrimp farmers in Samut
Sakhon, supported by the Lawyers Council of Thailand, filed the
class-action lawsuit against CPF last year, alleging that the
company was responsible for the blackchin tilapia infestation.
In September, a special House committee investigating the
infestation revealed that a certain company had been granted
permission to import the alien species, which subsequently spread
to Thai waters in 79 districts across 19 provinces, posing a
serious threat to the local ecosystem.
CPF Denies Responsibility
CPF has repeatedly denied responsibility for the infestation,
despite being granted permission by the Fisheries Department to
import 2,000 blackchin tilapia from Ghana in 2010. The company
insists that all imported fish were destroyed and has instead
blamed aquarium fish importers for the invasion.
Class-Action Suit Aims to Streamline Legal Process
A source from the court stated that the decision to accept the
class-action suit would prevent individuals from having to file
separate lawsuits, which would place an excessive burden on the
court system.
The source added that the class-action trial would increase
efficiency and allow both sides to present their evidence to
support their claims. [GN]
CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Rodriguez Suit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cinemark Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
annual period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2025, that the Company
continues to defend itself from Rodriguez class suit in Cook County
Circuit Court in Illinois.
Gerardo Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of a class of all
others similarly situated vs Cinemark USA, Inc. and Cinemark
Holdings, Inc., et al. This class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company on February 24, 2023 in the Cook County Circuit Court
in Illinois alleging violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act.
The Company firmly maintains that the allegations are without merit
and will vigorously defend itself against the lawsuit. The Company
cannot predict the outcome of this litigation.
Cinemark Holdings, Inc. is a holding company. Its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Cinemark USA, Inc., operates in the motion picture
exhibition industry, with theatres in the United States, Brazil,
Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua,
Costa Rica, Panama, Guatemala, Bolivia and Paraguay.
CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Waldrop Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Cinemark Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
annual period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2025, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Waldrop nationwide class suit
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas, Sherman Division.
Shane Waldrop, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, vs. Cinemark USA, Inc. This putative nationwide class
action lawsuit was filed against the Company on April 16, 2024, in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
Sherman Division, alleging violations of the Federal Food Drug &
Cosmetics Act, violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and unjust enrichment based
on the Company's alleged mislabeling of twenty-four ounce draft
beer cups used at certain theaters.
The Company denies the allegations and will vigorously defend
itself against the lawsuit. The Company cannot predict the outcome
of this litigation.
Cinemark Holdings, Inc. is a holding company. Its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Cinemark USA, Inc., operates in the motion picture
exhibition industry, with theatres in the United States, Brazil,
Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua,
Costa Rica, Panama, Guatemala, Bolivia and Paraguay.
CINEMARK USA: Continues to Defend Bruce Class Suit in Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cinemark USA Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual
period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 19, 2025, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Bruce class suit in the Circuit
Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee.
On September 17, 2019, a complaint captioned Bruce, et al. v.
American Water Works Company, Inc., et al. was filed in the Circuit
Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee against TAWC, the Company and
Service Company (collectively, the "Tennessee-American Water
Defendants"), on behalf of a proposed class of individuals or
entities who lost water service or suffered monetary losses as a
result of the Chattanooga incident (the "Tennessee Plaintiffs").
The complaint alleged breach of contract and negligence against the
Tennessee-American Water Defendants, as well as an equitable remedy
of piercing the corporate veil.
In the complaint as originally filed, the Tennessee Plaintiffs were
seeking an award of unspecified alleged damages for wage losses,
business and economic losses, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of use
and enjoyment of property and annoyance and inconvenience, as well
as punitive damages, attorneys' fees and pre- and post-judgment
interest.
In September 2020, the court dismissed all of the Tennessee
Plaintiffs' claims in their complaint, except for the breach of
contract claims against TAWC, which remain pending. In October
2020, TAWC answered the complaint, and the parties have been
engaging in discovery.
In January 2023, after hearing oral argument, the court issued an
oral ruling denying the Tennessee Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. In February 2023, the Tennessee Plaintiffs sought
reconsideration of the ruling by the court, and any final ruling is
appealable to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, as allowed under
Tennessee law. In September 2023, the court upheld its prior ruling
but gave the Tennessee Plaintiffs the option to file an amended
class definition.
In October 2023, the Tennessee Plaintiffs filed an amended class
definition seeking certification of a business customer-only class.
On June 14, 2024, the court issued its written order denying the
Tennessee Plaintiffs’ amended class and incorporating its denial
of certification of the original residential class. On June 21,
2024, the Tennessee Plaintiffs appealed both of the court’s
orders denying class certification. This appeal remains pending.
The Company and TAWC believe that TAWC has valid, meritorious
defenses to the claims raised in this class action complaint, and
TAWC will continue to vigorously defend itself against these
allegations.
Cinemark is a movie theatre chain whose portfolio includes Cinemark
Century at Pacific Commons and numerous other theatres in this
district. Cinemark's website allow consumers to select the movie of
their choice and to purchase tickets online for video viewing.[BN]
CINEMARK USA: Continues to Defend Narayan Class Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cinemark USA Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual
period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 19, 2025, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Narayan class suit in the
Superior Court in the State of California for the County of San
Mateo.
Latishma Narayan, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated vs. Cinemark USA, Inc, Century Theatres, Inc., et al. This
class action lawsuit was filed December 27, 2024, in the Superior
Court in the State of California for the County of San Mateo County
alleging violations of the California Labor Code for failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to pay wages and overtime, failure to
provide meal and rest breaks, failure to pay vacation wages,
failure to maintain payroll records, and failure to reimburse
necessary expenditures.
Cinemark firmly maintains that the contentions of the plaintiff are
without merit and will vigorously defend itself against the
lawsuit. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this
litigation.
Cinemark USA, Inc. is an American movie theater chain that started
operations in 1984.[BN]
CLARIVATE PLC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Clarivate PLC disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual
period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 19, 2025, that the bid to dismiss
the consolidated securities class suit is pending in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
Between January and March 2022, three putative securities class
action complaints were filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York against Clarivate and certain
of its executives and directors alleging that there were weaknesses
in the Company's internal controls over financial reporting and
financial reporting procedures that it failed to disclose in
violation of federal securities law. The complaints were
consolidated into a single proceeding on May 18, 2022. On August 8,
2022, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, seeking
damages on behalf of a putative class of shareholders who acquired
Clarivate securities between July 30, 2020, and February 2, 2022,
and/or acquired Clarivate ordinary or preferred shares in
connection with offerings on June 10, 2021, or Clarivate ordinary
shares in connection with a September 13, 2021, offering.
The amended complaint, like the prior complaints, references an
error in the accounting treatment of an equity plan included in the
Company's 2020 business combination with CPA Global that was
disclosed on December 27, 2021, and related restatements issued on
February 3, 2022, of certain of the Company's previously issued
financial statements. The amended complaint also alleges that the
Company and certain of its executives and directors made false or
misleading statements relating to the Company's product quality and
expected organic revenues and organic growth rate, and that they
failed to disclose significant known changes to the Company's
business model.
Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on October 7,
2022. Without deciding the motion, the court entered an order on
June 23, 2023, allowing plaintiffs limited leave to amend, and
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 14, 2023.
On August 10, 2023, the court issued an order deeming defendants'
prior motions and briefs to be directed at the amended complaint
and permitting defendants to file supplemental briefs to address
the new allegations in the amended complaint.
Supplemental briefing on the motions was completed on September 8,
2023.
Defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint are currently
pending.
Clarivate PLC is a provider of proprietary and comprehensive
information, analytics, professional services and workflow
solutions that enable users across government and academic
institutions, life science and healthcare companies, corporations
and law firms to power the entire innovation lifecycle, from
cultivating curiosity to protecting the world's critical
intellectual property assets.
CLEAN SUPPS: Gray Sues Auto Renewed Subscriptions, Fake Discounts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRUCE GRAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE CLEAN SUPPS LLC d/b/a INNO SUPPS and
DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01713-AB-SSC
(C.D. Cal., February 27, 2025) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies
Act and California's Unfair Competition Law, and California's False
Advertising Law.
The case arises from Inno Supps' automatic renewal subscription
practices and fake discount practices. According to the complaint,
Inno Supps automatically charges consumers without first providing
information on how to cancel the subscription. Moreover, Inno Supps
is also allegedly engaged in unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent
business practice of advertising fictitious prices and
corresponding phantom discounts on nearly every product sold
through its website. The result is a sham price disparity that
misleads consumers into believing they are receiving a good deal,
thereby inducing them into making a purchase.
The Clean Supps LLC, doing business as Inno Supps, is an online
retailer of sport supplements, with its principal place of business
in Las Vegas, Nevada. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin J. Cole, Esq.
W. Blair Castle, Esq.
KJC LAW GROUP, A.P.C.
9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1000
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 861-7797
Email: kevin@kjclawgroup.com
blair@kjclawgroup.com
COURIER PLUS: Wins Partial Bid to Dismiss Claims in Hempnotize
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled HEMPNOTIZE, LLC, a Michigan limited liability
company, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. COURIER PLUS, INC., an Oregon corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 6:24-cv-01225-MC (D. Or.), Judge Michael J. McShane of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Eugene Division,
grants the Defendant's partial motion to dismiss claims.
Plaintiff Hempnotize, LLC, brings this putative class action for
breach of contract and fraud against Defendant Courier Plus, Inc.
(d/b/a Dutchie). Before the Court is the Defendant's Partial Motion
to Dismiss Count III, fraudulent misrepresentation, and Count IV,
fraudulent inducement. Because the Plaintiff failed to satisfy its
heightened pleading standard for fraud, the Court grants the
Defendant's Partial Motion.
The Plaintiff is the owner of a retail cannabis dispensary. The
Defendant is a software-as-a-service company that provides
e-commerce for the cannabis industry. In 2021, the Plaintiff
contracted with the Defendant to use the Defendant's platform,
including its retail management and point of sale system.
Hempnotize alleges that on April 20, 2023, the Defendant's
e-commerce system suffered an outage, causing the Plaintiff to lose
the ability to process sales. Exactly a year later, on April 20,
2024, the Defendant's point of sale system suffered an outage. The
Plaintiff alleges that because of the 2023 outage, the 2024 outage
was "avoidable and foreseeable" and the Defendant "utterly failed
to prevent further failures."
The Plaintiff further alleges the Defendant promised and assured
the Plaintiff that it would test its network and make sure it was
properly working on April 20, 2024, and that these assurances were
made knowingly with the intent that the Plaintiff and other Class
Members would rely on them and continue to utilize the Defendant's
services.
The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's fraud claims,
arguing that the Plaintiff fails to plead those claims with
sufficient particularity. The Defendant moves to dismiss the
Plaintiff's claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent
inducement.
Judge McShane finds that the Plaintiff fails to state its claim
with the requisite particularity. Nowhere in the Complaint is there
any identification of the who, what, when, where, or how related to
the alleged fraudulent statement. Judge McShane adds that the
Plaintiff does not even identify the statement that was purportedly
fraudulent.
The Plaintiff cites to a news article, claiming the article shows
that the Defendant "assured its contracted marijuana dispensaries
that it would test its network and make sure it was properly
working on April 20, 2024." However, Judge McShane holds, the cited
article contains no such statement. The Plaintiff offers no other
evidence or allegations that allow the Court to infer the
Defendant's fraud.
For these reasons, the Court dismisses Counts III and IV without
prejudice. The Plaintiff has 30 days to file an amended complaint
if it desires to do so. The Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss
is granted.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yz37vz7f from PacerMonitor.com.
DAMERON HOSPITAL: Settles Data Breach Class Lawsuit for $650,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dameron Hospital has agreed to pay a $650,000 settlement to resolve
a proposed class action lawsuit over a December 2023 data breach
that compromised the personal and medical information of
approximately 262,475 people.
The official website for the Dameron Hospital data breach
settlement can be found at DameronHospitalSettlement.com.
The $650,000 deal, which was preliminarily approved by the court on
December 12, 2024, covers anyone the California-based hospital
identified as among those impacted by the data breach, including
all who received notice of the incident.
To receive Dameron Hospital data breach settlement benefits,
eligible class members must file a valid claim form online or by
mail by April 22, 2025.
Class members can submit a claim form online on this page. To file
a claim form online, you will need to provide your unique class
member ID, which is typically found on the personalized settlement
notice issued to covered individuals to inform them about the
deal.
Those who prefer to file by mail can download a PDF claim form or
call 833-876-1201 to request a paper copy from the settlement
administrator.
As part of the deal, class members who submit a timely, valid claim
form will be eligible to receive one year of complimentary credit
monitoring services, the Dameron Hospital settlement website says.
In addition, consumers may file a claim, with reasonable supporting
documentation, to receive up to $5,000 in compensation per person
to recover unreimbursed monetary losses incurred as a result of the
data breach, the site shares. According to the website, qualifying
losses may include expenses related to fraud or identity theft;
fees for attorneys, accountants or credit repair services; costs
associated with freezing or unfreezing credit with a credit
reporting agency; notary, fax, postage, mileage or long-distance
phone charges; and other similar expenses.
Alternatively, class members may submit a claim for a cash payout
in lieu of credit monitoring services and reimbursement for
monetary losses, the site relays. Class members outside of
California are eligible to receive a $50 cash payment, while
California residents are entitled to $100, the website says.
Per the site, the final settlement payout amount may be adjusted
depending on the total number of valid claims that are filed.
It is now up to the court to decide whether to grant final approval
to the terms of the settlement agreement at a hearing set for May
29, 2025. Dameron Hospital settlement benefits will be issued to
eligible class members only if the court ultimately approves the
deal, and after the appeals process is complete. [GN]
DAVIDS NATURAL: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Continued to Sept. 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDRA SCHOEPS and
MARLEY STUBBLEFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. DAVIDS NATURAL TOOTHPASTE, INC., Case No.
3:24-cv-01978-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order continuing all subsequent corresponding deadlines are
likewise continued as follows:
Event Current Date Stipulated
New Date
Defendant's opposition to June 2, 2025 Sept. 4, 2025
Plaintiffs' motion for class
Certification:
Plaintiffs' reply ISO Class July 2, 2025 Nov. 4, 2025
Certification and Rebuttal
Class Certification Expert
Reports, Daubert Motions, and
Opposition to Defendant's
Daubert Motions:
Defendant's reply ISO Daubert July 25, 2025 Nov. 24, 2025
Motions, Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Daubert Motions:
Plaintiffs' reply ISO Daubert Aug. 1, 2025 Dec. 8, 2025
Motions:
Hearing on Class Certification Nov. 13, 2025 Mar. 12, 2026
and Daubert Motions:
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 27, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kKRZko at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Joshua R. Wilner, Esq.
Joshua B. Glatt, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
jwilner@bursor.com
jglatt@bursor.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Lane E. Webb, Esq.
Catherine A. Naltsas, Esq.
Shanna M. Van Wagner, Esq.
LYNBERG & WATKINS
185 West F Street, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 814-2169
Facsimile: (619) 356-4968
E-mail: lwebb@lynberg.com
cnaltsas@lynberg.com
svanwagner@lynberg.com
DELUXE MEDIA: Bid to Certify Richter Class Action Vacated
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stefan Richter v. Deluxe
Media Inc., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-04835 (C.D. Cal., Filed June
7, 2024), the Hon. Judge Michelle Williams entered an order
vacating motion to certify class action.
The nature of suit states employment discrimination.
Deluxe, formerly Deluxe Entertainment Services Group, Inc., is an
American multinational multimedia and entertainment service
provisions company.[CC]
DISA GLOBAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Durgin Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL DURGIN SR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DISA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No.
4:25-cv-00988 (S.D. Tex., Mar. 4, 2025) alleges that DISA failed to
properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members'
protected personally identifiable information stored within the
Defendant's information network including, without limitation,
names, Social Security numbers.
The Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory
relief from DISA. The Plaintiff further seeks to hold Defendant
responsible for not ensuring that the PII was maintained in a
manner consistent with industry standards.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff and Members of the Class have suffered
significant injury and damages due to the Data Breach permitted to
occur by DISA, and the resulting misuse of their Personal
Information and fraudulent activity, including monetary damages
including out-of-pocket expenses, including those associated with
the reasonable mitigation measures they were forced to employ, and
other damages.
The Plaintiff and the Class also now forever face an amplified risk
of further misuse, fraud, and identity theft due to their sensitive
Personal Information falling into the hands of cybercriminals
because of the tortious conduct of Defendant.
On behalf of themselves and the Class preliminarily defined below,
Plaintiff brings causes of action for: (I) Negligence and
Negligence Per Se; (ii) Implied Breach of Contract; (iii) Breach of
Fiduciary Duty; (iv) Intrusion Upon Seclusion/Invasion of Privacy;
(v) Unjust Enrichment and (vi) Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive
Relief.
The Plaintiff seek damages and injunctive and declaratory relief
arising from DISA's failure to adequately protect their highly
sensitive Personal Information.
According to the DISA's own website, DISA is a leading provider of
background screening, drug and alcohol testing, and compliance
solutions, with industry-leading expertise. The Plaintiff and Class
Members' sensitive personal information --which they entrusted to
Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect
against disclosure was targeted, compromised, and unlawfully
accessed due to the Data Breach.
The Defendant states on its website that: On April 22, 2024, DISA
discovered that it was the victim of a cyber incident that impacted
a limited portion of its network.
On Feb. 21, 2025, the Defendant's Data Breach was reported in the
news media: "Reported on February 21st, nearly a year after the
"cyber incident" took place, DISA filed a breach notification with
the Maine Attorney General's office last Friday, revealing that the
personal information of 3,332,750 individuals was compromised in
the hack – including social security numbers, credit card account
numbers and more."
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to
implement and to follow basic security procedures, Plaintiff's and
Class Members' Private Information now appears to be in the hands
of cybercriminals, the Plaintiff contends.
DISA provides background screening, drug and alcohol testing, and
compliance solutions, with industry-leading expertise. As part of
its business, the Defendant collects a treasure-trove of data from
their clients, including highly sensitive Private Information.
Drug screening providers that handle Private Information have an
obligation to employ reasonable and necessary data security
practices to protect the sensitive, confidential and personal
information entrusted to them.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE, PLLC
12720 Hillcrest Road
Dallas, TX 75230
Telephone: (972) 387-4040
Facsimile: (972) 387-4041
E-mail: bruce@swclaw.com
- and -
Ben Barnow, Esq.
Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Cook County Attorney No. 38957
205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 621-2000
Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
aparkhill@barnowlaw.com
- and -
David Pastor, Esq.
PASTOR LAW OFFICE
63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 742-9700
Facsimile: (617) 742-9701
E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com
DOLGENCORP LLC: Wins Bid for Individual Arbitration in Button Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael A. Shipp of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey grants the Defendant's Motion to Compel Individual
Arbitration and Stay Proceedings in the lawsuit titled RYAN BUTTON,
on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
DOLGENCORP, LLC d/b/a DOLLAR GENERAL, Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-07028-MAS-RLS (D.N.J.).
The matter comes before the Court upon Defendant Dolgencorp, LLC's
("Dollar General" or "Defendant") Motion to Compel Individual
Arbitration and Stay Proceedings for all claims in Plaintiff Ryan
Button's Second Amended Complaint ("Amended Complaint"). The
Plaintiff opposed, and the Defendant replied. Judge Shipp notes
that the Plaintiff refers to ECF No. 52 as the Second Amended
Complaint despite having never filed a First Amended Complaint. For
ease of reference, the Court will refer to the operative complaint
as the "Amended Complaint."
The Plaintiff currently resides in Cliffwood Beach, New Jersey. The
Defendant is the sole legal entity operating Dollar General in the
State of New Jersey and has a principal place of business in
Tennessee. Dollar General operates stores that offer inexpensive
products. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated are those who
shop at Dollar General stores in New Jersey.
The Plaintiff regularly shops at the Dollar General store located
at 228 NJ-35, in Keyport, New Jersey. On Jan. 11, 2022, the
Plaintiff enrolled in a Dollar General Account ("DG Account"),
which allows a customer to access coupons, promotions, and other
discounts. To create that account, he was required to agree to
certain terms and conditions ("Terms") and a privacy policy. He
consented to Dollar General's updated Terms by clicking an "I
accept" button in September 2022, October 2022, and December 2023.
Within these Terms was an arbitration agreement with a delegation
provision.
In early 2022, the Plaintiff started noticing discrepancies between
the price of merchandise displayed on store shelves and what he was
charged at checkout, and he began documenting these discrepancies.
From May 2022 through July 2022, the pricing discrepancies
included: (1) a collective overcharge of $1.30 for three separate
items on June 16, 2022; (2) an overcharge of $0.25 for a single
item on June 21, 2022; (3) an overcharge of $0.05 for a single item
on June 23, 2022; (4) a collective overcharge of $1.05 for three
separate items on June 28, 2022; and (5) a collective overcharge of
$0.85 for two separate items on July 1, 2022.
The Plaintiff commenced this class action lawsuit on Oct. 6, 2022,
in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County,
and the Defendant removed this action pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d) on Dec. 5, 2022. The
Defendant filed a motion to seal on Dec. 19, 2022, which the Court
granted on Jan. 11, 2023.
On Dec. 27, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss.
Approximately three weeks later, the Plaintiff moved to remand, or
in the alternative, for jurisdictional discovery. Upon request of
the parties, the Court stayed the motions to dismiss pending the
disposition of the Plaintiff's motion to remand. The Court denied
the motion to remand on Aug. 9, 2023.
The Plaintiff requested a stay on Aug. 16, 2023, pending the
disposition of his anticipated request to appeal the Court's denial
of his motion for jurisdictional discovery. Two days later, the
Court granted the stay. There was no activity in the case for
approximately ten months. Then on June 11, 2024, the parties
submitted a stipulation to permit the Plaintiff to file an amended
complaint. The Court so-ordered the stipulation the next day.
The Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on June 21, 2024, seeking
declaratory judgment and injunctive and monetary relief, alleging
that the Defendant violated: (1) the New Jersey General Advertising
Regulations; (2) the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("NJCFA"); and
(3) the Truth-In-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act.
The Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Arbitration and
Stay Proceedings pending the resolution of arbitration pursuant to
the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"). The Plaintiff opposed, and the
Defendant replied.
The Defendant asserts that the Court should compel the Plaintiff's
claims to individual arbitration because the parties formed a
contract to arbitrate with a valid delegation provision. The
Defendant further argues that even if the Court looks past the
delegation provision, the parties entered into an enforceable
arbitration agreement that encompasses the Plaintiff's claims.
The Plaintiff opposes Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration for
three reasons: the Defendant waived its right to arbitrate because
it has engaged extensively in the litigation process, the
arbitration agreement and delegation clause are unenforceable
because they are unconscionable and illusory, and his claims are
not covered by the scope of the arbitration agreement or Terms.
The Court finds that it, not an arbitrator, must determine whether
the Defendant waived its right to arbitrate. The Court also finds
that the length of time before the Defendant raised arbitration is
largely neutral, given that much of the time was spent not
litigating the case, but rather with the case stayed. The Court
finds that filing the motion to dismiss did not waive the
Defendant's right to arbitration here, where the motion was never
fully briefed or decided by the Court.
The Court further finds that the other non-merit motions are not
sufficient to find waiver, where the Defendant did not file an
answer, engage in initial discovery, depositions, or otherwise
extensively participate in this litigation, before filing the
instant motion.
The Court also finds that the delegation clause is not ambiguous.
Based on the foregoing, the Court grants the Defendant's motion to
compel arbitration. The Court stays the proceeding pending
arbitration.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yywnbzje from PacerMonitor.com.
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Combs Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL COMBS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DXC TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00397
(E.D. Va., Mar. 4, 2025) sues the Defendant for failing to properly
secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive
personally identifiable information and personal health
information, which, as a result, is now in criminal cyberthieves'
possession.
On Feb. 10, 2025, notorious ransomware group Cl0p took
responsibility for the Data Breach. As of March 3, 2025, or
earlier, the full batch of Private Information-containing files
stolen in the Data Breach have been published on Clop's dark web
leak site, for any bad actor to view, download, and use to further
injure Plain-tiffs and Class Members, including through identity
theft and financial crimes.
Accordingly, the Private Information stolen by Clop in the Data
Breach includes such highly sensitive data as names, dates of
birth, addresses, Social Security numbers, driver's license
numbers, financial information (e.g., account numbers, credit or
deb-it card numbers), medical information and/or health insurance
in-formation, and other sensitive PII and PHI.
The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the
Class, seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, nominal
damages, restitution, and injunctive and declaratory relief,
reasonable attorney fees and costs.
The Plaintiff Combs is an individual domiciled in Pulaski County,
Arkansas. She is a victim of the Data Breach, and her Private
In-formation was stolen by Clop and published on dark web.
DXC is an IT solutions and consulting company with 130,000
employees worldwide. DXC Technology provides a diverse range of
services including analytics, consulting, application development,
and security across more than 70 countries. DXC was established
through the merger of CSC and the Enterprise Services business of
Hewlett Packard Enterprise.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lee A. Floyd, Esq.
Justin M. Sheldon, Esq
BREIT BINIAZAN, PC
2100 East Cary Street, Suite 310
Richmond, VA 23223
Telephone: (804) 351-9040
Facsimile: (804) 351-9170
E-mail: Lee@bbtrial.com
Justin@bbtrial.com
- and -
Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
E-mail: sukert@kolawyers.com
ostrow@kolawyers.com
E.L.F. COSMETICS: Faces Class Action Over Half Empty Containers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit claims e.l.f. Cosmetics has misled consumers by
selling its Holy Hydration! Gentle Peeling Exfoliant and Glossy Lip
Stain in oversized containers that are half-empty.
According to the 32-page e.l.f. lawsuit, the company has
misrepresented that the packages contain an amount of product
commensurate with the size of their containers, thereby fooling
unwitting consumers into paying "premium prices for empty space."
Reasonable consumers who view the packaging are led to expect that
they are purchasing a container full of product, the class action
suit contends. In truth, what they actually receive is
significantly less than what is represented by the size of the
package, the case alleges.
The products' opaque packaging prevents consumers from seeing the
contents before purchase, the lawsuit says.
For example, the lip stain tube is only partially visible through
an opening in the exterior packaging, and consumers are unable to
tell prior to purchase that the beauty product does not extend the
full length of the outer box, the complaint relays. Shoppers are,
therefore, led to believe the item is nearly two inches longer than
it actually is, the filing claims.
The case argues that not even shaking the containers would warn a
shopper about the amount of slack-fill, or nonfunctional empty
space, found inside each package.
The cosmetic products are underfilled for no legitimate or lawful
reason, the suit claims. Per the complaint, the empty space does
not protect the contents of the containers, nor is it a necessary
part of the presentation or a result of the items settling during
shipment.
In fact, e.l.f. can "easily increase the quantity of product in
each container (or, alternatively, decrease the size of the
containers) significantly," the filing charges.
The case alleges that the company's deceptive conduct has violated
several California consumer protection and packaging laws.
The lawsuit looks to represent all California residents who
purchased e.l.f.'s Holy Hydration! Gentle Peeling Exfoliant or
Glossy Lip Stain containing nonfunctional slack-fill within the
state during the past four years. [GN]
EHEALTHINSURANCE: Court Narrows Claims in Nichols, et al. TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eumi K. Lee of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California granted in part eHealthInsurance
Services, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the complaint and motion to
strike class allegations in the case captioned as TERRI NICHOLS, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. EHEALTHINSURANCE SERVICES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 23-cv-06720-EKL (N.D. Cal.).
In this putative class action, named plaintiff Thomas Matthews
alleges that Defendant eHealthInsurance Services, Inc. violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing unsolicited
telemarketing calls to his phone number, which was registered with
the National Do-Not-Call Registry.
Matthews seek to represent a nationwide class of persons
"registered on the National Do Not Call Registry to whom Defendant
and/or a third party acting on Defendant's behalf, made two or more
telephone solicitations within any twelve-month period." He asserts
two causes of action on his own behalf and on behalf of the
proposed class. Count 1 alleges violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C.
Sec. 227, et seq., and Count 2 alleges violations of the TCPA's
implementing regulations, 47 C.F.R. Sec. 64.1200(C), et seq.
Motion to Dismiss
Count 1
Count 1 appears to assert that eHealth violated the TCPA by using
an Automatic Telephone Dialing System or prerecorded messages.
eHealth moves to dismiss this claim on the basis that Matthews
fails to allege that he received calls from an ATDS or that he
received prerecorded messages.
The Court grants the Motion to Dismiss Count 1 without leave to
amend because Matthews does not allege any facts that could state a
claim under this theory of liability, and the claim was asserted in
error.
Count 2
Count 2 alleges a violation of the TCPA's implementing regulations,
which prohibit telephone solicitations to telephone numbers that
are listed in the NDNC Registry. The only disputed issue is whether
Matthews must allege that he personally registered his phone number
in the NDNC Registry to state a claim. The Court holds that
Matthews need not allege that he personally registered his number
in the NDNC Registry. Rather, it is sufficient that Matthews
alleges that his phone number "was added" to the NDNC Registry. The
plain language and statutory scheme of the TCPA and its
implementing regulations support this conclusion. Accordingly,
eHealth's Motion to Dismiss Count 2 is denied.
Motion to Strike
eHealth moves to strike the class allegations based on three
purported deficiencies of this class definition. eHealth argues
that the class definition is:
(1) an improper "fail-safe" class;
(2) overbroad because it includes members who do not have valid
claims; and
(3) indeterminate because it includes members who received calls
from unspecified third parties acting on eHealth's behalf.
The Court grants the Motion to Strike the fail-safe class
definition with leave to amend, consistent with the instructions in
this Order. According to the Court, eHealth is correct that the
class definition is fail-safe because membership turns on whether a
consumer received a telephone solicitation from eHealth. The TCPA's
implementing regulations define "telephone solicitation" to exclude
calls made with consent or where there is an established business
relationship between the caller and the called party. Therefore,
the Court cannot determine who is a member of the class without
evaluating the merits of each potential class member's claim,
including evidence regarding consent and whether there was an
established business relationship with eHealth. Because this is a
fail-safe class and defective as a matter of law, it is appropriate
to strike it at the pleading stage.
The Court denies the Motion to Strike in all other respects.
Matthews must file an amended complaint within fourteen days of
this Order. The amended complaint must omit allegations regarding
former named plaintiff Nichols in light of her notice of voluntary
dismissal.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wyT6HB from PacerMonitor.com.
ESSENTIA HEALTH: Court Narrows Claims in Okash Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL OKASH,
individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, v.
ESSENTIA HEALTH, Case No. 0:23-cv-00482-JRT-LIB (D. Minn.), the
Hon. Judge John Tunheim entered an order granting in part and
denying part the Defendant's motion to dismiss, and dismissing with
prejudice Counts I and III.
The Court's prior Order identified two deficiencies in Okash’s
Amended Complaint: the Wiretap Act claims did not adequately allege
an independent crime or tort, and the MHRA failed to provide
specific examples of Okash's browsing history. The Second Amended
Complaint only cures the deficiencies identified in the MHRA claim.
Accordingly, the Court will deny Essentia's motion to dismiss as to
the MUDPTA, MHRA, and MCFA claims (Counts II, IV, V) but will grant
the motion as to the Wiretap Act claims (Counts I, III) and dismiss
those counts with prejudice.
Overall, no new developments affect Okash's MUDTPA and MCFA claims,
so the Court will deny Essentia's motion to dismiss Counts II and
V.
For years, Plaintiff Michael Okash browsed the website of Defendant
Essentia Health. Unbeknownst to him, Essentia was sharing Okash's
sensitive browsing data with Meta using Pixel technology.
Okash brings this action on behalf of himself and a proposed class
of similarly situated individuals based on violations of various
state and federal privacy statutes.
In a prior order, the Court denied in part and granted in part
Essentia’s first motion to dismiss, leaving in place two counts
based on Minnesota consumer protection statutes but dismissing
without prejudice Okash's Wiretap Act and Minnesota Health Records
Act claims for lack of detail.
Because the Second Amended Complaint partially cures those
deficiencies, the Court will deny Essentia's second Motion to
Dismiss as to the consumer protection and the Minnesota Health
Records Act claims but will dismiss Okash’s Wiretap Act claims
with prejudice.
Essentia Health is an integrated health system serving patients in
Minnesota, North Dakota, and Wisconsin.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 27, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KDZHur at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anne T. Regan, Esq.
Nathan D. Prosser, Esq.
HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC
8050 West 78th Street
Edina, MN 55439
- and -
Anthony Stauber, Esq.
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
David A. Goodwin, Esq.
Karla M. Gluek, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
- and -
Benjamin Cooper, Esq.
Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
Jason P. Johnston, Esq.
Michael J. Laird, Esq.
Rachel Kristine Tack, Esq.
Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
1100 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street,
Minneapolis, MN 55402
The Defendant is represented by:
Anderson Tuggle, Esq.
Andy Taylor, Esq.
Jeffrey P. Justman, Esq.
Justin O'Neill Kay, Esq.
Zoe K. Wilhelm, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
2200 Wells Fargo Center, 90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
FEMA: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARIBBEAN BASIN POWER
AUTHORITY CORPORATION, v. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, et
al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03198-LLA (D.D.C.), the Defendants ask the
Court to enter an order extending their deadline to respond to the
motion to amend and the motion for class certification through and
including fourteen days after the Court determines whether the
Order to Show Cause is discharged.
The Defendants further request that the Plaintiff's motion for a
default judgment be denied.
Because Rousselle has not met his burden to show standing, it would
waste the parties' and the Court’s resources for Defendant to
respond to Plaintiff's motions to amend the complaint or to certify
a class.
The Plaintiff could not prevail because, among other things, he
lacks standing and he fails to identify "'a crystal-clear legal
duty'" imposed upon the Agency.
On Jan. 29, 2025, Rousselle filed a motion to dismiss the
Corporation in which Rousselle admitted that the Corporation "has
been unable to retain legal counsel."
Federal Emergency supports citizens and emergency personnel to
build, sustain, and improve the nation's capability to prepare for,
protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all
hazards.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 26, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hSAbJj at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Edward R. Martin, Jr., Esq.
Brian J. Levy, Esq.
601 D Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 252-6734
FERTILITY CENTERS: Discloses Patient Info to 3rd Party, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
L.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. FERTILITY CENTERS OF ILLINOIS, PLLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-02049 (N.D. Ill., February 27, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Electronic Communications
Privacy Act and the Illinois Eavesdropping Statute, negligence, and
unjust enrichment.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has disclosed the private
and confidential information of its patients to third parties
without consent. The Defendant installed tracking technologies,
including, but not limited to, the Meta Pixel, Google Analytics,
and Google Ads, on its website to collect and disclose the said
information. As a result, the Defendant violated the Plaintiff's
and the Class members' statutorily protected privacy rights.
Fertility Centers of Illinois, PLLC is a provider of fertility
treatment in Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7126
Email: aleslie@bursor.com
- and -
Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
Stephen A. Beck, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2100
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
Email: swestcot@bursor.com
sbeck@bursor.com
FIELD FRESH FOODS: Jorge Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FIELD FRESH FOODS
INCORPORATED. The case is styled as Molina Jorge, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. FIELD FRESH FOODS
INCORPORATED, Case No. 25STCV05766 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., Feb. 28, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Field Fresh Foods, Inc. -- https://www.fieldfresh.com/ -- produces
fruits and vegetables for food services, food manufacturing, and
retail application companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jose Garay, Esq.
JOSE GARAY APLC
249 E Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
Long Beach, CA 90802-4899
Phone: 949-208-3400
Fax: 562-590-8400
Email: jose@garaylaw.com
FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE: Must Face IWPCA Claim in Graves Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Tanya Walton Pratt of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana denied Franciscan
Alliance, Inc.'s motion to dismiss claim filed by the plaintiff
under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act in the case
captioned as WANDA GRAVES Individually and for Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE, INC. agent Franciscan
Health, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01031-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind.).
Plaintiff Wanda Graves initiated this action individually and for
others similarly situated against Franciscan, alleging violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and
the IWPCA, for depriving Plaintiffs of pay for all overtime hours
worked.
Franciscan operates hospitals and medical facilities throughout
Illinois and Indiana. The Plaintiffs were employed by Franciscan to
provide patient care services and treat patients in their
facilities. Graves, a former employee of Franciscan, worked as a
registered nurse at Franciscan's facility in Olympia Fields,
Illinois. The record is unclear how long Graves, or the other
Putative Class Members were employed by Franciscan, only that
Graves was employed until approximately October 2023. The
Plaintiffs were classified as nonexempt from overtime and were paid
on an hourly basis. As an RN for Franciscan, Graves'
responsibilities included providing healthcare services,
facilitating patient care, and responding to patient emergencies.
Graves alleges that Franciscan did not pay her and similarly
situated persons for work performed during their purported meal
breaks pursuant to Franciscan's automatic meal break
deduction policy. She brings this as a collective action under the
FLSA and a class action under Illinois law, seeking to represent
all persons similarly affected by Franciscan's automatic meal break
deduction policy. Franciscan argues that Plaintiffs fail to
plausibly plead a claim under the IWPCA and seeks dismissal of the
IWPCA claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Franciscan contends that Graves has failed to plausibly plead the
existence of an agreement between the parties containing the
specific terms that Graves alleges were violated. It argues that
Graves has merely alleged the existence of some employment
agreement rather than the existence of an agreement that
specifically gives her a right to the wages she seeks.
The Court finds by alleging that Franciscan required her to perform
the same work during her lunch break as she performed under her
employment contract and that she was not compensated for the work,
Graves has alleged facts sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss
under the IWPCA.
Therefore, Franciscan's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim
under the IWPCA is denied. Whether Graves can prove that such
agreement exists and that such allegations are true is a matter
that can be tested on summary judgment or at trial, the Court
concludes.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Tiyyog from PacerMonitor.com.
FRANKLIN & MARSHALL: Doyle Seeks Prelim. Approval of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM DOYLE, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. FRANKLIN &
MARSHALL COLLEGE, Case No. 5:24-cv-01024-JLS (E.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23:
(1) Preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement on behalf
of the Settlement Class Members according to the terms of
the Settlement Agreement;
(2) Provisionally certifying, for purposes of the Settlement
only, the following Settlement Class:
"All students who satisfied their payment obligations to
Franklin & Marshall College for Spring 2020 for tuition
and/or Mandatory Fees (including any Health Services Fee
and/or Student Activity Fee) and who were enrolled in at
least one in-person, on-campus class."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) all students
who had their tuition and fee obligations completely funded
by F&M for the Spring 2020 semester; and (ii) the
Defendant; the Defendant's officers, directors, agents,
trustees, parents, children, corporations, trustees,
representatives, employees, principals, servants, partners,
joint venturers, and/or entitles controlled by Defendant;
and/or Defendant's heirs, successors, assigns, or other
persons or entities related to or affiliated with the
Defendant and/or Defendant’s officers.
(3) Preliminarily appointing Named Plaintiff William Doyle as
Settlement Class Representative;
(4) Preliminarily appointing Nicholas A. Colella of Lynch
Carpenter, LLP, and Michael A. Tompkins and Anthony M.
Alesandro of Leeds Brown Law, P.C. as Class Counsel to act
on behalf of the Settlement Class and the Settlement Class
Representative with respect to the Settlement;
(5) Approving the Parties' proposed settlement procedure,
including approving the Parties' selection of RG/2 Claims
Administration LLC as Settlement Administrator and
approving the Parties' proposed schedule;
(6) Entering the proposed Order Preliminarily Approving the
Proposed Settlement and Provisionally Certifying the
Proposed Settlement Class, attached as Exhibit A to the
Settlement Agreement, which is attached as Exhibit 1 to the
Declaration of Nicholas A. Colella; and
(7) Granting such other and further relief as may be just and
appropriate.
Franklin & Marshall is a private liberal arts college in Lancaster,
Pennsylvania.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 27, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xOi23V at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
E-mail: NickC@lcllp.com
- and -
Michael Tompkins, Esq.
Anthony M. Alesandro, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com
GARDNER TRUCKING: Class Settlement in Leuzinger Gets Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KASPER LEUZINGER, MICHAEL
ALLEN JENSEN, WILLIAM MATNEY-TATE, AND RICARDO AMEZCUA ON BEHALF OF
THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. GARDNER TRUCKING,
INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; GARDNER TRUCKING CONVERSION, LLC, A
CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; CRST EXPEDITED, INC., AN IOWA
CORPORATION; CRST THE TRANSPORTATION SOLUTION, INC., AN ENTITY OF
UNKNOWN FORMATION; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, Case No.
4:21-cv-04952-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez
Rogers entered an order:
-- granting the motion for final approval of class settlement;
And
-- granting in part the motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and
service awards as follows:
The Class Counsel is awarded $1,093,500 in attorneys' fees and
$31,891.93 in litigation costs.
The Plaintiffs Kasper Leuzinger, Michael-Allen Jensen, William
Matney-Tate, and Ricardo Amezcua are granted an incentive
award of $10,000 each.
Without affecting the finality of this order in any way, the Court
retains jurisdiction of all matters relating to the interpretation,
administration, implementation, effectuation and enforcement of
this order and the Settlement.
The Amended Settlement Agreement, defines two classes:
Expedited Settlement Class:
"All California resident truck driver employees who worked for
CRST as part of what is now known as Expedited Solutions at
any time from Aug. 10, 2017 through Feb. 29, 2024."
Gardner-Dedicated West Settlement Class:
"All California resident truck driver employees who worked for
CRST as part of what is now known as Dedicated West at any
time from April 6, 2016 though Feb. 29, 2024."
The Court finds the settlement fair, adequate, and reasonable. The
provisional appointments of the class representatives and class
counsel are confirmed.
Gardner offers logistics, warehousing, storage, freight forwarding,
and other related services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 27, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wJKTTW at no extra
charge.[CC]
GCCF: DeHerrera et al. Prisoner Civil Rights Lawsuit Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Martha Vazquez of the United States District Court for the
District of New Mexico dismissed the case captioned as JULIAN
DEHERRERA, et al, Plaintiffs, v. GCCF, et al, Defendants, Case No.
24-cv-0518-MV-DLM (D.N.M.) without prejudice.
The filings in this implicate a number of these concerns. Different
subsets of Inmate-Plaintiffs signed different pleadings, making it
impossible to discern the scope of the joined claims. The Court
also cannot discern which Inmate-Plaintiffs still seek to prosecute
claims. Of the five individuals who filed claims in this case, four
never returned in forma pauperis forms. Several Inmate-Plaintiffs
(Mario Recio, Edwardo Jesus Casillas, Armando Pino, and Julian
DeHerrera) severed contact with the Court. In addition, even if the
Court were inclined to permit a joinder, the Inmate-Plaintiffs
cannot pursue a pro se class action as intended. It is well-settled
that class representatives may not appear pro se. For these
reasons, the Court finds the proposed joinder and class action
claims are not permitted.
According to the Court, there is no primary filer in this case.
Jarell Robinson, Edwardo Jesus Casillas, and Julian DeHerrera all
filed amended pleadings/supplements after the initial Complaint.
Moreover, the Court says dismissing the claims and requiring each
Inmate-Plaintiff to file their own case will not result in any
prejudice. The claims arose in 2024 and are not time-barred.
The Court will therefore dismiss this case, and each pleading
herein, without prejudice. Each Inmate-Plaintiff may file a new
case limited to their own claims, if they wish to continue
litigating. The Court will deny the pending Motion to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis as moot and without prejudice to refiling in the new
case.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6xOvCA from PacerMonitor.com.
GENERAC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Consumer Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Generac Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
annual period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2025, that the Company
continues to defend itself from a consolidated consumer class suit
in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
On October 28, 2022, Daniel Haak filed a putative consumer class
action lawsuit against Generac Power in the Middle District of
Florida. The complaint alleges breaches of warranty, tort-based,
and unjust enrichment claims against Generac Power relating to the
sale and performance of certain clean energy products, and seeks to
recover damages, including consequential damages, that the
plaintiff and putative class allegedly incurred. Additional
putative class actions were filed by consumers raising similar
claims and allegations in other district court cases.
These putative class actions have been consolidated into a
Multidistrict Litigation, In re: Generac Solar Power Systems
Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation
currently pending in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No.
23-md-3078. Generac Power and the Company filed their answer to the
consolidated master complaint after the court denied the motion to
dismiss on May 24, 2024.
Generac Power and the Company intend to vigorously defend against
the consolidated master complaint.
Generac Holdings Inc. is a global designer and manufacturer of a
wide range of energy technology solutions for power generation
equipment, energy storage systems, energy management devices &
solutions, and other power products and services serving the
residential, light commercial, and industrial markets.
GENERAC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Wisconsin
------------------------------------------------------------------
Generac Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
annual period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2025, that the Company
continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the
Eastern District of Wisconsin.
On December 1, 2022, Oakland County Voluntary Employees'
Beneficiary Association and Oakland County Employees' Retirement
System filed a putative securities class action lawsuit against the
Company and certain of its officers in the Eastern District of
Wisconsin. The court subsequently consolidated a later filed action
and appointed a lead plaintiff.
The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint alleging
violation of federal securities law related to disclosures of
certain matters (the Oakland County Lawsuit).
On February 7, 2025, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss and found that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead a
securities fraud claim. The court gave plaintiffs until March 10,
2025, to file an amended complaint if they want to continue the
lawsuit.
Generac Holdings Inc. is a global designer and manufacturer of a
wide range of energy technology solutions for power generation
equipment, energy storage systems, energy management devices &
solutions, and other power products and services serving the
residential, light commercial, and industrial markets.
GRAND CANYON: Ogdon Class Suit Trial Date Still Not Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Grand Canyon Education, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the annual period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2025, that the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona has not
yet scheduled a trial date for the Ogdon class suit.
Ogdon v. Grand Canyon Education, Inc., et al. This putative class
action was filed in May 2020 in federal district court in
California and later transferred to United States District Court
for the District of Arizona and asserts claims for violations of
California's False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law,
Consumer Legal Remedies Act; Unjust Enrichment; and purported
violations of the federal RICO statute, including a conspiracy
claim.
The defendants include the Company along with our chief executive
officer, chief operating officer and chief financial officer. On
May 27, 2022, after significant motions practice, the Company filed
an amended motion to dismiss and a motion to strike certain
allegations in Plaintiff's amended complaint.
On August 8, 2023, the court presiding over the dispute entered two
orders: (1) an order granting in part the Company's motion to
dismiss as to Ogdon's RICO claim from the case and to dismiss the
individual Defendants; and (2) an order granting in part the
Company's motion to strike scandalous and impertinent allegations
in Ogdon's complaint about our business. Shortly thereafter on
August 22, 2023, Plaintiff moved the court to reconsider its
dismissal of the RICO claim.
Though discovery had commenced, and the Company substantially
completed its discovery obligations on the state-law claims,
discovery was stayed on March 18, 2024, pending mediation and the
disposition of Ogdon's motion for reconsideration.
On March 29, 2024, the court issued an order reinstating
Plaintiff's RICO claim.
On September 26, 2024, the court lifted the stay on discovery, and
discovery resumed, with class certification briefing to conclude in
September 2025. There is currently no trial date scheduled in this
matter.
Grand Canyon Education, Inc. is a publicly traded education
services company dedicated to serving colleges and universities.
GRAND CANYON: Smith and Wang Suit Trial Date Still Not Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Grand Canyon Education Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the annual period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2025, that the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona has not
yet scheduled a trial date for the Smith and Wang class suit.
Smith and Wang v. Grand Canyon Education, Inc. This putative class
action was filed in June 2024 in the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona and asserts claims under the federal
RICO statute as well as various claims for violations of state law
consumer protection statutes.
On September 20, 2024, the plaintiffs amended their complaint, and
on November 4, 2024, the Company moved to dismiss the case. The
motion to dismiss is pending with the court.
There is currently no trial date scheduled in this matter.
Grand Canyon Education, Inc. is a publicly traded education
services company dedicated to serving colleges and universities.
GROUNDHOG ENTERPRISES: Catered Fit Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Catered Fit Corp. on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. GROUNDHOG ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A
MERCHANT LYNX SERVICES, A FOREIGN FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION, Case No.
25-000929 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Feb. 28,
2025, and assigned Case No. 0:25-cv-60399-XXXX.
The Plaintiff sues MLS for breach of contract (count 1), unjust
enrichment (count 2), and alleged violations of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (count 3) related to MLS
allegedly charging Plaintiff credit-card processing fees that
Plaintiff alleges were improper.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Benjamin Michael Katz, Esq.
BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
1221 Broadway, Suite 2400
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 252-3598
Fax: (615) 252-6380
Email: bkatz@bradley.com
Secondary Email: rransom@bradley.com
HERBALIFE LTD: Continues to Defend DeSimone Labor Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife Ltd. Disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual
period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 19, 2025, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the DeSimone labor class suit in
the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
On October 31, 2024, the Company and certain of its executive
officers were named as defendants in a purported class action
lawsuit filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, titled
Sarah DeSimone v. Herbalife Ltd. et al. The complaint alleges
violations of the California Labor Code, including
misclassification of distributors as independent contractors, and
states that plaintiff intends to assert claims under the California
Private Attorneys General Act.
The plaintiff seeks damages in an unspecified amount. The Company
will vigorously defend itself against the claims in the lawsuit.
The Company is currently unable to reasonably estimate the amount
of the loss that may result from an unfavorable outcome and does
not believe a loss is probable.
Herbalife Ltd. (formerly Herbalife Nutrition Ltd.) is a global
nutrition company that sells weight management, targeted nutrition,
energy, sports, and fitness and outer nutrition products to and
through a network of independent retailers.
HERSHEY COMPANY: Has Until April 4 to File Class Cert Response
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vidal, et al., v. The
Hershey Company, Case No. 0:24-cv-60831 (S.D. Fla., Filed May 17,
2024), the Hon. Judge Melissa Damian entered an order granting the
Defendant's agreed motion for extension of time to respond to
motion for class certification.
-- All pretrial non-dispositive motions have been referred to the
undersigned for appropriate disposition.
-- Accordingly, by April 4, 2025, the Defendant must file its
response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property --
Diversity-Fraud.[CC]
HIGH SPEED ROOTER: Portilla Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Angel Mendoza Portilla, an individual, and on behalf of other
aggrieved employees v. HIGH SPEED ROOTER AND PLUMBING, INC., a
California Corporation; ELIEL MORALES SANTOYO, an individual;
BRENDA MORALES, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 25STCV02013 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. 24, 2025), is brought
as a result of the Defendants failure to pay proper wages.
The Defendants engaged in multiple violations of other sections of
the California Labor Code, including but not limited to failing to
pay or provide the Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees: All of
their earned wages due upon termination of his employment; All of
their earned wages semimonthly ; Accurate itemized wage
statements; Misdemeanor ; All mandated uninterrupted meal and rest
periods; Legally mandated sick pay; Legally mandated written notice
requirement to employees of the amount of paid sick leave accrued
and used on an itemized wage statement; Notice via displaying a
poster advising employees of their rights to use sick pay; Legally
mandated record keeping requirement of employees' paid sick days
accrued and used; Overtime for all hours worked in excess Of 8 in a
day, 40 in a week, and double time for all hours worked in excess
of 12 in a day; For missed, interrupted, or late meal periods;
Failure to keep payroll records showing daily hours worked, wages
paid and piece rate rates; Minimum wage; Liquidated damages for
failure to pay minimum wage; Penalties for failing to pay minimum
wage, correct overtime and double time wages all in violation of
the Labor Codes, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for about 20 years as a plumber for different
employers.
HIGH SPEED ROOTER AND PLUMBING, INC., ("HSRP") is a California
corporation, with a principal place of business in Los Angeles
County, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roxanne A. Davis, SBN 132128
Frank Hakim, SBN 173365
DAVIS*GAVSIE & HAKIM, LLP
100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Phone: (310) 789-2240
Facsimile: (310) 789-2249
Email: Roxanne@DGHLawyers.com
Frank@DGHLawyers.com
ILEARNINGENGINES INC: Lead Roles Named in Walker Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Deborah K. Chasanow of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland grants the motion to appoint counsel and for
appointment as lead plaintiff filed by Louis Leveque in the lawsuit
captioned DANNY WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ILEARNINGENGINES, INC., et al., Case No.
8:24-cv-02900-DKC (D. Md.).
Presently pending and ready for resolution in this putative
securities class action are: (1) the motion to appoint counsel and
for appointment as lead plaintiff, filed by Louis Leveque; (2) the
motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of selection
of lead counsel, filed by Austin Alsup; (3) the motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of selection of counsel,
filed by Erik Bayard; (4) the motion to appoint counsel and for
appointment as lead plaintiff, filed by Danny Walker; and (5) the
joint motion for extension of time for Defendants Harish
Chidambaran and Sayyed Farhan Naqvi (collectively "Defendants") to
respond to the complaint.
The issues have been briefed, and the Court now rules, no hearing
being deemed necessary. For reasons set forth in this Memorandum
Opinion, the Court grants the motion to appoint counsel and for
appointment as lead plaintiff filed by Louis Leveque. The motions
for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of selection of lead
counsel, filed by Austin Alsup, Erik Bayard, and Danny Walker, will
each be denied, and the joint motion for extension of time for the
Defendants to respond to the complaint will be granted.
On Oct. 7, 2024, Danny Walker filed a securities class action
complaint on behalf of himself and others, who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of iLearningEngines, Inc., between
April 22, 2024, and Aug. 28, 2024. This action is subject to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA").
Pursuant to the PSLRA, Mr. Walker caused a notice to be published
Oct. 7, 2024. Accordingly, any member of the purported class had
sixty days to file a motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff.
Louis Leveque, Austin Alsup, Erik Bayard, and Mr. Walker each filed
such motions on Dec. 6, 2024.
On Dec. 20, 2024, Mr. Alsup filed a notice of non-opposition to the
competing movants seeking appointment as lead plaintiff, Mr.
Leveque filed a response in support of his motion seeking
appointment as lead plaintiff, and Mr. Walker filed a notice
withdrawing his motion seeking appointment as lead plaintiff. Mr.
Bayard filed a notice of non-opposition to Mr. Leveque's competing
motion on Dec. 23, 2024. Accordingly, Mr. Leveque's motion is
unopposed.
Judge Chasanow finds that Mr. Leveque has made a timely motion in
response to the notice published by Mr. Walker; has the largest
financial interest; and shares the same claims as the other class
members. There is also no suggestion of a conflict of interest with
other class members and because of Mr. Leveque's large financial
loss, he has a significant interest in vigorously prosecuting this
action on behalf of the class.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Mr. Leveque is entitled to a
presumption that he is the most adequate plaintiff. Because no
evidence has been presented rebutting that presumption, Mr. Leveque
will be appointed as lead plaintiff in this action.
As lead plaintiff, Mr. Leveque may choose lead counsel subject to
the approval of the Court. He has selected the law firm of Levi &
Korinsky, LLP. Accordingly, the Court approves Levi & Korinsky,
LLP, as lead counsel.
The parties filed a joint motion for extension of time for the
Defendants to respond to the complaint. The parties request that
the Court extend the time for the Defendants to answer, move to
dismiss, or otherwise respond to the complaint until after a lead
plaintiff is appointed and an amended complaint, if required, is
filed.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court rules that the motion to
appoint counsel and for appointment as lead plaintiff, filed by Mr.
Leveque is granted, the motions for appointment as lead plaintiff
and approval of selection of lead counsel, filed by Mr. Alsup, Mr.
Bayard, and Mr. Walker, will each be denied, and the joint motion
for extension of time for the Defendants to respond to the
complaint is granted.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at
https://tinyurl.com/53w3yc5y from PacerMonitor.com.
IN RE REGIONAL: Court Consolidates Six Related Data Breach Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson of the United States District
Court for the District of Nebraska granted the plaintiffs' motion
to consolidate the following cases into the first filed action,
Case No. 4:24-cv-03236, under the new title "In re Regional Care
Data Security Incident Litigation":
-- Case No. 4:24CV3236,
-- Case No. 4:24CV3237,
-- Case No. 4:24CV3238
-- Case No. 7:24CV5009,
-- Case No. 4:24CV3240, and
-- Case No. 7:24CV5010
The plaintiffs' motion to appoint interim co-lead class counsel in
the cases is also granted.
Consolidation
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Consolidate
Related Actions and Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel filed by
the plaintiffs in each of the cases. The plaintiffs seek
consolidation of the related cases, as well as any subsequently
filed or transferred related actions, for all purposes pursuant to
Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs
further request appointment of interim co-lead class counsel to
collectively lead this litigation as well as appointment of an
executive committee counsel. Finally, the motion seeks to stay all
case deadlines in the related actions during the pendency of the
motion, including deadlines for the defendant to respond to the
respective complaints, and proposes deadlines for filing and
responding to a consolidated complaint.
The plaintiffs' claims all arise out of the same breach of the
defendant's data by a third-party cybercriminal on or about
Sept. 18, 2024, which resulted in the unauthorized access of
sensitive personal information, including but not limited to names,
dates of birth, gender, addresses, Social Security Numbers, health
insurance information, and medical information. The defendant began
providing affected individuals with notice of the breach on or
about Dec. 16, 2024. The plaintiffs and putative class members are
individuals affected by the data breach and have brought claims
arising out of the defendant's failure to properly safeguard and
securely maintain their personally identifiable information and
protected health information. The plaintiffs have all alleged
causes of action against the defendant directly related to the Data
Breach, including common law negligence, negligence per se, unjust
enrichment, invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, breach
of third-party beneficiary contract. However, it is anticipated the
parties will file a consolidated amended complaint.
After review of the pleadings, motion, and accompanying brief and
attachments, the Court finds consolidation pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 42(a) is warranted. The plaintiffs' claims all arise out of the
same data breach, contain overlapping causes of action, and seek to
represent the same class of individuals -- of which there are
potentially hundreds of thousands. The plaintiffs also all allege
the defendant breached the same or similar common law and statutory
duties, thereby allowing the data breach to occur, and also seek
the same type of remedies and compensation. Thus, all of the
actions will involve common questions of law and fact, the Court
concludes.
The plaintiffs have proposed consolidating the actions into the
first filed action, Case No. 4:24-cv-03236, under the new title "In
re Regional Care Data Security Incident Litigation"; thereafter,
the plaintiffs propose administratively closing the remaining
member cases and proceeding under the In re Regional Care Data
Security Incident Litigation action only, which will further
streamline this litigation. Under the circumstances, the Court
finds the plaintiffs' motion should be granted, and the cases
should be consolidated for all purposes.
Appointment of Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel
The plaintiffs also move for appointment of Interim Co-Lead Counsel
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3). The plaintiffs
request Bryan L. Bleichner of Chestnut Cambronne PA
and Gary M. Klinger of Milberg Bryson Coleman Phillips Grossman
PLLC be appointed as Interim Co-Lead Counsel. The plaintiffs
further move for appointment of Raina Borrelli from Strauss
Borrelli, PLLC; Andrew W. Ferich from Ahdoot Wolfson; A. Brooke
Murphy from Murphy Law Firm; and Dylan Gould from Markovits, Stock
& DeMarco, LLC to an Executive Committee, working under Interim
Co-Lead Counsel, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(g)(3). After review of the Rule 23(g)(3) factors, the Court
finds the consolidated actions would benefit from interim class
counsel for efficient case management. As demonstrated by the brief
and accompanying resumes, proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel are
extremely experienced and qualified attorneys, and each has
knowledge of the applicable law, experience in managing and
prosecuting complex class action cases involving data security and
privacy, and resources they are willing to expend to litigate this
case.
The Court finds the appointment of the proposed Interim Co-Lead
Counsel is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).
However, the Court will not create an Executive Committee without a
further showing of necessity, information outlining each member's
roles and duties within the committee, and any other information
justifying its establishment.
The Court designated Case No. 4:24CV3236 as the "Lead Case" and
Case Nos. 4:24CV3237, 4:24CV3238, 4:24CV3240, 7:24CV5009, and
7:24CV5010 as "Member Cases." The Lead Case will
proceed under the new title "In re Regional Care Data Security
Incident Litigation."
The Plaintiffs' Motion to Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel is
granted to the extent it requests appointment of Interim Co-Lead
Class Counsel.
Bryan L. Bleichner of Chestnut Cambronne PA and Gary M. Klinger of
Milberg Bryson Coleman Phillips Grossman PLLC are appointed as
Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedures 23(g)(3).
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QQKOKU from PacerMonitor.com.
INTRASYSTEMS LLC: Herman Balks at Unauthorized Personal Info Access
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBIN HERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INTRASYSTEMS, LLC and ALLEGHENY HEALTH
NETWORK, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10204-PGL (D. Mass., January
27, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust
enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and
protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly
situated individuals stored within their network systems following
a data breach beginning on October 11, 2024. The Defendants also
failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private
information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and
damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and
unauthorized third parties.
Intrasystems, LLC is an IT consulting company based in
Massachusetts.
Allegheny Health Network is a healthcare company, with its
principal place of business located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
KRISTENSEN LAW GROUP
53 State Street, Ste. 500
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 913-0363
- and -
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
EKSM, LLP
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (888) 350-3931
Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
ISU PETASYS CORP: Garfias Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ISU Petasys Corp. The
case is styled as Antonio Garfias, individually, and on behalf of
other similarly situated employees v. ISU Petasys Corp., Case No.
25STCV05769 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 28, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
ISU Petasys -- https://www.petasys.com/eng/ -- is a manufacturer of
high technology printed circuit boards.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Genish, Esq.
BLACKSTONE LAW
8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442
Phone: 855-786-6355
Fax: 855-786-6356
Email: jgenish@blackstonepc.com
JENELLE'S KITCHEN: Bonilla Sues Over Unpaid Regular, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Yaqueline Bonilla, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Jenelle's Kitchen Corp d/b/a Ricolombia, and Juana Soto,
individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-20957-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 28,
2025), is brought to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular
and overtime wages and retaliation under the laws of the United
States and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("the Act").
The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff for every hour worked. The
plaintiff worked 55 hours per week, but she was paid for 40 hours
plus tips. Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours, but she was not
paid for overtime hours, as required by law. In addition, during
her time of employment, Plaintiff did not receive her wages in a
timely manner on the designated payment day. Plaintiff received
partial payments. Therefore, Defendants willfully failed to pay
Plaintiffs regular wages and overtime hours at the rate of time and
one-half their regular rate for every hour that they worked over
40, in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a server from
November 04, 2022, to November 2024, or 107 weeks.
Ricolombia is a Colombian restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
JPMORGAN CHASE: Santourian Labor Case Remanded to State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mark C. Scarsi of the United States District Court for the
Central District of California granted the plaintiff's motion to
remand the case captioned as Zvard Santourian v. JPMorgan Chase
Bank, National Association, Case No. 2:24-cv-09498 (C.D. Cal.) to
the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
Plaintiff Zvard Santourian brought this labor class action against
her former employer, Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, National
Association, in Los Angeles County Superior Court, and Defendant
removed it to this Court.
Plaintiff is a California resident who worked for Defendant as a
nonexempt employee. He alleges Defendant violated various
California labor laws, asserting two claims:
(1) failure to indemnify employees for employment-related
losses/expenditures, Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 2802, and
(2) unfair business practices, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec.
17200.
Plaintiff questions whether the CAFA amount-in-controversy
threshold is satisfied, arguing that Defendant's estimates in the
notice of removal rely on implausible assumptions about its
potential liability. The Court agrees. The amount in controversy is
not clear from the face of the complaint. In its notice of removal,
Defendant submits that Plaintiff's first cause of action places
$6,599,280 in controversy, and attorneys' fees of approximately 25
percent of class recovery would push the amount in controversy to
$8,249,100. In its opposition, Defendant posits that under an even
more conservative calculation, the amount in controversy is at
least $6,317,025. The Court concludes that Defendant's estimates of
the amount placed in controversy by Plaintiff's claims rest on
speculation and conjecture, which does not suffice to meet its
burden to show jurisdiction lies in this
Court.
The Court does not reach Defendant's assumptions regarding the
reimbursable cost of internet and electricity, because the amount
in controversy threshold is unmet given the speculative assumptions
underlying Defendant's proposed work month multiplier, monthly
reimbursable expenditures, and attorneys' fees.
Therefore, the Court cannot determine that the
amount-in-controversy requirement for jurisdiction under CAFA is
met. Remand is warranted, the Court finds.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8tlNMp from PacerMonitor.com.
KELLE'S TRANSPORT: Misclassifies Drivers, Bracey Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES BRACEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KELLE'S TRANSPORT SERVICE, LLC d/b/a SOAR
TRANSPORTATION, Case No. 2:25-cv-00160-JCB (D. Utah, Mar. 4, 2025)
is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of drivers who have
been classified as independent contractors by the Defendant under
the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act and the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff seeks damages, liquidated damages, interest,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other
allowable relief.
The Plaintiff is an adult resident of Las Vegas, Nevada. He worked
as a driver for Defendant (and was classified by Defendant as an
independent contractor) from December 2023 through August 2024.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a putative class of
similarly situated individuals, namely all individuals who have
worked as independent contractors for Defendant pursuant to a term
lease arrangement at any time since March 4, 2021.
The Defendant is a trucking company that transports freight in
interstate commerce for its customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kass Harstad, Esq.
BIRCH HALLAM HARSTAD & JOHNSON, LLC
1516 W Hays St.
Boise, ID 83702
Telephone: (801) 948-2550, ext. 215
E-mail: kass@idahojobjustice.com
- and -
Hillary Schwab, Esq.
Rachel Smit, Esq.
FAIR WORK, P.C.
192 South Street, Suite 450
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone: (617) 607-3260
Facsimile: (617) 488-2261
E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com
rachel@fairworklaw.com
KRISTI NOEM: Must Produce Operative Guidance Docs by March 17
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REFUGEE AND IMMIGRANT
CENTER FOR EDUCATION AND LEGAL SERVICES, eta al., v. NOEM, et al.,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00306 (D.D.C., Filed Feb. 3, 2025), the Hon. Judge
Randolph D. Moss entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- The Defendants produce all operative March 17, 2025
guidance documents implementing the
Proclamation:
-- The Defendants file combined Motion March 24, 2025
for Summary Judgment and Opposition
to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary
Judgment; Defendants file Response
to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification
-- Plaintiffs file combined Response to April 7, 2025
Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment and Reply in Support of
Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary
Judgment; Plaintiffs file Reply in
support of Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification:
-- Defendants file Reply in support of April 21, 2025
Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment:
The Court further entered an order that (1) Plaintiffs' claims
based on the administrative record (the portions of the Sixth Claim
for Relief that raise arbitrary-and-capricious arguments under the
APA and all of the Seventh Claim for Relief); (2) the deadline to
provide a certified list of the contents of the administrative.
The nature of suit states Other Statutes -- Other Statutory
Actions.[CC]
LFG CORP: Faces Curtis Class Suit Over Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
KATE CURTIS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. LFG CORPORATION D/B/A ROOTED, Case No. e
3:25-cv-00509-BEN-MMP (S.D. Cal., Mar. 4, 2025) contends that the
Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending
unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff contends that the problem with receiving unwanted
telemarketing communications is a problem that most people in this
country frequently face. For example, in 2024 alone, approximately
52.8 billion robocalls were placed in the United States.
RobocallIndex.com, YouMail Robocall Index,
https://robocallindex.com/history/time (last visited January 6,
2025).
The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the 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. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf
of themselves and members of the Class, and any other available
legal or equitable remedies.
The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of
Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The class that
Plaintiff seeks to represent is defined as:
"All persons in the United States who from four years prior to
the filing of this action through the date of class
certification (1) Defendant, or anyone on the Defendant's
behalf, (2) placed more than one marketing text message within
any 12-month period; (3) where such marketing text messages
were initiated before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local
time at the called party’s location)."
LFG CORPORATION D/B/A ROOTED is a plant company that provides plant
subscriptions and plant delivery.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
1515 NE 26th Street,
Wilton Manors, FL 33305
Telephone: (754) 444-7539
E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com
LIFE LINE: Sweeden Files Employment Suit in California State Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Life Line Screening
of America, Ltd., et al. The case is captioned as KAYLA SWEEDEN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
LIFE LINE SCREENING OF AMERICA, LTD, et al., Case No. 25CV002195
(Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., January 27, 2025).
The Plaintiff brings employment suit against the Defendants.
Life Line Screening of America, Ltd. is a prevention and wellness
company, headquartered in Austin, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Devin E. Rauchwerger, Esq.
DOMB & RAUCHWERGER LLP
1055 E. Colorado Blvd., Fifth Floor
Pasadena, CA 91106
Telephone: (213) 537-9225
Email: devin@dombrauchwerger.com
LIGHTSPEED COMMERCE: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lightspeed Commerce Inc. (NYSE: LSPD) (TSX: LSPD) ("Lightspeed" or
the "Company"), the one-stop commerce platform empowering merchants
to provide the best omnichannel experiences, announced the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York has
dismissed in full the securities class action lawsuit against the
Company and certain of its executives. The decision marks a clear
and decisive victory for Lightspeed, stating that the allegations
had no adequate legal basis.
The lawsuit, which stemmed from allegations largely based on a
short-seller report published by Spruce Point Capital Management in
September 2021 that contained numerous inaccuracies and
mischaracterizations, was found to lack merit. The Court ruled that
the plaintiff failed to allege any actionable claims.
"We welcome this outcome, which confirms what we've maintained all
along—Lightspeed has acted with integrity and transparency," said
Dax Dasilva, Founder and CEO of Lightspeed. "This ruling helps us
put this matter behind us and stay focused on delivering value for
our stakeholders."
This announcement comes ahead of Lightspeed's Capital Markets Day,
scheduled for March 26, 2025 at the New York Stock Exchange, where
Lightspeed's management team will provide a comprehensive update on
the Company's transformation plan, operational and financial
impact, products, go-to-market efforts, and provide a long-term
financial outlook.
About Lightspeed
Powering the businesses that are the backbone of the global
economy, Lightspeed's one-stop commerce platform helps merchants
innovate to simplify, scale, and provide exceptional omnichannel
customer experiences. Our cloud commerce solution transforms and
unifies online and physical operations, multichannel sales,
expansion to new locations, global payments, financial solutions,
and connection to supplier networks.
Founded in Montreal, Canada in 2005, Lightspeed is dual-listed on
the New York Stock Exchange and Toronto Stock Exchange (NYSE: LSPD)
(TSX: LSPD). With teams across North America, Europe, and Asia
Pacific, the company serves retail, hospitality, and golf
businesses in over 100 countries. [GN]
LINEAGE LOGISTICS: Arbitration Bid in Mitchell Suit OK'd in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Daniel J. Calabretta of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California grants in part and denies in part
the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration in the lawsuit styled
CHARLES MITCHELL, an individual on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LINEAGE LOGISTICS SERVICES LLC, a
limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02099-DJC-CSK (E.D. Cal.).
Pending before the Court is the Defendant's Motion to Compel
Arbitration. The Court held a hearing on Oct. 31, 2024, and took
the matter under submission. For the reasons set forth in this
Order, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the
Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration. The Court will stay the
surviving claims pending the resolution of the arbitrated claims.
Plaintiff Charles Mitchell was employed full-time by Defendant
Lineage Logistics Services LLC ("Lineage") from January 2023
through March 2024. The Defendant provides frozen food storage,
packaging of client frozen goods for delivery, and food
transportation. The Defendant operates distribution center
warehouses throughout the country, including one in Sacramento,
California. The Plaintiff was employed at the Sacramento facility,
and his work duties included preparing shipments of goods to be
sent to customers, which involved loading the shipments onto a
delivery truck.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay regular
wages by requiring off-the-clock work, pay overtime wages, provide
meal periods, authorize and permit rest periods, timely pay final
wages at termination, provide accurate itemized wage statements,
and indemnify employees for work-related expenditures. He further
alleges that these charges are in violation of California quota
laws and the Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff brings this
action for himself and on behalf of a proposed class of similarly
situated parties.
The Plaintiff and the Defendant allegedly entered into a Mutual
Arbitration Agreement ("MAA"), in which the Plaintiff agreed to
arbitrate all claims arising under the California Labor Code and
waived any right to bring a class action claim. The Defendant moves
to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") and
California state arbitration laws.
The Plaintiff asserts that he was an employee engaged in interstate
commerce and is thus exempt from any binding arbitration agreement
under the FAA. He also claims that his claims are exempt from
California arbitration laws. The Plaintiff filed his Class Action
Complaint on June 28, 2024, in the Sacramento Superior Court, which
was then removed to this Court by the Defendant.
On Sept. 6, 2024, the Defendant filed a Motion to Compel
Arbitration, or in the alternate, seeks to stay this action pending
adjudication of Felicia Saul v. Lineage Logistics Services, LLC, et
al., Case No. 2:24-CV-01331-DJC-CSK ("Saul"), a different case
before this Court with nearly identical claims.
The Court finds that the evidence submitted by the Defendant
sufficiently proves the existence of an arbitration agreement,
signed by the Plaintiff, that encompasses the disputed issues.
However, the Court finds that the Plaintiff, due to his specific
work duties, is covered by the FAA's transportation worker
exemption, and thus, the FAA cannot be used to mandate compliance
with the agreement.
The Court further finds that two causes of action (first and fifth
causes) are not covered by the arbitration agreement under
California arbitration laws. Accordingly, the Court will not compel
the Plaintiff to arbitrate those specific claims against the
Defendant. Further, the Court finds that the class action waiver is
not valid, and thus, the remaining claims can proceed on a class
basis, pending the resolution of the arbitrated claims.
The Plaintiff's first and fifth causes of actions pertain to the
alleged nonpayment of wages by Defendant brought under Article I of
the Labor Code and are, therefore, exempted from mandatory
arbitration under Labor Code section 229. However, Judge Calabretta
says, the Plaintiff's second, third, fourth, sixth, seventh, and
eighth claims are brought under different provisions of the Labor
Code, and, thus, are not subject to section 229's application.
Accordingly, Judge Calabretta holds, the Plaintiff is entitled to
bring his first and fifth causes of action on a class basis. While
the Court finds that some of the Plaintiff's claims are not bound
by arbitration, those claims must be stayed pending the resolution
of the claims that must be arbitrated.
The Court grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's Motion
to Compel Arbitration. The Plaintiff may proceed with his first and
fifth causes of action on a class basis, and must arbitrate his
second, third, fourth, sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of action.
The Plaintiff's claims not destined for arbitration are ordered
stayed pending the resolution of the arbitration proceedings.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ma8sz8dd from PacerMonitor.com.
LINEAGE LOGISTICS: Bid for Arbitration in Saul Suit OK'd in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Daniel J. Calabretta of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California grants in part and denies in part
the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration in the lawsuit
captioned FELICIA SAUL, an individual on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LINEAGE LOGISTICS SERVICES
LLC; PERISHABLE SHIPPING SOLUTIONS LLC, and DOES 1 through 25,
Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01331-DJC-CSK (E.D. Cal.).
Pending before the Court is the Defendants' Motion to Compel
Arbitration. The Court held a hearing on Oct. 17, 2024, and took
the matter under submission. For the reasons set forth in this
Order, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the
Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration. The Court will stay the
surviving claims pending the resolution of the arbitrated claims.
Plaintiff Felicia Saul was employed full-time by Defendants Lineage
Logistics Services LLC and Perishable Shipping Solutions LLC from
December 2021 through September 2022, and again from May 2023
through September 2023. Lineage acquired Perishable in 2021, and
Perishable is now a subsidiary of Lineage. The Defendant provides
frozen food storage, packaging of client frozen goods for delivery,
and food transportation. The Defendant operates distribution center
warehouses throughout the country, including one in Sacramento,
California.
The Plaintiff was employed at the Sacramento facility, and her work
duties included assembling boxes used to store and ship products
from the warehouse, inserting insulating linings, affixing shipping
labels, and sorting boxes for storage or shipment. The Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant failed to pay regular wages by requiring
off-the-clock work, provide legally mandated meal and rest breaks,
reimburse expenses, provide accurate wage statements, and to pay
wages due upon workers' termination.
The Plaintiff further alleges that these charges are in violation
of California quota laws and the Unfair Competition Law. She brings
this action for herself and on behalf of a proposed class of
similarly situated parties.
The Plaintiff and the Defendant allegedly entered into an Employee
Agreement to Arbitrate and later a Mutual Arbitration Agreement
(the "Arbitration Agreements" or "Agreements"), under which the
Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate all claims arising under the Labor
Code and waived any right to bring a class action claim.
The Defendant moves to compel arbitration under the Federal
Arbitration Act ("FAA") and California state arbitration laws. The
Plaintiff asserts that she was an employee engaged in interstate
commerce and is, thus, exempt from binding arbitration agreements
under the FAA. The Plaintiff also claims that her claims are exempt
from California arbitration laws.
The Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on June 11,
2024, and the Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration on
Aug. 16, 2024. The Plaintiff, then, filed an Opposition on Aug. 30,
2024. The Defendant filed a Reply on Sept. 9, 2024, and the
Plaintiff filed an Objection on Sept. 16, 2024. The Plaintiff filed
a sur-reply on Oct. 16, 2024.
The Court finds that the evidence submitted by the Defendant
sufficiently proves the existence of two separate arbitration
agreements, both signed by the Plaintiff, that encompass the
disputed issues. However, the Court finds that the Plaintiff, due
to her specific work duties, is covered by the FAA's transportation
worker exemption, and thus, the FAA cannot be used to mandate
compliance with the agreements.
The Court further finds that two causes of action (first and sixth
causes) are not covered by the arbitration agreements under
California law. Accordingly, the Court will not compel the
Plaintiff to arbitrate those specific claims against the Defendant.
Further, the Court finds that the class action waiver is valid, and
thus, the remaining claims must proceed on an individual basis,
pending the resolution of the arbitrated claims.
The Plaintiff's first and sixth causes of actions pertain to the
alleged nonpayment of wages by the Defendants brought under Article
I of the Labor Code and are, therefore, exempted from mandatory
arbitration under Labor Code section 229. However, Judge Calabretta
points out, the Plaintiff's second, third, fourth, fifth, seventh,
and eighth claims are not related to unpaid wages and do not raise
claims under sections 200 through 244 of the Labor Code and, thus,
are not subject to section 229's application.
Accordingly, as to the claims not subject to arbitration -- the
first and sixth causes of action -- the Plaintiff is limited to
bringing these causes of action on an individual basis, and her
class action claims are dismissed.
The Court grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's Motion
to Compel Arbitration. The Plaintiff may proceed with her first and
sixth causes of action on an individual basis, and must arbitrate
her second, third, fourth, fifth, seventh, and eighth causes of
action. As to the first and sixth cause of action, those claims are
stayed pending the resolution of the claims that must be
arbitrated.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/d5s9uepj from PacerMonitor.com.
LJULJA BEAUTY: Fagnani Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
MYKAYLA FAGNANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LJULJA BEAUTY INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-01709 (S.D.N.Y., February 27, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.makeupbymario.com/, 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 alternative text (alt-text),
empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked
images missing alt-text.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.
Ljulja Beauty Inc. is a company that sells online goods and
services in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, New York 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
LOAN DEPOT LLC: Leon Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Loan Depot LLC. The
case is styled as Dominick Leon, individually, and behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Loan Depot LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01787
(C.D. Cal., Feb. 28, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
loanDepot -- https://www.loandepot.com/ -- is a mortgage lender
that offers home loan servicing and customer support.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander James Adducci Taylor, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD - LOMBARD IL
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Fax: (630) 575-8188
Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com
MARAVAI LIFESCIENCES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, captioned Nelson v. Maravai
LifeSciences Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-cv-00499, on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Maravai LifeSciences Holdings, Inc. ("Maravai" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: MRVI) securities between August 7, 2024 and February 24,
2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").
Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date
of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.
What Happened?
On February 25, 2025, before the market opened, Maravai announced
it was postponing its fiscal 2024 earnings release and would delay
filing its annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2024. The Company had identified an error in revenue
recognition that "resulted in approximately $3.9 million in revenue
being recorded in the final week of the second quarter of 2024 upon
shipment when it should have been recorded in the first week of the
third quarter of 2024 upon receipt by the customer." The Company
had identified "a material weakness in its internal controls over
revenue recognition." Maravai also required additional time to
"complete its assessment of a potential non-cash impairment charge
related to goodwill associated with its previous acquisition of
Alphazyme LLC."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.87, or 21.70%, to
close at $3.14 per share on February 25, 2025, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
What Is The Lawsuit About?
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) Maravai lacked adequate internal controls over financial
reporting related to revenue recognition; (2) as a result, the
Company inaccurately recognized revenue on certain transactions
during fiscal 2024; (3) its goodwill was overstated; and (4) that,
as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Maravai securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from
the date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead
plaintiff.
Contact Us To Participate or Learn More:
If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact us:
Charles Linehan, Esq.,
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100,
Los Angeles California 90067
Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com
Telephone: (310) 201-9150,
Toll-Free: (888) 773-9224
Visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. [GN]
MATTEL INC: $19-M Deal in Infant Sleeper Suit Granted Final OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has issued a final order approving a settlement in
a class-action lawsuit against Mattel and Fisher-Price for
allegedly selling a dangerous product used by children.
A final approval hearing on the $19 million settlement was held
Friday, February 28, when a 16-page order was filed by U.S.
District Court Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford, ending almost five years
of litigation.
Fisher-Price Inc. and its parent company, Mattel Inc., were sued
over the Rock 'n Play inclined infant sleeper, which was tied to at
least 100 infant deaths and more than 700 injuries.
The original complaint was filed in June 2019.
Plaintiffs' attorneys who successfully negotiated the settlement
will be paid $5.3 million in fees and $825,000 in expenses. Each of
the 21 class representatives will receive $3,500.
At least 16 separate lawsuits against the company based in East
Aurora, Erie County, were consolidated into a multi-district
litigation in the Western District.
About 4.7 million Rock 'n Play Sleepers were sold over a 10-year
period, until the company was forced to recall the product in April
2019. Fisher-Price reannounced the recall on Jan. 9, 2023.
When the original recall was announced more than 30 fatalities had
been reported "after the infants rolled from their back to their
stomach or side while unrestrained, or under other circumstances,"
according to the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission's
website.
After the initial recall, another 70 fatalities were reported.
Writing on the boxes in which the Rock 'n Play Sleepers were sold,
and other materials used to promote them, states: "Baby can sleep
at a comfortable incline all night long!" according to court
papers.
"This marketing was dangerously false and misleading, as the
product is not safe for sleep, including prolonged or overnight
sleep," according to the complaint.
"By positioning an infant at a 30-degree incline, the Rock 'n Play
Sleeper significantly increases the risk that the infant's head
will slip into a dangerous position, tilt to constrict the
windpipe, and/or cause the infant's face to become pressed against
the padded fabric in the sleeper and block airflow," according to
the complaint.
"The design of the sleepers can lull infants into a deeper sleep
than normal sleep, making them less able to wake up if their
airflow becomes obstructed," the plaintiffs claimed.
"In addition, because defendants advise parents to keep babies
strapped in restraints overnight while sleeping on an incline, the
Rock 'n Play Sleeper increases the infant's risk of developing flat
head (plagiocephaly) and twisted neck (torticollis) syndromes,
conditions that often require babies to wear expensive head-molding
helmets and undergo costly physical therapy," according to the
complaint.
A new federal complaint seeking class-action status, filed against
the companies in October accuses the companies of selling the Snuga
Swing, which "created an unsafe suffocation risk for infants . . .
and defendants never warned families about this risk." [GN]
MDL 2873: Faces McGhee Suit Over AFFF/TOG Products' Toxic Elements
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES MARSHALL MCGHEE, JR., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota
Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.;
ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.;
ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.;
MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC,
MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; RAYTHEON
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.;
THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.); and W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 2:25-cv-00505-RMG (D.S.C., January 27, 2025) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate
warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment,
breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG)
containing fluorochemical products. The Defendants failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of their AFFF and TOG products and also failed to warn
military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who
they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their products
that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to
human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed
to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with thyroid disease.
The McGhee case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Allstar Fire Equipment is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment
based in California.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Fire-Dex, LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment
in Ohio.
Globe Manufacturing Company LLC is a provider of fire safety
services and equipment in New Hampshire.
Honeywell Safety Product USA, Inc. is a provider of fire safety
services and equipment in Rhode Island.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Lion Group, Inc. is a protective clothing supplier in Vandalia,
Ohio.
Mallory Safety and Supply LLC is a safety equipment supplier in
Portland, Oregon.
Mine Safety Appliances Co., LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety
products in Pennsylvania.
Municipal Emergency Services, Inc. is a public safety company
offering fire equipment services based in Utah.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West
Chester, Pennsylvania.
PBI Performance Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting
equipment in North Carolina.
Raytheon Technologies Corporation is an aerospace and defense
company in Virginia.
Southern Mills, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective clothing
fabric for industrial and military use in Georgia.
Stedfast USA, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective barrier
technologies in Tennessee.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is an American multinational
manufacturing company in Delaware. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq.
RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP
225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110
Atlanta, GA 30624
Telephone: (404) 381-2888
Email: buck@lawrsd.com
MDL 2873: Hoerner Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF/TOG Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY W. HOERNER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR
FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL
SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY
SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC, MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and W.L. GORE &
ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00506-RMG (D.S.C.,
January 27, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG)
containing fluorochemical products. The Defendants failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of their AFFF and TOG products and also failed to warn
military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who
they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their products
that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to
human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed
to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with thyroid disease.
The Hoerner case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Allstar Fire Equipment is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment
based in California.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Fire-Dex, LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment
in Ohio.
Globe Manufacturing Company LLC is a provider of fire safety
services and equipment in New Hampshire.
Honeywell Safety Product USA, Inc. is a provider of fire safety
services and equipment in Rhode Island.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Lion Group, Inc. is a protective clothing supplier in Vandalia,
Ohio.
Mallory Safety and Supply LLC is a safety equipment supplier in
Portland, Oregon.
Mine Safety Appliances Co., LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety
products in Pennsylvania.
Municipal Emergency Services, Inc. is a public safety company
offering fire equipment services based in Utah.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West
Chester, Pennsylvania.
PBI Performance Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting
equipment in North Carolina.
Raytheon Technologies Corporation is an aerospace and defense
company in Virginia.
Southern Mills, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective clothing
fabric for industrial and military use in Georgia.
Stedfast USA, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective barrier
technologies in Tennessee.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is an American multinational
manufacturing company in Delaware. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq.
RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP
225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110
Atlanta, GA 30624
Telephone: (404) 381-2888
Email: buck@lawrsd.com
MDL 2873: Kerr Suit Claims Toxic Exposure From AFFF/TOG Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL J. KERR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL
SAFETY PRODUCT USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY
SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC, MUNICIPAL
EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and W.L. GORE &
ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00503-RMG (D.S.C.,
January 27, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG)
containing fluorochemical products. The Defendants failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of their AFFF and TOG products and also failed to warn
military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who
they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their products
that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to
human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed
to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with kidney cancer.
The Kerr case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Allstar Fire Equipment is a manufacturer of firefighting equipment
based in California.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Fire-Dex, LLC is a provider of fire safety services and equipment
in Ohio.
Globe Manufacturing Company LLC is a provider of fire safety
services and equipment in New Hampshire.
Honeywell Safety Product USA, Inc. is a provider of fire safety
services and equipment in Rhode Island.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Lion Group, Inc. is a protective clothing supplier in Vandalia,
Ohio.
Mallory Safety and Supply LLC is a safety equipment supplier in
Portland, Oregon.
Mine Safety Appliances Co., LLC is a manufacturer of fire safety
products in Pennsylvania.
Municipal Emergency Services, Inc. is a public safety company
offering fire equipment services based in Utah.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West
Chester, Pennsylvania.
PBI Performance Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of firefighting
equipment in North Carolina.
Raytheon Technologies Corporation is an aerospace and defense
company in Virginia.
Southern Mills, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective clothing
fabric for industrial and military use in Georgia.
Stedfast USA, Inc. is a manufacturer of protective barrier
technologies in Tennessee.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. is an American multinational
manufacturing company in Delaware. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq.
RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP
225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110
Atlanta, GA 30624
Telephone: (404) 381-2888
Email: buck@lawrsd.com
MERRILL LYNCH: Settlement in Council Suit Has Prelim. Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Wendy W. Berger of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Jacksonville Division grants in part the
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement in the lawsuit entitled LUCINDA COUNCIL, RAVYNNE
GILMORE, VERNA MAITLAND, and HILARI NGUFOR, Plaintiffs v. MERRILL
LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER and BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendants,
Case No. 3:24-cv-00534-WWB-LLL (M.D. Fla.).
The cause is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Unopposed
Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Costs. United States
Magistrate Judge Laura Lothman Lambert issued a Report and
Recommendation, in which she recommends that the Motion for
Settlement be granted in part and the Motion for Fees be denied
without prejudice.
The parties submitted a Stipulation and Notice as to Non-Opposition
to Report and Recommendation and an amended Notice of Class Action,
Proposed Settlement Agreement, and Settlement Fairness Hearing that
conforms to the dates set forth in the Report and Recommendation
and makes other minor modifications.
After a de novo review of the record, and noting that no objections
were timely filed, the Court agrees entirely with the analysis in
the Report and Recommendation.
Therefore, the Court rules as follows. The Report and
Recommendation is adopted and confirmed and made a part of this
Order. The Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Class Action Settlement is granted in part as set forth in the
Report and Recommendation and this Order and denied in all other
respects, including the request for entry of the Proposed
Preliminary Approval Order.
The proposed settlement class is certified for settlement purposes
only.
The parties' Settlement Agreement is preliminarily approved and the
proposed Settlement Agreement and amended Notice of Class Action,
Proposed Settlement Agreement, and Settlement Fairness Hearing are
approved for distribution to the proposed settlement class.
The law firms of Outten & Golden LLP and Shavitz Law Group PA are
appointed as class counsel.
The Final Approval Schedule as set forth in the Report and
Recommendation is incorporated into and made a part of this Order.
The matter is set for a final fairness hearing on Sept. 9, 2025, at
1:00 p.m.
The Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees
and Costs is denied without prejudice.
The case is stayed pending the resolution of the motion for final
approval of the settlement. The Clerk is directed to
administratively close this case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/54f9ftzx from PacerMonitor.com.
MONEY SOURCE: Hiller Files Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Natasha Hiller, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. The Money Source Inc.,
Case No. 2:23-cv-00235-JJT (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order granting motion for class certification and
appointment of class counsel, on behalf of:
"All persons throughout the United States or its territories
(1) to whom the Defendant placed, or caused to be placed, a
call, (2) directed to a number assigned to a cellular
telephone service, (3) in connection with which Defendant used
an artificial or prerecorded voice, (4) after the called party
requested that Defendant stop placing telephone calls using an
artificial or prerecorded voice to their cellular telephone,
as recorded in the Defendant's business records, (5) from four
years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date
of class certification."
The Plaintiff contends that if the Defendant's "do not call" policy
(request must be in writing) is determined to be illegal, that
illegal policy applies to all class members making do not call
requests.
On Oct. 21, 2022, the Plaintiff requested to be placed on
Defendant's "do not call list."
The Plaintiff is a former debt collector.
Money Source provides financial services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 27, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jwbvjX at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Max S. Morgan, Esq.
THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC
1515 Market Street, #1100
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (267) 587-6240
Facsimile: (215) 689-0875
E-mail: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com
- and -
Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200
Southlake, TX 76092
Telephone: (817) 416-5060
Facsimile: (817) 416-5062
E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com
MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Continues to Defend Maloney Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Mullen Automotive Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2025, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Maloney class suit in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.
On February 12, 2025, Plaintiff Jennifer Maloney, a purported
stockholder, filed a putative class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
against the Company, as well as its Chief Executive Officer, David
Michery, and its Chief Financial Officer, Jonathan New.
The Maloney Lawsuit was brought by Maloney both individually and on
behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's
securities, claiming false or misleading statements regarding the
Company's business partnerships, technology, and financing, and
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.
No loss contingencies have been accrued in connection with this
matter as of December 31, 2024, because the Company cannot
reasonably estimate either the probability of a loss or its
magnitude (if any) based on all information currently available to
management.
Mullen Automotive Inc. is an automotive industry company,
headquartered in Brea, California. [BN]
MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Schaub Class Suit Settlement for Court OK
------------------------------------------------------------
Mullen Automotive Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2025, that the Schaub
stockholder class suit settlement is subject to the approval of the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.
On May 5, 2022, Plaintiff Margaret Schaub, a purported stockholder,
filed a putative class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California against the
Company, as well as its Chief Executive Officer, David Michery, and
the Chief Executive Officer of a predecessor entity, Oleg Firer
(the "Schaub Lawsuit").
The Schaub Lawsuit was brought by Schaub both individually and on
behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's
securities, claiming false or misleading statements regarding the
Company's business partnerships, technology, and manufacturing
capabilities, and alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
On September 23, 2022, a court-appointed lead plaintiff filed a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint against the Company,
Mr. Michery, and the Company's predecessor, Mullen Technologies,
Inc., premised on the same purported violations of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5, seeking to certify a putative class of
shareholders, and seeking an award of monetary damages, as well as
reasonable fees and expenses.
On August 14, 2024, the parties entered a Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement to settle the securities class action matter subject
to payment of $5.4 million by the Company and $1.8 million by the
Company's D&O insurers.
The settlement is subject to the court's final approval.
The Company has paid $1.4 million and accrued $4 million as a
probable remaining settlement expense as of December 31, 2024.
Mullen Automotive Inc. is an automotive industry company,
headquartered in Brea, California. [BN]
NEW YORK, NY: Abdelrahim Loses Bid to Opt Out of Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Analisa Torres of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York denied Eitedal Abdelrahim's request
to opt out of the class action settlement in the case captioned as
JAMILLA CLARK and ARWA AZIZ, on Behalf of Themselves and Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, -against CITY OF NEW YORK,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02334-AT-KHP (S.D.N.Y.). The Settlement
Administrator is directed to include Ms. Abdelrahim in the class.
By order dated Nov. 19, 2024, the Court granted final approval of
the parties' class action settlement. On Feb. 21, 2025, Class
Counsel wrote the Court to ask that Ms. Abdelrahim either be
excluded from the settlement or, alternatively, be included in the
settlement based on a good faith misunderstanding of discussions
she had with Class Counsel. The City of New York consents to
including Ms. Abdelrahim in the class but opposes granting her
leave to opt out at this late date.
Judge Torres holds that allowing Ms. Abdelrahim to opt out of the
settlement would prejudice the City by exposing it to additional
liability. Conversely, allowing Ms. Abdelrahim to be included in
the settlement would not cause prejudice, as the City will not need
to pay more to settle her claims. The Court has no doubt that Ms.
Abdelrahim acted in good faith, but considering her fairly
extensive delay in requesting relief, and the fact that allowing
her to participate in the settlement would compensate her for her
injury without prejudicing the City, the Court denies Ms.
Abdelrahim's untimely request to opt out of the class.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0Nolu2 from PacerMonitor.com.
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Court Dismisses Amended Securities Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
lawsuit entitled IN RE NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION BOND/NOTE
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:23-cv-04068-LAK-SLC (S.D.N.Y.).
The lawsuit is a putative class action against Norfolk Southern
Corporation, individual Norfolk Southern officers and directors,
and Norfolk Southern's underwriters concerning securities issued by
Norfolk Southern. The Amended Complaint alleges violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. All Defendants
have moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
In a thorough report and recommendation ("R&R"), Magistrate Judge
Sarah Cave recommended that the motion be granted in part and
denied in part. The Defendants object to so much of the R&R as
recommended denial of a portion of their motion. For the reasons
set forth in this Memorandum Opinion, the Court sustains the
objections in substantial part and grants the motion to dismiss in
its entirety.
Norfolk Southern is one of the largest freight railroad companies
in the United States. It operates Norfolk Southern Railway, a
freight railroad that spans over 19,000 route miles, and is a major
transporter of industrial products.
In February 2019, Norfolk Southern unveiled a new business
strategy, "TOP21," which aimed to reduce operating costs through
precision scheduled railroading ("PSR"). In June 2022, Norfolk
Southern announced "TOP SPG," a continuation of TOP21 aimed at
improving efficiency and productivity. The Amended Complaint refers
to TOP21, TOP SPG, and Norfolk Southern's other PSR-based operating
plans collectively as the "TOP Initiative."
In connection with the TOP Initiative, Norfolk Southern set a goal
of reducing its operation expenses as a percentage of revenue
("Operating Ratio"). To accomplish this goal, the TOP Initiative
made operational changes, including reductions in staff, longer and
heavier trains, and reductions in costly assets, such as
locomotives. The Amended Complaint alleges that these changes
increased the risk of derailments and other safety related
accidents.
In February 2021, Norfolk Southern filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission ("SEC") a shelf registration statement on
Form S-3 ASR (the "Registration Statement") authorizing it to sell
certain securities to public investors. Norfolk Southern issued
seven offerings of senior notes pursuant to the Registration
Statement.
The Amended Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement,
related prospectus supplements, and documents incorporated by
inclusion or reference therein (collectively, the "Offering
Documents") contained untrue statements of fact, omitted material
facts, omitted material facts necessary to make the statements
contained therein not misleading, and failed to make disclosures
required under the rules and regulations governing their
preparation.
The alleged material misstatements and omissions fall into three
categories: (1) statements relating to Norfolk Southern's
commitment to and programs to improve safety ("Safety Statements"),
(2) statements involving Norfolk Southern's financial and
operations metrics ("Operational Statements"), and (3) statements
about the implement of PSR and the TOP Initiative ("Strategic Plan
Statements").
In February 2023, a Norfolk Southern train carrying hazardous
chemicals derailed in East Palestine, Ohio. The derailment was
caused by an overheated wheel bearing on a hopper car, which was on
fire for several miles before the derailment occurred. The
derailment started a large fire, forced evacuations of the
surrounding area, and caused substantial environmental damage. In
the ensuing fallout, Norfolk Southern's Operating Ratio rose and
the value of its stock fell precipitously.
The first category of allegedly misleading statements is Safety
Statements, which include: capital spending and replacement
programs are and have been designed to assure the ability to
provide safe, efficient, and reliable rail transportation services.
The Plaintiffs argue that these statements were materially
misleading in light of Norfolk Southern's allegedly undisclosed and
unsustainable business practices.
The Amended Complaint contains seven statements regarding Norfolk
Southern's commitment to safety. Even if statements that otherwise
were puffery could be made actionable via repeated emphasis, Judge
Kaplan finds the Plaintiffs have not alleged that is the case here.
Accordingly, the Safety Statements were not actionable
misrepresentations.
The second category of allegedly misleading statements is
Operational Statements. These include statements about (1) Norfolk
Southern's accident data, and (2) reductions in Norfolk Southern's
Operating Ratio. The Plaintiffs contend that (1) the accident data
was misleading because Norfolk Southern should have provided
accident data in a per-million-mile format, and (2) the Operating
Ratio statements were misleading by omission because Norfolk
Southern's declining Operating Ratio was, in truth, the result of
undisclosed, unsustainable business practices.
Judge Kaplan finds that the Operational Statements regarding
accident data were not misleading by omission. The R&R argues also
that the statements about Norfolk Southern's Operating Ratio were
misleading because the Offering Materials's risk disclosures were
insufficient. The sufficiency of the risk disclosures is relevant
to the Operational Statements only to the extent that the
Operational Statements would be misleading if a certain risk were
not disclosed. Judge Kaplan points out that the sufficiency of
Norfolk Southern's risk disclosures is not relevant. Accordingly,
the Operational Statements were not actionable misrepresentations.
Judge Kaplan also finds that Norfolk Southern was not obliged to
disclose an undefined increase in that risk, especially where the
Amended Complaint does not allege that the number of accidents
actually had increased by the time the Strategic Plan Statements
were made. Judge Kaplan adds, among other things, that Norfolk
Southern was not required to disclose alleged illegal or improper
conduct.
For the reasons stated in the R&R, the Court agrees that the
Amended Complaint does not allege plausibly that Norfolk Southern
violated any law or regulation or made any prior statement that
triggered an obligation to disclose allegedly illegal or improper
conduct. Therefore, the Court holds that the Defendants had no duty
to disclose uncharged, purportedly illegal conduct.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to
dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at
https://tinyurl.com/47ztzzy4 from PacerMonitor.com.
Alfred Louis Fatale, III -- afatale@labaton.com -- Charles Steine
-- cstiene@labaton.com -- Charles Wood -- cwood@labaton.com --
Francis Paul McConville -- fmcconville@labaton.com -- Guillaume
Buell -- gbuell@labaton.com -- LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP; Cynthia
Billings-Dunn -- cbdunn@asherkellylaw.com -- ASHERKELLY, PLLC,
Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff City of Pontiac Reestablished General
Employees Retirement System.
Jeremy Todd Adler -- jeremy.adler@wilmerhale.com -- Michael G.
Bongiorno -- michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com -- Ripley Shiarella
-- ripley.shiarella@wilmerhale.com -- Samuel E. Frizell --
samuel.frizell@wilmerhale.com -- Tamar Batya Kaplan-Marans --
tamar.kaplan-marans@wilmerhale.com -- WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE
AND DORR LLP, Attorneys for Defendants Norfolk Southern Corp., Alan
Shaw, James Squires, Mark George, Clyde Allison, Jr., Mitchell
Daniels, Jr., Marcela Donadio, John Huffard, Christopher Jones,
Thomas Kelleher, Steven Leer, Michael Lockhart, Amy Miles, Claude
Mongeua, Jennifer Scanlon, and John Thompson.
Adam Selim Hakki -- ahakki@shearman.com -- Agnes Dunogue --
agnes.dunogue@shearman.com -- Benjamin Klebanoff --
benjamin.klebanoff@shearman.com -- Richard Thaddeus Behrens --
thad.behrens@shearman.com -- ALLEN OVERY SHEARMAN STERLING US LLP,
Attorneys for Defendants BofA Securities, Inc., Morgan Stanley &
Co. LLC, Wells Fargo Securities LLC, Capital One Securities, Inc.,
Fifth Third Securities, Inc., MUFG Securities America, Inc., PNC
Capital Markets LLC, Siebert Williams Shank & Co., LLC, SMBC Nikko
Securities America, Inc., Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Goldman
Sachs & Co. LLC, and U.S. Bancorp Investments, Inc.
NORTHSTAR CAFE: Court Approves Joint FLSA Notice in Highman Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, grants the Parties'
Joint Motion for Court Approval of Fair Labor Standards Act Notice
in the lawsuit titled ANTHONY HIGHMAN, et al., Plaintiffs v.
NORTHSTAR CAFE EASTON, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-01757-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio).
The matter is before the Court on a Joint Motion for Court Approval
of Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") Notice brought by Named
Plaintiffs Anthony Highman, Sarah Bates, and Sarah Taylor, eleven
opt-in plaintiffs, and Defendants Northstar Cafe Easton, LLC,
Northstar Cafe Westerville, LLC, Northstar Cafe Liberty, LLC,
Northstar Cafe Shaker Heights, LLC, Northstar Cafe Short North,
LLC, Northstar Cafe, LLC, and Organic Trails Cafes, LLC.
The Parties move this Court to approve notice of this FLSA action
to a group of employees that the Parties agree are similarly
situated to Named Plaintiffs. The Court finds there is a strong
likelihood that Named Plaintiffs and the proposed notice group are
similarly situated. Additionally, the Court approves of the
Parties' proposed notice and consent forms. Accordingly, the Court
grants the Joint Motion.
On May 25, 2023, the Named Plaintiffs filed this action against
Defendants Northstar Cafe Easton LLC and Northstar Cafe Westerville
LLC. The Named Plaintiffs amended the Complaint four times, adding
several Defendants. Per the most recent Complaint, filed April 14,
2024, the Named Plaintiffs bring this action against the Defendants
on behalf of themselves and all current and former tipped
employees, who worked for the Defendants in Ohio at any time
between June 12, 2020, and May 24, 2023.
The Plaintiffs allege that on a companywide basis, the Defendants
underpaid tipped workers in violation of the FLSA, Ohio law, and
the Ohio Constitution. They claim the Defendants enforced an
improper arrangement where employees' tips were pooled and
distributed to workers, who should not have received them and where
tipped employees were underpaid for time spent performing
non-tip-producing work.
The Plaintiffs raise several causes of action: unlawful retention
of tips under the FLSA (Count I), violation of the minimum wage
requirements of the FLSA (Count II), violation of the Ohio
Constitution, Article II, Section 34a (Count III), FLSA and Ohio
overtime violations (Count IV), violation of the Ohio Prompt Pay
Act (Count V), and unjust enrichment (Count VI). They bring their
Ohio law and common law claims as a class action pursuant to Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
This action is brought as a hybrid FLSA action and Ohio Rule 23
class action. The Parties reached a settlement agreement resolving
all Plaintiffs' claims in February 2024. Under the Parties'
Settlement Agreement, the Named Plaintiffs and all the Plaintiffs,
who timely opt into the FLSA component of the action will be
considered the "FLSA Collective Action Members." The Rule 23 class
will be comprised of anyone, who was eligible for the FLSA action
but did not opt into that action. Those individuals may opt out of
the class action.
The Parties describe the Rule 23 class as a "second chance" class.
Essentially, the Parties agree that all employees receiving the
FLSA notice are eligible to be a member of the Rule 23 class, but
those recipients lose their class action eligibility by joining the
FLSA action.
The Parties moved the Court to approve court-authorized notice, to
certify a Rule 23 class, and to approve the settlement agreement
all in one motion. The Court denied the motion, concluding that "it
is too early to tell whether the overall arrangement meets the
fairness and reasonableness requirements necessary for the Court
approve an FLSA settlement and to preliminarily approve a class
action settlement."
The Court ordered the Parties to file for court-authorized notice
in a separate motion. The Parties then filed this Joint Motion.
They now ask this Court to authorize notice of the FLSA action to
the following group: "All current and former tipped employees who
worked for Northstar Cafe at any time between June 12, 2020,
through May 24, 2023, who were subject to the tip credit."
The Parties attached a copy of the proposed FLSA notice and the
opt-in consent form. At the time the Parties filed the Joint
Motion, 11 additional plaintiffs had opted into the FLSA action.
The Court finds that the Parties have adequately demonstrated a
strong likelihood that the Named Plaintiffs are similarly situated
to the other employees in the proposed notice group. The tipped
employees all held the same job position, were employed by the
Defendants at some point during the proposed notice period, were
paid a tipped wage in the same manner, and were subject to the same
allegedly FLSA-violating companywide polices.
Judge Sargus notes that potential plaintiffs have been identified,
and eleven have already joined the action. There is no dispute that
the companywide policies at issue were part of a widespread plan
that Named Plaintiffs allege violated federal and state wage laws.
Accordingly, notice is authorized to the following group as
proposed by the Parties:
All current and former tipped employees who worked for
Northstar Cafe at any time between June 12, 2020, through
May 24, 2023, who were subject to the tip credit.
Additionally, the Court finds that the proposed FLSA notice form
and the opt-in plaintiff consent form are satisfactory. The Parties
sufficiently addressed the concerns raised by the Court in its
previous Order. The forms are approved.
The Court grants the Joint Motion for Court Approval of FLSA Notice
filed by the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. Notice of this FLSA
action is authorized in accordance with this Order. The Parties
suggest the following timeline for processing the notice.
The Court agrees and orders as follows. Within 14 days of this
Order, the Defendants will provide the Claims Administrator a
spreadsheet containing the names, last known addresses, zip codes,
cell phone numbers, and personal email addresses (to the extent
known) of the potential opt-in plaintiffs.
The Claims Administrator will mail the approved notice and consent
forms to the potential opt-in plaintiffs via First Class mail
within 14 days of receiving the list. If the mail is undeliverable,
notice may be sent by email.
The potential opt-in plaintiffs will have 30 days from the date the
notice and consent forms are sent to return their FLSA Claim Form
and opt into this case. This case remains open.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5c4fkn7y from PacerMonitor.com.
OLIN CORPORATION: Landel Sues Over Unlawful Shortchanging Retirees
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lou Ann Landel, on behalf Of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Olin Corporation, Oiln Pension and CEOP Administrative
Committee, and John/Jane Does 1-10, Case No. Case: 4:25-cv-00096
(E.D. Mo., Jan. 24, 2025), is brought against the Defendants who
unlawfully shortchanging retirees of the Olin Corporation
Employees' Pension Plan (the "Plan") by millions of dollars through
their use Of outdated formulas to determine certain types Of
pension benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").
By using improper formulas to calculate joint and survivor
annuities and preretirement survivor annuities for Plan
participants, Defendants have harmed the financial security of
their retirees for their own financial gain. The Defendants also
had a fiduciary duty to act loyally and "solely in the interest of
the participants and beneficiaries," the duty to act with "care,
skill, prudence, and diligence." ERISA. The Defendants disregarded
that duty, electing to use unreasonable and outdated formulas for
payment of pension benefits that substantially underpaid Plan
participants for their own financial gain.
The Defendants violate ERISA's actuarial equivalence requirements
by using formulas that are decades old to determine optional forms
of benefit, which unreasonably depress the value of JSAs and Death
Benefits offered to participants. Despite the considerable
increases in life expectancy over the past 50 years, Defendants
continue to use formulas based on antiquated actuarial assumptions
that do not reflect the conditions that exist at the time benefits
commence.
The Plaintiff seeks all appropriate equitable relief, including but
not limited to a declaration that the Plan's formulas for
determining JSAs and Death Benefits violate ERISA's actuarial
equivalence and non-forfeitability requirements; an injunction
requiring the Plan's fiduciaries to ensure that the Plan pays
actuarially equivalent benefits to all Class members; an
Order from the Court requiring Defendants to pay all amounts
improperly withheld in the past and
that they will withhold in the future; an Order requiring
Defendants to recalculate Plaintiff and the , says the complaint.
The Plaintiff and the Class are vested Participants in the Plan.
The Defendant is a publicly traded company and a leading
manufacturer and distributor of chemical products and
ammunition.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael D. Pospisil, Esq.
POSPISIL SWIFT, LLC
1600 Genessee St., Ste. 340
Kansas City, MO 64102
Phone: (816) 895-6440
Fax: (816) 895-9161
Email: mdp@pslawkc.com
- and -
Oren Faircloth, Esq.
Scott Haskins, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Phone: (929) 677-5181
Email: ofaircloth@sirillp.com
shaskins@sirillp.com
PARKHOUSE TIRE: Dubon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Parkhouse Tire, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Daniel Dubon, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Parkhouse Tire, Inc., Parkhouse
Tire Service, Inc., Case No. 25STCV05739 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., Feb. 28, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Parkhouse Tire, Inc. -- https://parkhousetire.com/ -- is a leading
full-service tire company based in Fontana, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Keledjian, Esq.
D.LAW, INC.
880 E Broadway
Glendale, CA 91205-1218
Phone: 818-962-6465
Fax: 818-962-6469
Email: d.keledjian@d.law
PAVEMENT COATINGS: Hart Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pavement Coatings
Co., et al. The case is styled as Angela Hart, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Pavement Coatings Co., Does
1-50, Case No. 25CV001895 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Jan.
24, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Pavement Coatings Co. -- https://pavementrecycling.com/ -- is a
company that provides solutions and services from start to finish,
concept to completion! From your residential driveway.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Falakassa, Esq.
FALAKASSA LAW PC
1901 Avenue of the Stars Suite No 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (818) 456-6168
Fax: (888) 505-0868
Email: josh@falakassalaw.com
PEACHY CORP: S. M. Files Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peachy Corp. The case
is styled as S. M., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Peachy Corp., Case No. 1:25-cv-01141
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Peachy -- https://peachystudio.com/ -- operates botox studios that
offer wrinkle treatments, prescription retinoids, and sunscreen
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Email: aleslie@bursor.com
PHARMAVITE LLC: Bid to Dismiss Hamzeh Class Suit Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GUITY HAMZEH, v.
PHARMAVITE LLC, et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-00472-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Haywood Gilliam, Jr. entered an order denying the
Defendants' motion to dismiss and strike the Plaintiff's
complaint.
-- Any renewed motion to dismiss is due on March 18, 2025.
-- Any opposition brief is due on April 1, 2025.
-- Any reply brief is due on April 8, 2025.
The hearing will be held by Public Zoom Webinar.
All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the
webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/hsg.
All attorneys and pro se litigants appearing for the case
management conference are required to join at least 15 minutes
before the hearing to check in with the courtroom deputy and test
internet, video, and audio capabilities.
The parties are further directed to file a joint case management
statement by March 11, 2025.
The Court directs the parties to meet and confer to determine
whether they can reach an agreement regarding the scope of the
putative class claims that Plaintiff intends to pursue.
The parties should discuss whether they can agree to an amendment
adding additional named plaintiffs from the other states referenced
in the complaint or, alternatively, whether the Plaintiff will
narrow the scope of the complaint to claims arising under
California law.
Accordingly, the Court declines to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims
on behalf of the nationwide class and subclasses for lack of
standing. P
On April 29, 2024, the Plaintiff filed the operative amended class
action complaint. The Plaintiff alleges that Pharmavite misled
consumers by deceptively labeling several Nature Made fish oil
capsule products with the phrase "[h]elps support a healthy
heart."
The Plaintiff seeks certification of a nationwide class comprised
of
"all persons who, within the applicable statute of limitations
period, purchased one or more Nature Made Fish Oil Capsules."
Pharmavite is an American vitamin and supplement company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 26, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JelVea at no extra
charge.[CC]
PHH MORTGAGE: Dobrosi Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Dobrosi, Henry Ladines, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Case No.
25CV108406 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Jan. 24, 2025), is
brought to redress Defendant's violations of the California Labor
Code ("Labor Code"), the California Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Orders (IWC Wage Orders"), and the California Unfair
Competition Law ("Unfair Competition Law") as a result of the
Defendant's failure to pay compensation.
The Plaintiffs assert Defendant failed to provide them and those
similarly situated required paid rest periods or premium wages for
missed, required paid rest periods. As a result of Defendant's
unlawful conduct, Named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated
have suffered damages. The Defendant to compensate the Plaintiffs
and Class Plaintiffs for rest periods at a regular hourly rate no
less than the average hourly rate determined by dividing the total
compensation earned during the workweek (exclusive of rest period
compensation and overtime premiums) by the total hours worked
(exclusive of rest periods), says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs worked for Defendant in California.
The Defendant is in the business of selling residential property
(i.e., homes) mortgage loans throughout the United States,
including California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
SWARTZ SWIDLER LLC
201 Spear Street, Ste. 1100
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (510) 255-4660
Fax: (510) 255-4660
Email: jboyette@swartz-legal.com
PHILLIP MISCH: US Lighting Files Suit in Ohio Ct. of Common Pleas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PHILLIP MISCH, et al.
The case is styled as Shareholders of US Lighting Group, Inc.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
PHILLIP MISCH, CAROL MISCH, JASON DEAN (ALIAS), Case No.
CV-25-112951 (Ohio Ct. of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga Cty., March 1,
2025).
The case type is stated as "Tort-Miscellaneous."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
TAYLOR BENNINGTON, Esq.
180 Maiden Lane, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10038-0000
Phone: 330-617-2904
PILLPACK LLC: Williams Must Seek Final Deal Approval by March 18
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled AARON WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PILLPACK LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-05282-DGE (W.D. Wash.), Judge David G.
Estudillo of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington approved the parties' stipulated motion and order to
extend deadline to March 18, 2025, for the Plaintiff to file motion
for final settlement approval.
Plaintiff Aaron Williams requests that the Court set the deadline
for his motion for final approval as March 18, 2025. Defendant
PillPack LLC stipulates to this request.
The lawsuit is a certified class action. The Court preliminarily
approved the parties' proposed class settlement and entered a
schedule for final approval. The Preliminary Approval Order
provides that briefs, memoranda, petitions, or affidavits that
Class Counsel intends to file in support of final approval will be
filed not later than thirty (30) days after the Opt Out &
Objections Deadline.
Subsequently, the Court granted the parties' stipulated motion to
extend certain settlement-related deadlines. In doing so, the Court
set the deadline for class members to opt out of the class or
object to Jan. 20, 2025, and set the final approval hearing for
April 18, 2025. The hearing date provided nearly three months for
the settlement administrator to process all claims and send
deficiency letters to claimants, who submitted deficient claim
forms. Under the original Preliminary Approval Order, however, the
due date for the Plaintiff's final approval motion would have been
Feb. 19, 2025.
Re-setting the deadline for the Plaintiff to file his final
approval motion to March 18, 2025, will allow Class Counsel to
provide the Court with a more complete description of the valid
claims and deficiency process in the final approval motion.
With the new deadline, the motion for final approval will be filed
and posted to the settlement website 30 days before the final
fairness hearing, giving both the Court and absent class members
sufficient time to review the motion. The motion is expected to be
unopposed as no class members objected to the settlement before the
Jan. 20, 2025 deadline.
The Plaintiff will file a short supplement to his final approval
motion by April 4, 2025, seven days after the settlement
administrator's final declaration is due, and 14 days before the
final fairness hearing. Accordingly, the Plaintiff requests that
the Court set the deadline for filing Plaintiff's final approval
motion to March 18, 2025.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiff's stipulated motion to
extend the deadline to file his motion for final approval and set a
deadline for supplemental submissions. Due date for motion for
final approval of settlement is March 18, 2025, and due date for
supplemental submission on motion for final approval is April 4,
2025.
A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulated Motion and Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ye7xhk4f from PacerMonitor.com.
Beth E. Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- Jennifer Rust
Murray -- jmurray@terrellmarshall.com -- Adrienne D. McEntee --
amcentee@terrellmarshall.com -- Blythe H. Chandler --
bchandler@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC,
in Seattle, Washington 98103-8869; Walter M. Smith --
walter@smithdietrich.com -- Steve E. Dietrich --
steved@smithdietrich.com -- SMITH & DIETRICH LAW OFFICES PLLC, in
Olympia, Washington 98506; Anthony I. Paronich --
anthony@paronichlaw.com -- PARONICH LAW, P.C., in Hingham,
Massachusetts 02043, Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Class.
Kenneth E. Payson -- kenpayson@dwt.com -- Lauren B. Rainwater --
laurenrainwater@dwt.com -- Eric A. Franz -- ericfranz@dwt.com --
Christopher Byer -- chrisbyer@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP,
in Seattle, Washington 98104-1610; Hilary Oran --
hilaryoran@dwt.com -- in New York, NY 10020, Attorneys for the
Defendant.
PLAID PANTRY: Kay Action Remanded to Multnomah County Cir. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MADELINE KAY, ALEX ALANIZ,
and MATTHEW ENSIGN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. PLAID PANTRY, INC. and PLAID PANTRIES, INC.,
Case No. 3:24-cv-01440-SI (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Michael Simon
entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to remand but
denying the Plaintiffs' request for attorney's fees.
The Court denies as moot Plaintiffs' alternative motion for
jurisdictional discovery.
The Court held oral argument on Feb. 18, 2025. For the reasons
explained below, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs do not allege
an injury-in-fact that is sufficient to support Article III
standing. Thus, the Court remands the case to Multnomah County
Circuit Court. The Court denies Plaintiffs' request for attorney's
fees.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated section 807.750 of
the Oregon Revised Statutes ("ORS").
Plaid Pantry is a chain of privately owned convenience stores in
Oregon and Washington.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 27, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=foPjBW at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kelly D. Jones, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KELLY D. JONES
819 SE Morrison Street, Suite 255
Portland, OR 97214
- and -
Michael R. Fuller, Esq.
UNDERDOG LAW OFFICE
US Bancorp Tower, 111 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 3150,
Portland, OR 97204
- and -
Paul B. Barton, Esq.
OLSEN BARTON LLC, 4035
Douglas Way, Suite 200
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher H. Wood, Esq.
Meryl A. Hulteng, Esq.
Jennifer K. Oetter, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 4000
Denver, CO 80203
POLAR BEVERAGES: Gradney Sues Over Deceptive Advertising
--------------------------------------------------------
Stacy Gradney and Sharon Toll, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. POLAR BEVERAGES, Case No.
4:25-cv-02149 (N.D. Cal., March 2, 2025), is brought on behalf of a
nationwide, California and New York class (collectively, "Class")
of consumers seeking redress for Defendant's deceptive practices
associated with the advertising, labeling and sale of its Polar
100% Natural Seltzers.
The front of each package prominently states that the Product is
"100 % Natural." The identical representation is made on each side
panel. Although the front of the package is absolutely unambiguous
with respect to its claim of being "100% Natural," the back of
package serves only to reinforce the "natural" representation and
its overall clean label image claiming, "we craft our seltzer with
NO sugar, sweeteners, sodium or caffeine." Despite being
characterized as a "100% Natural," however, the Product contains
synthetic ingredients rendering the claim false, misleading and in
violation of the law.
The Plaintiffs conducted radiocarbon (C-14) testing on multiple
samples of Polar Seltzer to quantify the total organic carbon
present in the sample. The results were reported as "% Biobased
Carbon" whereby 100% Biobased Carbon indicates that a material is
entirely sourced from plants or animal by-products (i.e., "100%
Natural"). Any result less than 100% Biobased Carbon indicates the
presence of synthetics (i.e., petrochemicals) in the Product. The
results were unequivocal. Although Polar Springs claims to be "100%
Natural," the test shows that it is only 87 % - 91% Biobased
Carbon. In other words, Polar seltzer contains 9-13% synthetics,
rendering the claim "100% Natural" false, misleading and in
violation of the law.
Throughout the applicable Class Periods, Defendant has falsely
represented the true nature of its seltzers, and as a result of
this false and misleading labeling, was able to sell these Products
to hundreds of thousands of unsuspecting consumers throughout
California, New York and the United States, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased Polar Seltzers Products.
The Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, and sells a line
of 100% Natural Seltzers in a pack of 8 individual cans.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael D. Braun, Esq.
KUZYK LAW, LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 800
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (213) 401-4100
Facsimile: (213) 401-0311
Email: mdb@kuzykclassactions.com
PRIME THERAPEUTICS: Brown Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shanice Brown, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals v. PRIME THERAPEUTICS, LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-00760 (D.
Minn., Feb. 28, 2025), is brought recover for Defendant's willful
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to recover an
award of unpaid wages and overtime premiums, liquidated damages,
penalties, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees and
costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and any other remedies to
which she and the putative Collective and Class may be entitled.
The Defendant subjected Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, to
Defendant's policy and practice of failing to compensate its
pharmacy technician call center employees for their necessary
boot-up and call ready work, which resulted in the failure to
properly compensate them as required under applicable federal law.
Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Plaintiff
regularly worked at least 40 hours per workweek. Regardless of
whether Defendant scheduled Plaintiff to work a workweek totaling
under 40 hours, a workweek totaling 40 hours, or a workweek
totaling in excess of 40 hours, Plaintiff regularly worked a
substantial amount of time off-the-clock as part of her job duties
as a CPT. Defendant never compensated Plaintiff for this necessary
time worked off-the-clock, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Clinical Pharmacy
Technician from February 2023 to June 2024.
The Defendant is a pharmacy benefit manager that administers
prescription drug programs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq.
JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
Saint Paul, MN 55101
Phone: 612-436-1800
Fax: 612-436-1801
Email: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com
QDOBA RESTAURANT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cantwell Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ISA CANTWELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. QDOBA RESTAURANT CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-01230
(E.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2025) contends that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website,
www.hicksnurseries.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
people, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
On Jan. 9, 2025, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant's website to
purchase an indoor plant. Despite the Plaintiff's efforts, however,
the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience similar to that of a
sighted individual due to the website’s lack of a variety of
features and accommodations, which effectively barred Plaintiff
from having an unimpeded browsing experience.
Accordingly, the Website contains access barriers that prevent free
and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading
software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing
alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted
lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive
elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely
with a mouse.
The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumer.
Ms. Cantwell is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
The Defendant's Website offers products and services for online
sale and general delivery to the public. The Website offers
features which ought to allow users to browse for items, access
navigation bar descriptions, inquire about pricing, and avail
consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous items offered for
sale.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
QUALITY CARRIERS: Smith Seeks Conditional Status of Collective
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WINSTON SMITH, DUANE
NELSON, JEROME JONES, and FRED DEAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. QUALITY CARRIERS, INC., Case No.
8:24-cv-02815-VMC-AAS (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
(1) conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") collective of:
"all individuals who entered into an agreement to work as
delivery drivers for Quality Carriers in the United States
and were classified by Quality Carriers as independent
contractors during the last three years";
(2) directing that judicially-approved notice be sent to
collective action members;
(3) approving the form and content of the Plaintiffs' proposed
notice;
(4) directing Quality Carriers to produce to Plaintiffs'
Counsel the contact information (including the name,
address, email address, telephone number, and dates of
employment) for each collective action member in a usable
electronic format; and
(5) authorizing notice to be sent via First Class Mail, e-mail
and text message to collective action members pursuant to
the Plaintiffs' proposed notice plan.
Quality Carriers is a delivery company specializing in transport of
chemical materials and hazardous products, that operates a delivery
facility in Rahway, New Jersey.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 26, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iGfoCS at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason L. Gunter, Esq.
Conor P. Foley, Esq.
GUNTERFIRM
2165 W. First St., #104
Fort Myers, FL 33901
Telephone: (239) 334-7017
E-mail: Jason@GunterFirm.com
Conor@GunterFirm.com
- and -
Harold Lichten, Esq.
Olena Savytska, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
osavytska@llrlaw.com
- and -
Ravi Sattiraju, Esq.
SATTIRAJU & THARNEY, LLP
50 Millstone Road
Building 300, Suite 202
East Windsor, NJ 08520
Telephone: (609) 469-2110
Facsimile: (609) 228-5649
E-mail: rsattiraju@s-tlawfirm.com
R.T. FARM: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 28
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gonzalez Mondragon, et
al., v. R.T. Farm Labor, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01259 (E.D.
Cal., Filed Oct. 3, 2022), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Thurston
entered a minute order as follows:
On Feb. 27, 2025, the Court held a status conference to assess the
parties' progress regarding settlement and class certification.
The Plaintiffs' counsel informed the Court that the parties had
decided to mediate the claims, but that Plaintiffs would likely
file a motion for class certification or pursue their PAGA claims.
Counsel for the Defendant informed the Court that the parties were
discussing proposed mediators.
Given the upcoming March 28, 2025, deadline for class certification
discovery and class certification motions, the Court reminded the
parties that settlement discussions were not good cause for
continuing scheduled dates.
The nature of suit states Agricultural Acts.[CC]
RAMALES GRILL: Faces Martinez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDO VASQUEZ MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAMALES GRILL DELI CORP.(d/b/a
RAMALES GRILL DELI), JOSE RAMALES, ISAAC RAMALES, and DAVID
RAMALES, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01662 (S.D.N.Y., February 27,
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 maintain accurate wage notice and recordkeeping, failure
to provide accurate wage statements, failure to pay spread-of-hours
compensation, and failure to reimburse business costs.
The Plaintiff worked as a general helper, delivery worker, food
preparer and porter at the Defendants' deli located at 936 Morris
Avenue, Bronx, New York from approximately February 5, 2022, until
on or about December 2, 2024.
Ramales Grill Deli Corp., doing business as Ramales Grill Deli, is
a restaurant owner and operator located at 936 Morris Avenue,
Bronx, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
RAUL LABRADOR: Transgender Inmates Win Preliminary Injunction
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge David C. Nye of the United States District Court for
the District of Idaho granted the plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary injunction and motion to seal in the case captioned as
COLE ROBINSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. RAUL LABRADOR, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00306-DCN ((D. Idaho).
Plaintiffs Katie Heredia and Rose Mills are challenging Idaho Code
Sec. 18-8901, which took effect on July 1, 2024. The Act prohibits
the use of public funds for medical interventions -- surgical or
otherwise -- that alter the appearance of an individual in order to
affirm the individual's perception of the individual's sex in a way
that is inconsistent with the individual's biological sex.
Heredia and Mills are two transgender women who are currently
incarcerated in facilities administered by the Idaho Department of
Corrections. They bring this claim as a putative class action on
behalf of "all incarcerated persons in the custody of IDOC who are,
or will be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and are receiving, or
would receive, hormone therapy proscribed by the Act." Both Heredia
and Mills have been diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria and have been
prescribed regular hormone-altering medications as a form of
treatment. They argue the Act denies them and other similarly
situated inmates necessary medical treatment in violation of the
Eighth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.
In a prior order, the Court certified the proposed class and
enjoined enforcement of the Act as it applied to the use of state
funds for providing hormone therapy to class members while the
lawsuit was pending. During a telephonic scheduling conference with
all the parties, counsel for Plaintiffs notified the Court that the
original preliminary injunction would expire on Dec. 2, 2024, in
accordance with the 90-day automatic expiration set forth in 18
U.S.C. Sec. 3626(a)(2). The Court asked for additional briefing on
the issue, and Plaintiffs filed a second Motion for Preliminary
Injunction.
After careful consideration of the second Motion, the Court issued
a second preliminary injunction. It found it had the authority to
issue new preliminary injunctions under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3626(a)(2)
every 90 days if Plaintiffs can continue to prove that preliminary
relief is warranted. The second preliminary injunction would expire
on March 3, 2025.
State Defendants argue the state will suffer irreparable harm
because they have been enjoined from effectuating a statute that
has been enacted by representatives of the people. The Court does
not disagree with such an assertion. While the Court acknowledges
such a harm, it must balance that harm against the harms the class
members will face and what implications those harms could have on
the public's interest in preventing constitutional violations.
While perhaps this consideration is more properly weighed under the
public interest section, this factor tips in favor of Plaintiffs
because they have provided evidence that they will face drastic
repercussions should their medicine be discontinued.
Because the Court will not be altering the terms of the prior
preliminary injunction, it finds the additional requirements
imposed by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3626(a)(2) continue to be met. The
scope of the preliminary injunction continues to only enjoin the
enforcement of the Act as it applies to class members receiving
hormone therapy. The injunction remains narrowly drawn to only a
small group of affected individuals receiving one type of
gender-affirming treatment. It extends no further than necessary
because it protects only those individuals who would have otherwise
been eligible for hormone therapy under IDOC's previous policies,
which, in turn, maintains the status quo and ensures no violation
of class members' Eight Amendment rights pending a final decision
on the merits. Finally, the injunction continues to be the least
intrusive means necessary to protect the class members' rights
because it does not impose any burdens on prison operations beyond
what IDOC had already self-imposed prior to the Act.
The Court finds Plaintiffs have again made the requisite showing
that a preliminary injunction continues to be appropriate in this
case, bolstered by medical evaluations of both named Plaintiffs
which will be filed under seal to protect their privacy. The
injunction complies with the needs-narrowness-intrusiveness
requirement of the PLRA. Accordingly, the Court orders a third
preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Act.
The Court enjoins enforcement of Idaho Code Sec. 18-8901's
prohibition on the use of state funds for purposes of providing
hormone therapy as against the class for the next 90 days.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pBPOT4 from PacerMonitor.com.
RB ROYAL: Class Settlement in Bohnert Suit Gets Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES BOHNERT, v. RB
ROYAL INDUSTRIES, Case No. 2:23-cv-00141-PP (E.D. Wis.), the Hon.
Judge Pamela Pepper entered an order:
-- granting joint motion for final approval of collective and
class action settlement
-- granting motion for approval of service awar,
-- granting motion for attorneys' fees, and
-- dismissing cas.e
The court grants the joint motion for approval of settlement.
The court grants the plaintiff's unopposed motion for approval of
plaintiff's service award.
The court approves the requested payment in the amount of $5,000 to
the representative plaintiff.
The court grants the class counsel's motion for approval of
attorneys' fees and costs.
The court approves the requested attorneys' fees and costs in the
amount of $21,000.
The court orders that this case is dismissed with prejudice. The
clerk will enter judgment accordingly.
The court preliminarily certified the following FLSA collective
class:
"All individuals who worked for Defendant as non-exempt hourly
employees at Defendant's Fond du Lac, Wisconsin Plant between
Feb. 3, 2021, and September 30, 2024, and who timely file a
consent to opt-into this action
RB Royal designs and manufactures custom hose and tube assemblies
as well as precision machined products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 26, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tXWaIO at no extra
charge.[CC]
READING COOPERATIVE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Bess Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE BESS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. READING COOPERATIVE BANK, Case No. 1:25-cv-10517 (D.
Mass., Mar. 4, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly
secure and safeguard sensitive information of its clients.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information
-- which they entrusted to the Defendant on the mutual
understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure --
was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data
Breach, the lawsuit says.
Accordingly, the Private Information compromised in the Data Breach
included Plaintiff's and Class Members' full names, email
addresses, phone numbers, driver's license numbers, and dates of
birth and medical and health insurance information as defined by
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.
As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have
been exposed to a presently heightened and imminent risk of fraud
and identity theft. Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the
future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against
identity theft, the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former clients of
Defendant. In the course of their relationship, the Plaintiff and
Class Members provided Defendant with their sensitive PII.
The Defendant is a bank that offers a wide variety of banking
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 332-4200
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
- and -
Randi Kassan, Esq.
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20015-2052
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Facsimile: (202) 686-2877
E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com
rkassan@milberg.com
RECOVER-CARE SHAWNEE: Vasquez Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE VASQUEZ, MELISSA
SIMS, and ALICIA THOMPSON, on behalf of themselves individually and
all other similarly situated employees, v. RECOVER-CARE SHAWNEE,
LLC, RECOVER-CARE PINNACLE PARK, LLC, and MRC SNF MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Case No. 2:24-cv-02183-HLT-RES (D. Kan.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order conditionally certifying a Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) collective action for purposes of settlement,
preliminarily approving the settlement as fair and reasonable, and
any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
The Defendants provide nursing and medical care.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 26, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=l4bqGv at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brad K. Thoenen, Esq.
Ethan A. Crockett, Esq.
John J. Ziegelmeyer III, Esq.
Kevin A. Todd, Esq.
HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS
1600 Genessee Street, Suite 754
Kansas City, MO 64102
Telephone: (816) 708-2496
E-mail: bthoenen@hkm.com
ecrockett@hkm.com
jziegelmeyer@hkm.com
ktodd@hkm.com
REDNER'S MARKETS: Chuss Suit Seeks Conditional Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY CHUSS,
Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated,
v. REDNER'S MARKETS, INC., d/b/a REDNER’S, Case No.
5:24-cv-04249-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order granting conditional certification and allowing judicial
notice of the action to be provided to potential collective action
members (current and former Deli, Meat, and Produce department
Managers paid by salary at any time within three years preceding
the Complaint filing date, collectively "DMs") informing them of
their right to opt in to this case under Section 216(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
The Plaintiff and all other salary-paid DMs were classified and
paid by Defendant as exempt from applicable overtime laws
throughout the three years preceding this action until Defendant
reclassified all salary-paid DM positions to hourly-paid overtime
eligible effective in late 2024.
As a result of that overtime exempt classification, the Plaintiff
and all DMs were therefore denied overtime premium pay during that
period of salary-paid employment. The Plaintiff alleges that common
issue and common injury under the FLSA for all salary-paid DMs.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant for over 8 years from June, 2014
until Nov., 2022, at five (5) stores, including as Meat Manager
from November 2019 to September 2022 based in two (2) stores, and
worked in an additional three (3) stores as Meat Manager pitching
in when they needed additional labor.
Redner's Markets retails food products. The Company offers dairy,
frozen, meat, deli, and bakery products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 26, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3ZMarj at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Andrew Head, Esq.
Bethany Hilbert, Esq.
HEAD LAW FIRM, LLC
4422 N. Ravenswood Ave.
Chicago, IL 60640
Telephone: (404) 924-4151
Facsimile: (404) 796-7338
E-mail: ahead@headlawfirm.com
bhilbert@headlawfirm.com
- and -
Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
Krysten Connon, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: ssb@llrlaw.com
kconnon@llrlaw.com
REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Loses Bid to Dismiss Washington GBL Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York denied Reynolds Consumer Products
LLC's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint in the case
captioned as ANAYA WASHINGTON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- REYNOLDS CONSUMER
PRODUCTS, LLC, Defendants, 24-cv-02327-ALC (S.D.N.Y.).
Plaintiff Anaya Washington, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, brings this putative class action based on
violations of New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350
against Defendant Reynolds Consumer Products LLC. Plaintiff claims
the label "FOIL MADE IN U.S.A." used on packaging for Reynolds Wrap
aluminum foil is misleading because the raw materials used to make
the product are sourced from outside the United States. Defendant
now moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for failure to state a
claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
To assert a claim under Sections 349 or 350 of the GBL, a plaintiff
must allege that a defendant has engaged in (1) consumer-oriented
conduct that is (2) materially misleading and that (3) the
plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive
act or practice.
Defendant does not dispute that Plaintiff has alleged
consumer-oriented conduct that is materially misleading. Rather,
Defendant focuses solely on the third prong, arguing that the FAC
does not sufficiently allege any cognizable injury under GBL
Sections 349 and 350. Specifically, Defendant contends that
Plaintiff has not put forth sufficient facts to support her price
premium theory. It argues that it is not enough for Plaintiff to
allege she would not have purchased the Product but for the
allegedly misleading statement. It also argues Plaintiff cannot
show a connection between the misrepresentation and her injury. The
Court therefore focuses on the third prong for the purposes of
evaluating this motion.
Plaintiff contends that the value of the Products that Plaintiff
purchased was materially less than their value as represented by
Defendant by means of the "Made in U.S.A." representations and that
Defendant sold more of the Product and at higher prices than it
would have in the absence of this misconduct, resulting in
additional profits at the expense of consumers. Additionally,
Plaintiff states that had they known the truth, they would not have
bought the Product or would have paid less for it. Finally,
Plaintiff pleads a price premium and the connection between the
price premium and the "FOIL MADE IN U.S.A." label.
Drawing all inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, the FAC adequately
alleges injury under a price premium theory, the Court concludes.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently pled its GBL claims
and the claims should proceed.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0dP1v4 from PacerMonitor.com.
ROCKET MORTGAGE: Rule 72(a) Objection to Discovery Ruling Overruled
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Courtney Lynn Himes Akkus, et al. v.
Rocket Mortgage, LLC, Case No. 22-cv-02933-GLR (D. Md.), Chief
Judge George L. Russell, III of the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland will overrule the Rule 72(a) objection
of Rocket Mortgage, LLC to Judge Adam B. Abelson's Sept. 20, 2024
Order with respect to an ongoing discovery dispute between the
parties.
This class action concerns Rocket Mortgage's alleged violations of
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (while managing
Plaintiffs' escrow accounts. Named Plaintiffs Courtney Lynn Himes
Akkus, Erkan Akkus, Jonathan Perry, and Lydia Perry are homeowners,
and Rocket Mortgage is their mortgage servicer. Specifically,
Plaintiffs allege that Rocket Mortgage failed to timely pay taxes,
insurance premiums, and other charges due from their escrow
accounts in violation of RESPA, 12 U.S.C. Sec. 2605(g) (Count I);
and failed to respond to or conduct a reasonable investigation into
the Plaintiffs' Qualified Written Requests in violation of RESPA,
12 U.S.C. Sec. 2605(e)(k) and 12 C.F.R. Secs. 1024.35, 1024.36
(Counts II & III). Plaintiffs seek compensatory and statutory
damages based on Rocket Mortgage's pattern or practice of
noncompliance with RESPA.
On Aug. 22, 2024, Plaintiffs alerted the Court of an ongoing
discovery dispute between the parties. Plaintiffs indicated, among
other things, that Rocket Mortgage objected to a production request
for information concerning Rocket Mortgage's missed insurance
payments governed by RESPA, 12 U.S.C. Sec. 2605(g). On Aug. 26,
2024, the Court referred the discovery dispute to Magistrate Judge
Abelson. Judge Abelson held a hearing on Sept. 20, 2024, after
already being sworn in as a District Judge, and ordered Rocket
Mortgage to comply with Plaintiffs' discovery request by Oct. 7,
2024.
In this case, Judge Abelson was sworn in as District Judge for the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland on Sept.
16, 2024, and therefore, was no longer a USMJ when he issued his
Sept. 20, 2024 Order. Accordingly, the Court will overrule Rocket
Mortgage's Rule 72(a) Objection, finding the objection inapplicable
to the instant discovery dispute.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xIYOaY from PacerMonitor.com.
RUGSUSA LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hong Extended to August 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNA HONG, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RUGSUSA, LLC,
Case No. 3:24-cv-08799-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Araceli
Martinez-Olguin entered a joint case management statement &
proposed order as follows:
Event Proposed Deadline
Deadline to exchange initial disclosures: March 5, 2025
Deadline to amend the pleadings: July 11, 2025
Close of discovery on issues related to
class certification: Aug. 26, 2025
Motion for class certification: Aug. 26, 2025
Opposition to motion for class
Certification: Oct. 7, 2025
Reply in support of motion for class
Certification: Nov. 4, 2025
Hearing on class certification: Jan. 15, 2026
RugsUSA provides flooring products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 27, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pFRvS6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Simon Franzini, Esq.
Christin Cho, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: simon@dovel.com
christin@dovel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Thomas N. McCormick, Esq.
VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE
LLP
2211 Michelson Drive, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 526-7903
Facsimile: (949) 526-7903
E-mail: tnmccormick@vorys.com
RURAL MEDIA: Court Refuses to Transfer Wissel Suit to California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mark T. Pittman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, denies the Defendant's
motion to transfer the lawsuit styled ELLYSE WISSEL, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs v. RURAL MEDIA GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:24-cv-00999-P (N.D. Tex.), to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.
The case is the second-filed federal class action against Defendant
Rural Media Group, Inc.'s ("RMG") and its related entities alleging
violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA"). The first,
filed on Sept. 25, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (the "California action"), was brought by
plaintiff Lindsy Saarloos representing a putative class against The
Cowboy Channel, LLC ("Cowboy Channel").
The second, this case, was filed on Oct. 18, 2024 (the "Texas
action"), by Plaintiffs Ellyse Wissel, Michelle Anderson, and
McClain Mott against RMG, the parent company of Cowboy Channel.
The Plaintiffs' Complaint in this case alleges that the Parties are
bound by a forum selection clause (hereinafter "FSC") designating
Tarrant County as the sole jurisdiction where lawsuit could be
brought. When the Plaintiffs subscribed to Cowboy Channel's
streaming video services, the Plaintiffs agreed to the Terms of
Service. The Terms of Service contained the relevant FSC.
Because the California action was filed before the Texas action,
RMG filed this Motion on Dec. 20, 2024, asking the Court to send
this case to the Central District of California under the
first-to-file rule.
The first issue is whether the Terms of Service entered into by the
Plaintiffs, which contains the FSC, includes RMG as a party to the
contract.
Based on a plain language reading, Judge Pittman finds the Terms of
Service do not include RMG as a party. The agreement, which each
Plaintiff agreed to upon subscription, reads in relevant part:
"WELCOME! THE COWBOY CHANNEL [THE 'STATION'] THAT IS PROVIDING THIS
SITE ..." Based on this language, the Cowboy Channel, not RMG, is
the only signatory to the Terms of Service, Judge Pittman points
out.
Yet, even if RMG is a non-signatory based on a plain interpretation
of the Terms of Service, the Fifth Circuit has considered whether
non-signatories may still be bound by a forum selection clause,
Judge Pittman explains, citing Franlink Inc. v. BACE Servs., Inc.,
50 F.4th 432 (5th Cir. 2022). RMG is the parent company of the
Cowboy Channel. Therefore, Judge Pittman finds there is common
ownership between the signatory, Cowboy Channel, and the
non-signatory, RMG.
The Court also finds that RMG also receives direct benefits from
the contract. The Terms of Service presumably benefit the Cowboy
Channel because the Cowboy Channel requires subscribers to agree
for access to content. And although the Terms of Service do not
mention RMG, the Privacy Policy does, Judge Pittman notes.
Judge Pittman holds that the Privacy Policy cannot bind RMG as a
signatory because it is a separate agreement. However, the Privacy
Policy can suggest that RMG benefits from such agreement. Judge
Pittman opines that the lack of distinction indicates that RMG is
receiving a direct benefit through its subsidiaries' Terms of
Service agreements because its own Privacy Policy makes reference
to and clarifies those agreements.
Nonetheless, Judge Pittman opines, combined with the common
ownership factor, the Privacy Policy on the Cowboy Channel's
website unmistakably connects the benefits and knowledge of the FSC
to RMG, despite RMG's non-signatory status. The Court, therefore,
finds that RMG is bound by the FSC.
Having found that the FSC applies to RMG as a non-signatory, the
Court must next determine whether the FSC is enforceable. Judge
Pittman finds that there is no evidence, and RMG does not argue,
that the FSC was the product of fraud, that RMG is being deprived
its day in court, or that the chosen law will deprive anyone of a
remedy. Rather, RMG's sole argument with respect to the
enforceability of the FSC is that Texas public policy strongly
favors and encourages voluntary settlement.
Although RMG is correct that Texas public policy encourages
voluntary settlement, Judge Pittman points out that the Plaintiffs
in this case are not required to join the class in the California
action. As RMG states in its brief, if and when the Central
District of California approves the class settlement, the
Plaintiffs in this case "will receive notice and have an
opportunity to opt out or object."
Therefore, rejecting the FSC in this case as violating Texas public
policy, in favor of a potential settlement--that the Plaintiffs
have shown no disposition to join and have the power to opt out
of--would be illogical, Judge Pittman opines. Based on these
reasons, the Court finds that the FSC is not unreasonable under the
circumstances.
RMG's Motion is brought exclusively on the basis that the
California action was the first filed lawsuit. As already
addressed, the FSC is both valid and enforceable against RMG.
Consequently, Judge Pittman finds there are compelling
circumstances warranting this Court's non-application of the
first-to-file rule.
While the Court finds that the FSC is valid and enforceable and,
therefore, declines to transfer this case based on the
first-to-file rule, the Court notes that the FSC here has no effect
on the plaintiffs in the California action. Parties to a contract
are free to waive contractual provisions. And although the Court is
not presented with the record in the California action to verify
such waiver, nothing in this Opinion should be construed to bind
the plaintiffs in the California action to the FSC.
Lastly, the Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to attorney's
fees and costs to enforce the FSC. After designating state and
federal courts sitting in the County of Tarrant in the State of
Texas as the exclusive jurisdiction, the FSC says, in any action to
enforce this Agreement, the prevailing party will be entitled to
costs and attorneys' fees.
The Fifth Circuit's holding in Franlink only addressed whether a
non-signatory could be bound by an FSC. Judge Pittman opines that
Franlink did not contemplate the recovery of fees, and the Court
finds no precedent enforcing such fees against a non-signatory.
Thus, the Court declines to grant the Plaintiffs' reasonable
attorney's fees in enforcing the FSC.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5aht96kc from PacerMonitor.com.
SAFE AND SECURE: Cline Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Annalyn Cline, for herself and all others similarly situated v.
SAFE AND SECURE HOMECARE CORPORATION and ROBERT J. NICHOLSON, Case
No. 2:25-cv-00193-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 28, 2025), is brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Ohio
Prompt Pay Act as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay proper
overtime wages.
The Defendant consistently worked more than 40 hours per workweek
within the three years prior to filing this Complaint. Supervisors
and Home Health Aides were not paid overtime compensation at a rate
of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Instead, Home Health Aides,
including the Plaintiff, were paid their regular hourly rate for
hours worked over 40 in a work week ("straight time"). On certain
occasions, the Plaintiff has complained to the Defendant that she
is not receiving an overtime premium when she worked more than 40
hours in a week and that this fails to comply with the law. The
Defendants willfully refused to pay Supervisors and Home Health
Aides, including the Plaintiff, in accordance with the law, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff started her employment in November 2024 and is
currently employed by Defendants with the title is Supervisor.
Safe and Secure Homecare Corporation is in the business of
providing home healthcare services throughout Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
Evan Hasbrook, Esq.
MANSELL LAW, LLC
1457 S. High St.
Columbus, OH 43207
Phone: 614-796-4325
Fax: 614-547-3614
Email: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
Evan@MansellLawLLC.com
SAFECO INSURANCE: Ginsburg Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as David Ginsburg, an individual; YVONNE DAVIS,
an individual; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, et al., Case No.
25STCV02334 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 28, 2025, and
assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01778.
The Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges that Safeco has wrongfully denied
renewal of existing homeowners insurance policies. The Plaintiffs
assert that Safeco has engaged in "unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent
practices" by sending notices to them and "tens of thousands" of
other California policyholders that their homeowners insurance
policies would not be renewed, and by basing such nonrenewal on
aerial inspections of policyholders' homes.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher A. Rosario, Esq.
SAUL EWING LLP
1888 Century Park East, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 255-6100
Facsimile: (310) 255-6200
Email: chris.rosario@saul.com
SAN DIEGO, CA: ADA Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California granted preliminary
approval of the class action settlement in the case captioned as
DARRYL DUNSMORE, ANDREE ANDRADE, ERNEST ARCHULETA, JAMES CLARK,
ANTHONY EDWARDS, LISA LANDERS, REANNA LEVY, JOSUE LOPEZ,
CHRISTOPHER NELSON, CHRISTOPHER NORWOOD, JESSE OLIVARES, GUSTAVO
SEPULVEDA, MICHAEL TAYLOR, and LAURA ZOERNER, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SAN
DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, SAN DIEGO
COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT, and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No.: 20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL (S.D. Cal.) regarding
plaintiffs' third claim.
Plaintiffs are current or former inmates of San Diego County Jail
facilities, operated by Defendants San Diego County Sheriff's
Department and the County of San Diego. Plaintiffs bring this
action on behalf of themselves and the approximately 4,000
incarcerated people who are similarly situated on any given day to
remedy the dangerous, discriminatory, and unconstitutional
conditions in the Jail. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend
Defendants' policies and practices contribute to the high death
rates in the Jail, which "has for years exceeded the rates
nationally and in other large California jails, and it reached
chilling heights in 2021 when 18 people died, amounting to a death
rate of 458 incarcerated people per 100,000."
In the operative complaint, Plaintiffs' third claim alleges a
failure to provide reasonable accommodations to incarcerated people
with disabilities in violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and California
Government Code Sec. 11135.
On Nov. 3, 2023, the Court granted the parties' joint motion to
certify three subclasses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(2). The Court certified a subclass defined as: All adults
who have a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. Sec.
12102, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 705(9)(B), and California Government Code
Sec. 12926(j) and (m), and who are now, or will be in the future,
incarcerated in any of the San Diego County Jail facilities
("Incarcerated People with Disabilities Subclass").
Between Aug. 25, 2023, and Nov. 20, 2024, the parties participated
in seventeen settlement conferences with Magistrate Judge David
Leshner, including several all-day, in-person conferences.
Moreover, in coming to agreement on the Settlement Agreement terms,
the parties exchanged numerous draft written proposals over six
months. The San Diego County Board of Supervisors approved the
Settlement on Dec. 11, 2024. On Dec. 12, 2024, the parties filed
the Settlement Agreement as a joint motion, which the Court
approved the same day.
This is a complex class action which has been litigated for years.
Plaintiffs allege Defendants violated a number of constitutional
and statutory rights. Given the complexity and age of the case, the
Court concludes that the strength of Plaintiffs' claims against
Defendants, and the risk, expense, complexity, and risk of
maintaining class status throughout trial weighs in favor of
approving the Settlement.
The Court finds the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and
adequate.
Based on the intensive settlement process, the Court finds the
Settlement was negotiated at arm's length and there is no evidence
of collusion. That the Settlement was reached with the assistance
of the magistrate judge further suggests that the settlement is
fair and reasonable, the Court concludes.
A final fairness hearing is set for Thursday, July 31, 2025, at
2:00 p.m.
The Court finds Plaintiffs' proposed methods of disseminating the
proposed settlement notice meet all due process and other legal
requirements and are the most effective and appropriate ways to
provide notice to incarcerated persons at the Jails.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ILNoqo from PacerMonitor.com.
SCOTT MCMILLIN: Court Tosses Ecasali Housing Discrimination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Cynthia Bashant of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California dismissed without prejudice
the case captioned as NOUREDDINE ECASALI, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT
MCMILLIN, et al., Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-02489-BAS-JLB (S.D.
Cal.) for failure to state a claim.
Plaintiff files suit against Scott McMillin; Mark D. McMillin; C.
Ann McMillin; Andy McMillin; McMillin Realty, Inc.; McMillin, LLC;
McMillin Home Construction, Inc.; MCFT Holdings, LLC; DNMS
Holdings, LLC; Central Valley Investors II, LLC; Lawrence D.
Crandall; Nick Crandall; Andrew Parashos; Nicole Sarber; Jennifer
Nicole Phillips; Torrey Pines Property Management, Inc.; Torrey
Pines Repair and Construction, Inc.; and Legacy Commercial
Management, Inc.
Simultaneously, Plaintiff files a Motion to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis and a Motion for Appointment of Counsel.
Plaintiff alleges Defendants refuse to lease a unit for her because
of her national origin, religious belief -- and also because she
was using an Assistance Voucher (Section 8). Plaintiff further
claims Defendants only lease to White people discriminating against
colored people including herself.
The Court finds Plaintiff fails to state a claim under both Rule
12(b)(6) and Rule 8. The Complaint purports to be a class action
lawsuit under both Federal and California Fair Housing Acts, as
well as the Fourteenth Amendment, against eighteen defendants, nine
of whom appear to be individuals. Plaintiff does not explain what
role each of these Defendants had in her case, nor is there any
information about what class she purports to represent. There is no
information about where Plaintiff tried to lease a unit or why she
believes the named Defendants only lease to white people. Without
more, Defendants do not have fair notice of what Plaintiff’s
claim is and what the grounds are for that claim. Because the
Complaint contains insufficient information about the alleged
claims, the Court sua sponte dismisses the Complaint, but will give
Plaintiff the opportunity to amend. Any Amended Complaint must be
complete without reference to the earlier Complaint. Any Defendant
not listed in the Amended Complaint will be deemed dismissed from
the case. Plaintiff must explain in any Amended Complaint why she
thinks each of the listed eighteen Defendants should be held liable
for her claims. Any Amended Complaint must be filed by March 24,
2025.
The Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP. Furthermore,
the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=exOlEN from PacerMonitor.com.
SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Court Consolidates Two Securities Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio granted the motion filed by the
Employees Retirement System of the City of St. Louis and the
Detectives Endowment Association Annuity Fund to consolidate and
appoint lead counsel in the following cases:
(1) CITY OF HIALEAH EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SCOTTS
MIRACLE-GRO COMPANY, et al. Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-03132
(S.D. Ohio); and
(2) CITY OF INKSTER POLICEMEN AND FIREMEN RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-03766 (S.D. Ohio).
The Hialeah Complaint was filed on June 6, 2024, and seeks to
pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule l0b-5 promulgated thereunder. It
is a class action on behalf of those who purchased The Scotts
Miracle-Gro Company common stock between Nov. 3, 2021, and Aug. 1,
2023, inclusive, against Scotts and certain of its officers and
executives. The Inkster Complaint was filed on July 26, 2024. Like
Hialeah, it is a class action seeking to pursue remedies under the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule l0b-5. This class action, however, is on
behalf of those who purchased Scotts common stock between June 2,
2021, and Aug. 1, 2023.
The Inkster Action and Hialeah Action involve some of the same
parties. Specifically, the named defendants in both cases are
Scotts and executives/officers James Hagedorn, Christopher J.
Hagedorn; Matthew E. Garth; David C. Evans; and Cory J. Miller. The
Court emphasizes that while the cases involve different time
periods, they both are federal securities class actions seeking
remedies for those who purchased Scotts common stock. Overall, the
Court finds there is significant overlap in law and fact between
the cases, which strongly supports consolidation.
The consolidation was unopposed and both cases are already pending
before the Court. The Court finds that consolidation of the Inkster
Action and Hialeah Action will be the most efficient method of
adjudicating these related matters and will not unfairly prejudice
any parties or cause any significant confusion. Therefore, the
Court grants the Motion to Consolidate.
The consolidated action will be captioned: In re The Scotts
Miracle-Gro Company Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:24-cv-03132-ALM-CMV.
The Public Funds are appointed to serve as Lead Plaintiff pursuant
to Section 21D(a)(3)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15
U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(3)(B), as amended by the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995, in the consolidated action.
The Public Funds' selection of counsel is approved, and Saxena
White P.A. and Barrack, Rodos & Bacine are appointed as Lead
Counsel for the Class, and Strauss Troy Co., LPA is appointed as
Liaison Counsel for the Class.
The pending Motions to Consolidate by Plaintiff Stanley J. Marks
and Wayne County Employees Retirement System which were later
withdrawn are denied as moot.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0vIvWX from PacerMonitor.com.
SERVICE SANITATION: Foster Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Isaac Foster, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated v. SERVICE SANITATION, INC., Case No. 25
CH 00666 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on Feb. 28, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-02101.
The Plaintiff, a former employee of SSI, alleges a violation of the
Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act ("GIPA"), based on the
purported solicitation of genetic information during what Plaintiff
claims was a pre-hire medical examination at a local clinic.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Gary R. Clark, Esq.
Brian A. Hartstein, Esq.
QUARLES & BRADY LLP
300 N. LaSalle Dr., Suite 4000
Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: 312-715-5040
Fax: 312-715-5155
Email: gary.clark@quarles.com
brian.hartstein@quarles.com
SHERATON OPERATING: Asks Court to Set Class Cert Briefing Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAISY ALVAREZ, an
individual, v. SHERATON OPERATING CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation; MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-03608-TJH-JC (C.D. Cal.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order setting a briefing
schedule for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification so that
briefing may commence promptly and this matter can be prosecuted
without further delay.
The action was filed on March 13, 2020, in Los Angeles County
Superior Court and removed to this Court on April 20, 2020.
On Feb. 11, 2021, the Plaintiff served the following written
discovery demands: Interrogatories, Request for Admissions, and
Request for Production of Documents.
On Feb. 24, 2021, the Defendants served the following written
discovery demands: Interrogatories and Request for Production of
Documents.
On April 24, 2024, the Defendants' counsel proposed the Parties
attend private mediation with specific terms in return for
Defendants to stipulate to stay the matter as requested, as it
likely would be difficult to find a mutually agreeable private
mediator with availability prior to September 2024. Plaintiff’s
counsel did not respond.
On Sept. 30, 2024, the Parties filed a Joint Status Report, where
the Plaintiff stated that she still intended to complete additional
discovery and believed that setting a Class Certification Briefing
Schedule was premature at that time.
Sheraton was founded in 2006. The Company's line of business
includes operating public hotels and motels.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 26, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QgOBRh at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Greg S. Labate, Esq.
Eric T. Angel, Esq.
Bryanne J. Lewis, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993
Telephone: (714) 513-5100
Facsimile: (714) 513-5130
E-mail: glabate@sheppardmullin.com
tbernstein@sheppardmullin.com
blewis@sheppardmullin.com
SHIFT4 PAYMENTS: Rule 11 Sanctions Unwarranted in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joseph F. Leeson, Jr. of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that
Rule 11 sanctions are inappropriate against the parties in the
cases captioned as ALFRED O'MEARA, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SHIFT4 PAYMENTS, INC.,
JARED ISAACMAN, NANCY DISMAN, and BRADLEY HERRING, Defendants, Case
No. 5:23-cv-03206-JFL (E.D. Pa.) and ROBERT BAER, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SHIFT4
PAYMENTS, INC., JARED ISAACMAN, NANCY DISMAN, and BRADLEY HERRING,
Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-03969-JFL (E.D. Pa.).
Two separate class action securities suits against Shift4 were
filed in this Court and docketed at 5:23-cv-3206 and 5:23-cv-3969.
On Nov. 3, 2023, this Court entered an Order consolidating the
suits, appointing Robert Baer the Lead Plaintiff, and approving
both Pomerantz LLP and The Schall Law Firm as Co-Lead Counsel for
the class. On Jan. 5, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint
which asserted the following three counts: in Count I, a violation
of Section 10(B) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(b) promulgated
thereunder; in Count II, a violation of Section 10(B) of the
Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) promulgated thereunder; and
in Count III, a violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
On Feb. 19, 2024, Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint, arguing that Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead any
material misrepresentation, the element of scienter, or loss
causation and that Plaintiffs' claims for scheme and control person
liability were likewise insufficiently pled. In its Aug. 14, 2024,
Opinion and Order, this Court, in part, agreed, holding that
Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead the element of scienter and
that without a primary violation in Counts I or II, the claim for
control person liability also failed. The Court dismissed the
Amended Complaint without prejudice.
On Sept., 2024, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint
asserting violations of Section 10(B) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5(b) promulgated thereunder as well as Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. On Oct. 1, 2024, Defendants again moved to dismiss.
In an Opinion and Order entered Jan. 22, 2025, the Court again
dismissed the claims for failure to adequately plead the element of
scienter -- that time, with prejudice. As part of its Order
granting the Second Motion to Dismiss, the Court ordered the
parties to file briefs addressing the Court's obligations under 15
U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(c)(1). The Court finds that sanctions are
inappropriate.
The Court finds that each party and each attorney complied with
Rule 11 and that sanctions are unwarranted. Looking toward
Counsels' obligations under Rule 11(b), the Court cannot find a
violation of any subparagraph. At the outset, the Court notes that
there has been no allegation that any filing was presented to
harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of
litigation. The considerable hours and resources Plaintiffs and
Counsel put into this case wholly obviates any inference of an
improper purpose. Further, all filings advanced claims, defenses,
and other legal contentions warranted by existing law. While the
Court found in favor of Defendants, Plaintiffs' claims were not
patently unmeritorious or frivolous. As noted, in its Opinion
resolving the first Motion to Dismiss, the Court sided with
Plaintiffs on two of the three contested elements, finding that the
Amended Complaint was sufficient to plead both a material
misrepresentation and loss causation.
Judge Leeson says, "While the Court ultimately dismissed the claims
with prejudice, Rule 11 sanctions do not inexorably follow from
losing a case. Indeed, Defendants do not contend Plaintiffs or
their counsel have violated their Rule 11 obligations. This suit
ultimately turned on the scienter element, the arguments on which,
across all filings, were simply not frivolous. Indeed, the Court
found that Plaintiffs adduced some evidence tending to suggest
scienter."
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vNuOMe from PacerMonitor.com.
SHNEUR ZALMAN OSDOBA: Doe Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SHNEUR ZALMAN OSDOBA,
et al. The case is styled as Jane Doe, individually, and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. SHNEUR ZALMAN OSDOBA, et al., Case
No. 506913/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., Feb. 28, 2025).[BN]
SIGNATURE HEALTH: Nelson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Nelson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. SIGNATURE HEALTH, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00409 (N.D. Ohio, March
2, 2025), is brought to challenge wage-and-hour practices of
Defendant by which it willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA"), the Ohio overtime compensation statute, and Ohio's
common law.
The Plaintiff was was mandated by management on several occasions
to edit her clock times so as to not exceed 40 hours in a workweek.
Hence, in workweeks where QMHSs worked a full week, Defendant
typically paid all QMHSs for only 40 hours of work, even when their
actual workweek exceeded 40 hours, and even when Defendant had full
knowledge that QMHSs actual workweeks exceeded 40 hours. As result,
the FLSA and Ohio law required Defendant to pay Plaintiff, the
Potential Opt-Ins, and the Ohio Class Members overtime compensation
of at least one and one-half times their "regular rate" for all
hours worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed with Defendant as a Qualified Mental
Health Specialist ("QMHS"), also known as a Case Manager, from
October 2021 through April 2023.
The Defendant provided mental healthcare services at multiple
facilities across the State of Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott D. Perlmutter, Esq.
Kathleen R. Harris, Esq.
TITTLE & PERLMUTER
4106 Bridge Ave.
Cleveland, OH 44113
Phone: 216-308-1522
Fax: 888-604-9299
Email: scott@tittlelawfirm.com
katie@tittlelawfirm.com
SINGULARITY FUTURE: Continues to Defend Crivellaro Class Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Singularity Future Technology Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2024 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2025, that
the Company continues to defend itself from the Crivellaro
securities class suit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York.
On December 9, 2022, Piero Crivellaro, purportedly on behalf of the
persons or entities who purchased or acquired publicly traded
securities of the Company between February 2021 and November 2022,
filed a putative class action against the Company and other
defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, alleging violations of federal securities
laws related to alleged false or misleading disclosures made by the
Company in its public filings. The plaintiff seeks unspecified
damages, plus interest, costs, fees, and attorneys' fees. As this
action is still in the early stage, the Company cannot predict the
outcome.
In addition to the above litigations, the Company is also subject
to additional contractual litigations as to which it is unable to
estimate the outcome.
Singularity Future Technology Ltd. is into the arrangement of
transportation of freight & cargo based in New York.
SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS: Faces Nunez Class Suit Over Common Stock Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CESAR NUNEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, INC., LIAM K. GRIFFIN, and KRIS
SENNESAEL, Case No. 8:25-cv-00411 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 4, 2025) s a
federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Skyworks securities between July
30, 2024 to Feb. 5, 2025, inclusive, seeking to recover damages
caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws.
The Defendants provided investors with material information
con-cerning Skyworks' expected revenue for the fiscal year 2025.
De-fendants' statements included, among other things, confidence in
the Skyworks' ability to expand its mobile business and capitalize
on its growth potential by investing in new technologies to
diver-sify its portfolio of offerings.
Skyworks' client base; notably, that its long-standing
relation-ship with Apple, its largest customer, did not guarantee
that Ap-ple would maintain its business relationship with Skyworks
for its anticipated iPhone launch.
Additionally, the Defendants oversold Skyworks’ position and
abil-ity to capitalize on AI in the smartphone upgrade cycle. Such
statements absent these material facts caused Plaintiff and other
shareholders to purchase Skyworks' securities at artificially
in-flated prices.
On Feb. 5, 2025, after market close, Skyworks announced its
finan-cial results for the first quarter of fiscal year 2025 and
provid-ed lower-than-anticipated revenue guidance for the second
quarter of fiscal year 2025.
The Company attributed its results and low guidance to a
"competi-tive landscape" that had "intensified" in recent years.
Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Skyworks’
revelation, says the suit.
The price of Skyworks' common stock declined dramatically. From a
closing market price of $87.08 per share on February 5, 2025,
Sky-works’ stock price fell to $65.60 per share on February 6,
2025, a decline of over 24% in the span of just a single day.
The Plaintiff purchased Skyworks common stock at artificially
in-flated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the
revelation of the Defendants' fraud, the suit alleges.
Skyworks is a developer, manufacturer, and provider of analog and
mixed-signal semiconductor products and solutions for numerous
ap-plications, including aerospace, automotive, broadband, cellular
infrastructure, connected home, defense, entertainment and gaming,
industrial, medical, smartphone, tablet, and wearables.
The Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam M. Apton, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: dtepper@zlk.com
aapton@zlk.com
SOUTH CAROLINA: Issues Parking Tickets to Nonresidents, Maurer Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW MAURER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITIES OF ISLE OF PALMS, FOLLY BEACH, HILTON
HEAD, SC and PCI MUNICIPAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:25-cv-00263-MAD-DJS (N.D.N.Y., February 27, 2025) is a class
action against the Defendants for injunctive relief, declaratory
judgment, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from PCI Municipal Services' alleged illegal
practice of issuing parking violations to non-South Carolina
residents in the Cities of Isle of Palms, Folly Beach and Hilton
Head South Carolina. PCI willingly issues these illegal parking
citations to non-residents of South Carolina knowing that they
either cannot afford the expense of traveling back to South
Carolina to contest the ticket or, for those that can afford to do
so, it is financially impracticable to do so. As such, PCI's
business practices allow for online payments and places their
services into the stream of commerce throughout the country. The
Plaintiff and similarly situated non-residents suffered monetary
losses by paying the illegal parking tickets.
City of Isle of Palms is a political subdivision of the State of
South Carolina.
City of Folly Beach is a political subdivision of the State of
South Carolina.
Town of Hilton Head is a political subdivision of the State of
South Carolina.
PCI Municipal Services, LLC is a municipal services provider in
South Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
SULTZER & LIPARI
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Telephone: (845) 483-7100
Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
- and -
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
STAKE CENTER: Class Cert Bid Filing Referred to Magistrate Judge
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Holtsclaw v. Stake Center
Locating, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00490 (D. Colo., Filed Feb. 20,
2024), the Hon. Judge Regina M. Rodriguez entered an order
referring motion for extension of time to file for class
certification to Mag. Judge Susan Prose.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
concerning minimum wage or overtime compensation.
Stake Center is doing business in high-risk infrastructure and
fiber optic network locating.[CC]
STATE FARM: Loses Bid to Extend Time to File Response
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW ELLIS, v. STATE
FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation,
Case No. 6:22-cv-01005-RBD-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Daniel
Irick entered an order that:
1. The Defendant's motion for extension of time to respond to
the Plaintiff's motion to seal and to file a motion to seal
is denied;
2. Non-Party Audatex's motion "Intervene for the limited
purpose of sealing documents reflecting confidential and
trade secret information and for an extension of time to
file its response in support of sealing such information" is
granted in part to the limited extent that Audatex may file
a memorandum supporting the seal on or before March 6, 2025.
The remainder of the Motion (Doc. 92) is denied.
Since Defendant makes no mention of an intention to file a
memorandum in support of the seal and instead specifies that a
response is forthcoming, the request for additional time is
unnecessary.
To the extent Audatex seeks to "intervene," Audatex does not cite a
basis for doing so and, therefore, the request is due to be
denied.
State Farm offers property and casualty (P&C) insurance products,
especially in personal lines.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 27, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jGhcOL at no extra
charge.[CC]
STEVE MADDEN: Faces Class Action Suit Over Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman of Troutman Amin, LLP, in an article with National
Law Review, reports that well the uptick has become a deluge and
there is a very clear trend in new TCPA class actions right now.
The Plaintiff's bar–particularly our "friends" at Jibrael S.
Hindi's shop–are focused on text club messaging engagement
outside of the TCPA's timing windows.
For instance in a new suit against footwear company Steve Madden,
Hindi's client VALERIA TORRES claims she received text messages
before 8 am:
As a result the Plaintiff is suing on behalf of the following
class:
All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the
filing of this action through the date of class certification (1)
Defendant, or anyone on Defendant's behalf, (2) placed more than
one marketing text message within any 12-month period; (3) where
such marketing text messages were
initiated before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local time at
the called party's location).
As I have pointed out previously it is unclear whether the TCPA's
timing restrictions apply to calls and texts made with express
written consent– but Hindi's shop is apparently committed to
finding out.
Will be interesting to see how this shakes out. [GN]
SUNRUN INC: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by March 20
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMY LUCKAU, v. SUNRUN
INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-01661-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon
Tigar entered an order granting the stipulation extending time for
the Defendant to oppose the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification, from March 6, 2025, up to and including March 20,
2025:
1. The time for Defendant to respond to the Motion is extended
up to and including March 20, 2025.
2. The Plaintiff shall file his reply on or before March 27,
2025.
Sunrun is an American provider of photovoltaic systems and battery
energy storage products, primarily for residential customers.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 27, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PqUcQl at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Glenn T. Graham, Esq.
KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
1 Jefferson Road, Suite 2
Parsippany, NJ 07054
Telephone: (973) 503-5900
Facsimile: (973) 503-5950
E-mail: ggraham@kelleydrye.com
SUNRUN INC: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Response
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMY LUCKAU, v. SUNRUN
INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-01661-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the
Court to enter an order extending time for the Defendant to oppose
the Plaintiff's motion to certify class, appoint class
representative, and appoint class counsel to and including March
20, 2025.
The Plaintiff filed the Complaint on Feb. 18, 2025.
The Defendant has not requested or received other extensions in
this case.
The extension will not cause undue delay in light of the hearing
date for this Motion, which is set for May 8, 2025. The extension
will not alter the date of any event or any other deadline already
fixed by the court, the Parties say.
The Plaintiff and Defendant further agree that Defendant has not
waived its right to file a pre-answer motion, including a motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6).
Sunrun is an American provider of photovoltaic systems and battery
energy storage products, primarily for residential customers.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 26, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Oj4zV0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Gramajo, Esq.
AJG LAW GROUP, PC
25A Crescent Dr. #402
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Telephone: (415) 638-9140
E-mail: andrew@ajglawgroup.us
- and -
Alexander Hood, Esq.
THE HQ FIRM, P.C.
7533 S. Center View Ct. #4424
West Jordan, UT 84084
Telephone: (385) 440-4126
E-mail: alexander.hood@thehqfirm.co
The Defendant is represented by:
Glenn T. Graham, Esq.
KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
1 Jefferson Road, Suite 2
Parsippany, NJ 07054
Telephone: (973) 503-5900
Facsimile: (973) 503-5950
E-mail: ggraham@kelleydrye.com
TAPESTRY INC: Del Valle Sues to Recover Delinquent Wage Payments
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harvey Del Valle and Schenelle Sam, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. TAPESTRY, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01715
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2025), is brought pursuant to New York Labor
Law ("NYLL") and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to recover
damages for delinquent wage payments.
The Defendant has compensated all its employees on a bi-weekly
(every other week) basis, regardless of whether said employees
qualified as manual workers under the NYLL. The Defendant has at no
time during the Relevant Period been authorized by the New York
State Department of Labor Commissioner to compensate its employees
who qualify as manual workers on a bi-weekly basis, in
contravention of NYLL, which requires that without explicit
authorization from the Commissioner, such workers must be
compensated not less frequently than on a weekly basis. By
willfully failing to pay employees in a timely manner in compliance
with applicable state law, Defendant has also violated the FLSA's
implicit "prompt payment" provision, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs ertr employed by Defendant in non-exempt, hourly
positions.
TAPESTRY, INC. is a business corporation organized under the laws
of the State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Phone: (516) 873-9550
TELEFLEX INC: Bleichmar Probes Potential Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces an
investigation into Teleflex Incorporated (NYSE: TFX) for potential
violations of the federal securities laws.
If you invested in Teleflex, you are encouraged to obtain
additional information by visiting
https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/teleflex-incorporated.
Why is Teleflex being Investigated?
Teleflex is a global provider of medical technology products used
by hospitals and healthcare providers in critical care and surgical
applications. On February 27, 2025 the company announced that it
was splitting off its Urology, Acute Care and OEM businesses into a
new publicly traded company, the resignation of its CFO, and that
it will acquire all of the vascular intervention business of
BIOTRONIK SE for an estimated cash payment of about EUR760M, upon
closing.
Given these announcements, BFA is investigating whether Teleflex
and certain of its senior officers made materially false and
misleading statements to investors given the company's past
positive representations.
The Stock Declines as the Truth is Revealed
As a result of Teleflex's announcement on February 27, 2025, the
company's stock price declined approximately 20% during trading.
Click here for more information:
https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/teleflex-incorporated.
What Can You Do?
If you invested in Teleflex you may have legal options and are
encouraged to submit your information to the firm.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost
to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or
expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any
potential fees and expenses.
Submit your information by visiting:
https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/teleflex-incorporated
Or contact:
Ross Shikowitz
ross@bfalaw.com
(212) 789-3619
Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP?
Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP is a leading international law firm
representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder
litigation. It was named among the Top 5 plaintiff law firms by ISS
SCAS in 2023 and its attorneys have been named Titans of the
Plaintiffs' Bar by Law360 and SuperLawyers by Thompson Reuters.
Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million
in value from Tesla, Inc.'s Board of Directors, as well as $420
million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd.
For more information about BFA and its attorneys, please visit
https://www.bfalaw.com.
https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/the-trade-desk-inc
Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future
outcomes. [GN]
TESLA INC: Wins Summary Judgment in Ball Stockholder Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick of the Delaware Chancery
Court entered partial final judgement in favor of the defendants
with respect to Count I of the amended stockholder class action
complaint in the case captioned as Donald Ball v. Tesla, Inc., et
al., C.A. No. 2024-0622-KSJM (Del. Ch.).
In Count I, the plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that Tesla
Inc. failed to secure the necessary stockholder votes on the
proposal to reincorporate Tesla under Texas law. The plaintiff
claims that the Redomestication Proposal required the affirmative
vote of the holders of at least 66 2/3 % of the voting power of all
then-outstanding shares of capital stock under Article IX of
Tesla's Certificate of Incorporation. Only 63% of Tesla's
outstanding shares voted in favor of the Redomestication Proposal.
Because the Redomestication Proposal obtained approval of only 63%
of the outstanding shares, the plaintiff claims that the
Redomestication is void.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on Count I.
While the cross motions were pending, Vice Chancellor Fioravanti
issued a decision in Gunderson v. Trade Desk, Inc., resolving
questions of law related to Count I. The parties agree that, under
the reasoning of Trade Desk, the defendants are entitled to summary
judgment on Count I.
The Court finds under Trade Desk, the defendants are entitled to
summary judgment on Count I of the amended complaint. Further,
partial final judgment is appropriate because all the elements of
Court of Chancery Rule 54(b) are met, the Court concludes.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tRLsBP from PacerMonitor.com.
TMX FINANCE: Kolstedt Suit Seeks Initial OK of Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAVANNAH KOLSTEDT, et.al.,
v. TMX FINANCE CORPORTE SERVICES, INC., Case No.
4:23-cv-00076-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement.
The Plaintiffs request that the Court grant the Motion and enter a
Preliminary Approval Order:
(a) preliminarily certifying the Settlement Class, appointing
Settlement Class Representatives for the Settlement Class,
and appointing Class Counsel as counsel for the Settlement
Class;
(b) preliminarily approving the proposed settlement as
appearing sufficiently fair, adequate, and reasonable to
warrant the issuance of the Class Notice;
(c) approving the proposed notice plan as meeting the
requirements of Rule 23 and due process; and
(d) granting any related relief.
The Settlement Class is defined as follows:
"All residents of the United States whose Personal Information
was accessed, stolen, impacted, or compromised as a result of
the Data Breach as identified in the Class List."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) TMX, any Entity in
which TMX has a controlling interest, and TMX's officers,
directors, legal representatives, successors, subsidiaries,
and assigns; (ii) any judge, justice, or judicial officer
presiding over the Action and the members of their immediate
families and judicial staff; and (iii) any individual who
timely and validly opts out of the Settlement.
TMX is an American company that provides consumer loans and payday
loans through its subsidiaries.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 27, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Jqc2X2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rebecca Franklin Harris, Esq.
FRANKLIN LAW, LLC
2250 East Victory Drive, Suite 102
Savannah, GA 31404
Telephone: (912) 335-3305
E-mail: rebecca@franklinlawllc.com
- and -
MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
4279 Roswell Road, Suite 208-108
Atlanta, GA 30342
Telephone: (678) 642-2503
E-mail: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com
- and -
Kelly Iverson, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
E-mail: kelly@lcllp.com
- and -
Amy Keller, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: akeller@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Thomas A. Withers, Esq.
WITHERS LAW FIRM, P.C.
8 East Liberty Street
Savannah, GA 31401
Telephone: (912) 447-8400
E-mail: twithers@witherslawfirmpc.com
TRACY LOGISTICS: Supplemental Briefing Ordered in Shanley Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dena Coggins of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California ordered the parties in the case
captioned as TRAVIS SHANLEY, Plaintiff, v. TRACY LOGISTICS LLC, et
al. Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02608-DC-JDP (E.D. Cal.) to file
supplemental briefing addressing the appropriateness of maintaining
this separate declaratory relief action.
On Sept. 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed the complaint initiating this
declaratory action against his employer Defendants Tracy Logistics
LLC, Stockton Logistics LLC, Fresno Logistics LLC, Sacramento
Logistics, LLC, C&S Wholesale Grocers, LLC formerly C&S Wholesale
Grocers Inc., C&S Logistics of Sacramento/Tracy LLC, and C&S
Logistics of Fresno LLC ("Declaratory Relief Action"). Therein,
Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Mutual Voluntary Arbitration
Agreement ("Tracy MVAA") he purportedly signed is not a valid or
enforceable agreement. In the event the court were to find the
Tracy MVAA valid and enforceable, then Plaintiff seeks a
declaration that his claims brought under California's Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") cannot be compelled to arbitration.
If, however, the court finds Plaintiff can be compelled to
arbitrate his PAGA claims, then Plaintiff seeks a declaration that
the arbitrator does not have the authority to determine that
Plaintiff was not employed by any of the Defendants other than
Defendant Tracy and that he did not suffer any wage and hour
violations during his employment. Plaintiff further seeks a
declaration that Defendants may not seek declaratory relief on
elements of accrued causes of action belonging to him.
Notably, on the same day that Plaintiff filed the Declaratory
Relief Action, Plaintiff also filed a separate lawsuit in San
Joaquin County Superior Court against the same defendants alleging
a single cause of action under PAGA, predicated on alleged
violations of several wage and hour laws.
Defendants removed both the Declaratory Relief Action and the PAGA
Action to the District Court on Nov. 8, 2023. Several months later,
on April 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a third action against the same
defendants, this time a putative class action in the District
Court, in which he brings seven claims for certain wage and hour
violations, as well as a claim of violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law.
In the PAGA Action, on Oct. 31, 2024, the District Court denied
Plaintiff's motion to remand because it has jurisdiction over the
PAGA claim. In a joint status report filed by the parties on Nov.
22, 2024, Defendants state their intention to file a motion to
compel arbitration of Plaintiff's individual PAGA claim.
In the Class Action, on Jan. 2, 2025, the District Court issued an
order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to
compel arbitration of Plaintiff's individual claims. Importantly,
in that order, the District Court found another agreement that
Plaintiff signed, the mutual arbitration agreement regarding wage
and hour claims, to be enforceable. The District Court also noted
that the Class Action and the Declaratory Relief Action both center
around alleged violations of California's wage and hour laws -- the
types of claims that are covered by both arbitration agreements.
Because both the PAGA Action and the Class Action are already
before the Court, it appears there may not be a case of actual
controversy in the Declaratory Relief Action, as required for
relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act.
Plaintiff alleges actual controversies exist between him and
Defendants with regard to the following questions:
(1) whether a written agreement to arbitrate even exists;
(2) whether the Tracy MVAA he purportedly signed is valid and
enforceable;
(3) whether an arbitrator has jurisdiction to hear claims under
PAGA; and
(4) whether an arbitrator has the authority to determine that
Plaintiff was not employed by any of the Defendants other than
Defendant Tracy and that he did not suffer any wage and hour
violations during his employment.
However, these questions are ostensibly already before the Court in
both the PAGA Action and the Class Action.
The District Court finds there is not a case of actual controversy
presented in the Declaratory Relief Action that is separate and
apart from the already pending PAGA Action and Class Action.
There is significant potential for duplicative and piecemeal
litigation if Plaintiff's motion to remand the Declaratory Relief
Action is granted, because both this federal court (in the PAGA
Action) and the state court (in the Declaratory Relief Action)
would be evaluating the enforceability of the same arbitration
agreement.
The District Court entered an Order as follows:
(1) Within twenty-one (21) days from the date of entry of this
order, the parties must provide supplemental briefing addressing
the court’s concerns regarding this declaratory relief action;
and
(2) In the alternative, twenty-one (21) days from the date of
entry of this order, Plaintiff must file a notice of voluntary
dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dJI2ex from PacerMonitor.com.
TRIDENT MARITIME: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Jefferson Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON OATES JEFFERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRIDENT MARITIME SYSTEMS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00375 (E.D. Va., February 27, 2025) is
a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per
se, and breach of implied contract.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated individuals stored within its network
systems following a data breach between February 1, 2023, and
February 10, 2023. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach.
As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class
members was compromised and damaged through access by and
disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the
suit.
Trident Maritime Systems, LLC is an engineered maritime solutions
provider headquartered in Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Hilton Wise, Esq.
WISE LAW FIRM, PLC
10640 Page Street, Ste. 320
Fairfax, VA 22030
Telephone: (703) 934-6377
Facsimile: (703) 934-6379
Email: dwise@wiselaw.pro
- and -
Daniel Srourian, Esq.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
468 N. Camden Dr., Ste. 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (213) 474-3800
Facsimile: (213) 471-4160
Email: daniel@slfla.com
TWITTER INC: Class Cert Briefing in Frederick-Osborn Revised
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Frederick-Osborn v.
Twitter, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00125(N.D. Cal., Filed Jan.
5, 2024), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order
granting stipulation to revise briefing and hearing schedule on
plaintiff's motion for class certification.
The nature of suit states employment discrimination.
Twitter was an American social media company based in San
Francisco, California, which operated and was named for its
flagship social media network prior to its rebrand as X. [CC]
UDEMY INC: Continues to Defend VPPA Class Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Udemy Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period
ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 19, 2025, that the Company continues to
defend itself from the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) class
suit in the United States District Court for the District of New
York.
On December 12, 2022, a putative class action complaint captioned
Mohamed Saleh v. Udemy, Inc., was filed against the Company,
alleging violations of the VPPA and claiming that Udemy violated
the VPPA by knowingly sharing personally identifiable information
about the viewing history of Udemy courses with an advertiser. The
complaint is currently pending in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey, Case No. 2:23-cv-02207.
The complaint seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief,
statutory, liquidated, and punitive damages, as well as reasonable
attorney fees and costs. On August 30, 2023, the Company filed a
motion to compel arbitration and on March 21, 2024, the motion was
granted and the matter stayed pending individual arbitration.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.
Udemy, Inc. is a global learning company headquartered in San
Francisco, California whose online platform empowers organizations
and individuals with flexible and effective skill acquisition and
development.
UNITED LENDING: Ettenger Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Lending LLC.
The case is styled as Jeffrey Ettenger, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated v. United Lending LLC, Case No.
2:25-cv-00435-JMW (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 24, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
United Lending -- https://unitedlendingllc.com/ -- offers various
financing options for rental loans, multi-family properties, bridge
loans, fix and flips and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey S. Ettenger, Esq.
SCHWARTZ ETTENGER, PLLC
445 Broadhollow Road, Suite 205
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: (631) 777-2401
Email: jse@selawny.com
UNITED PARCEL: Brown Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Reply
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Timothy Brown, et al., v.
United Parcel Service of America, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-01672-TCB (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order granting a 7-day extension of time, up to and including
Friday, March 21, 2025, to file the Reply in support of the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The extension is necessary for two reasons the Plaintiffs contend:
a. First, the Plaintiffs' counsel needs additional time to
adequately address the arguments in Defendants' oversized
brief. Although the Plaintiffs did not seek to alter the
Reply deadline when the Parties agreed to enlarge their page
limits, upon review of the Defendants' brief and exhibits,
the Plaintiffs have determined that additional time is
needed.
b. Second, the Plaintiffs' need for additional time to respond
to the Defendants' oversized brief is compounded by other
professional and personal commitments: the Plaintiffs'
counsel have deadlines and hearings between February 25 and
March 14 that were unanticipated or unforeseen when the
current briefing schedule was set in September, including
oral argument on a motion for summary judgment, a reply
brief due in an appeal pending in the Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit, an opposition to a motion to dismiss in a
matter pending in the District of Vermont, and four
depositions in a matter pending in the District of Nevada.
In addition, a key member of the Plaintiffs' team is on
vacation during this time.
The requested extension will not affect any other deadlines in this
case. Accordingly, it would be in the interests of justice to
extend the deadline to file the Plaintiffs' reply in support of
their motion for class certification by one week to March 21, 2025.
The Defendants oppose the extension sought by this motion.
On Jan. 14, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their 22-page Motion for
Class Certification.
On Jan 23, 2025, the Defendants asked the Plaintiffs whether they
would consent to the Defendants filing a 40-page response — 15
more pages than the standard 25-page response.
United Parcel is an American multinational shipping & receiving and
supply chain management company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 27, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lxrO8b at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert A. Izard, Esq.
Christopher Barrett, Esq.
IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP
29 South Main Street, Suite 305
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 493-6292
Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com
cbarrett@ikrlaw.com
- and -
James M. Evangelista, Esq.
EVANGELISTA WORLEY, LLC
500 Sugar Mill Road, Ste. 245A
Atlanta, GA 30350 (404) 205-8400
E-mail: jim@ewlawllc.com
- and -
Douglas Needham, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
One Corporate Center
20 Church Street, 17th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 218-2720
E-mail: dneedham@motleyrice.com
- and -
Gregory Y. Porter
Mark G. Boyko
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 463-2101
Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com
mboyko@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Erin M. Riley
Jeffrey Lewis
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
E-mail: eriley@kellerrohrback.com
jlewis@kellerrohrback.com
UNITED PARCEL: Saechao Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mandy Saechao, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CV108423 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Alameda Cty., Jan. 24, 2025), is brought for wage and labor
violations arising out of Defendants' wrongful conduct in violation
of California Labor codes and regulations as a result of the
Defendants failure to pay minimum, overtime wages.
The Defendants' engaged in numerous Labor Code violations,
including but not limited to, failing to pay minimum wage and
overtime for all hours worked, failing to provide duty free meal
and rest breaks, and other Labor Code violations. Among other
things, Defendants subjected Plaintiff and class members to exit
screening security checks without compensating them, and which
prevented them from taking duty free meal and rest breaks. In
addition, Defendants' regularly had Plaintiff and class members
works over 5 hours, without providing a timely meal break.
Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of unlawful behavior,
including but not limited to, failing to provide Plaintiff and
class members with all compensation owed, and failing to provide
timely meal and rest breaks. Plaintiff seeks to represent similarly
situated employees for wage, meal and rest break violations and
other labor violations, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked in a UPS warehouse/shipping center assisting
with loading packages into truck trailers in preparation for
shipment.
UPS ships and distributes cargo through interstate and
international commerce from the warehouse facilities maintained in
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
Vahan Mikayelyan, Esq.
HAFFNER LAW PC
15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1520
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Phone: (213) 514-5681
Fax: (213) 514-5682
Email: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
at@haffnerlawyers.com
vh@haffnerlawyers.com
UNITED STATES: Court Approves Consent Decree
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR
WOMEN PRISONERS, ET AL., v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL BUREAU
OF PRISONS, ET AL., Case No. 4:23-cv-04155-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order granting the
motion for final approval of the consent decree.
The final judgment is entered in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement and the order granting Preliminary Approval filed on
Dec. 20, 2024, and is effective March 31, 2025.
The Court anticipates that miscellaneous orders will or may be
required as a result of this adjudication.
The Plaintiffs in this action are hundreds of women who endured
well-documented systemic abuse, sexual assault, and acts of
retaliation at the federal women's correctional facility FCI
Dublin.
Since the plaintiffs filed suit, the Court has conducted an
unannounced site visit to the facility, issued an order for
injunctive relief, overseen the criminal trials of several former
Dublin staff, and appointed a special master who authored a
comprehensive report of the conditions leading to this action and
has continued to oversee the government’s compliance with this
Court's orders.
Federal Bureau of Prisons is a federal law enforcement agency of
the United States Department of Justice that is responsible for all
federal prisons in the country and provides for the care, custody,
and control of federal prisoners.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 27, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=blufOn at no extra
charge.[CC]
V.T. MOTORS LLC: Straker Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against V.T. Motors LLC. The
case is styled as Sam Straker, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. V.T. Motors LLC doing business as: Van
Chevrolet, Case No. 2:25-cv-00707-JFM (D. Ariz., March 2, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
V.T. Motors LLC doing business as Van Chevrolet --
https://www.vanchevrolet.com/ -- offer a vast selection of new and
used Chevrolet models for Scottsdale, Mesa, and Phoenix drivers,
all at competitive prices.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Max S. Morgan, Esq.
WEITZ FIRM LLC
1515 Market St., Ste. 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: (267) 587-6240
Fax: (215) 689-0875
Email: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com
VECTRARX MAIL: Maynor Seeks to Appoint Shamis & Gentile as Counsel
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN MAYNOR,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. VECTRARX
MAIL PHARMACY SERVICES LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00076 (D. Ariz.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
(i) consolidating the Related Actions against Riverside,
pursuant to Rule 42;
(ii) appointing Andrew Shamis of Shamis & Gentile, P.A. and A.
Brooke Murphy of Murphy Law Firm as Interim Co-Lead Class
Counsel and further appointing Courtney Maccarone of Levi
& Korinsky, LLP, Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A.,
Gary Klinger of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman,
PLLC, William B. Federman of Federman & Sherwood, and
Daniel Srourian of Srourian Law Firm, P.C. to the
Plaintiffs' Interim Executive Committee;
(iii) staying the Related Actions, including any of the
Defendants' responsive pleading deadlines, and requiring
the filing of a consolidated class action complaint within
60 days of entry of an order consolidating the cases and
appointing leadership; and
(iv) setting the deadline for the Defendants' response to the
Consolidated Complaint 60 days after the Consolidated
Complaint is filed, setting the deadline of 60 days
thereafter for Plaintiffs' response, followed by 30 days
thereafter for Defendants' reply.
VectraRx is an Arizona-based mail pharmacy.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 26, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Jd5Ppq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and -
A. Brooke Murphy, Esq.
MURPHY LAW FIRM
4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700
Oklahoma City, OK 73108
Telephone: (405) 389-4989
E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com
Proposed Executive Committee Members
Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: cmaccarone@zlk.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
1 West Las Olas Blvd, 5th Floor
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
- and -
Gary Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
5 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 286-1607
E-mail:: wbf@federmanlaw.com
- and -
Daniel Srounian, Esq.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
468 N. Camden Dr., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (213) 474-3800
E-mail: daniel@slfla.com
VERVENT INC: Plaintiffs Awarded $4M Attorneys' Fees
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HEATHER TURRY, et al., v.
VERVENT, INC., etc., et al. Case No. 3:20-cv-00697-DMS-AHG (S.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dana Sabraw entered an order granting in part
motion for Attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and service awards:
The Plaintiffs are awarded $4,086,277.04 in attorneys' fees, and
$465,149.76 for costs of suit.
The Court also awards the Plaintiff Turrey $25,000 and the
Plaintiffs Fiaty, Hernandez, and Sazon $20,000 each in service
awards.
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' costs incurred due to their
dismissed claims are related to their successful RICO prosecution.
Vervent is a third-party servicer of commercial and consumer loan
and lease portfolios in the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 26, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DQG8S9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
WALMART INC: Golikov Wins Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDIE GOLIKOV, v. WALMART
INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-08211-RGK-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge R.
Gary Klausner entered an order granting motion to class
certification.
On Dec. 30, 2024, the Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended
Class Action Complaint against Walmart asserting claims for
violations of California's False Advertising Law and Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.
The Plaintiff, a resident of Tarzana California, purchased the
Product on Nov. 14, 2021. The Plaintiff read and relied on the
labels before making the purchase believing that the Product
contained unadulterated avocado oil without any other ingredients.
Walmart is a multi-channel retailer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 27, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MrY1aL at no extra
charge.[CC]
WARREN TRANSPORT: Beissel Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW BEISSEL, v. WARREN
TRANSPORT, INC. Case No. 1:24-cv-00090-CJW-MAR (N.D. Iowa), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
-- granting conditional certification pursuant to Section 216(b)
of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), of a collective
consisting of:
"all individuals who worked for Warren Transport, Inc. during
the past three years as delivery drivers and who were
classified as independent contractors";
-- directing that Notice be issued to all individuals who
contracted to provide delivery services for Warren Transport
as delivery drivers between July 2021 and the present, and who
were classified as independent contractors, by first class
mail, e-mail, and text message; and
-- directing the Defendant to produce a list of the names, last-
known mailing and e-mail addresses, and telephone numbers for
all individuals who worked for the Defendant between July 2021
and the present, and who were classified as independent
contractors.
The Plaintiff Beissel worked as a delivery driver for Defendant
Warren Transport, Inc. from December 2021 through October 2023,
making freight deliveries throughout the Midwest for Warren
Transport's clients, transporting items including farm machinery,
construction equipment, and steel products.
Warren is headquartered in Waterloo, Iowa, and provides freight
delivery services throughout the Midwest.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 26, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rErbmt at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harold Lichten, Esq.
Olena Savytska, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
osavytska@llrlaw.com
- and -
Nate Willems, Esq.
Emily Schott Hood, Esq.
RUSH & NICHOLSON, P.L.C.
Cedar Rapids, IA 52406
Telephone: (319) 363-5209
Facsimile: (319) 363-6664
E-mail: nate@rushnicholson.com
email@rushicholson.com
WELLS FARGO: Settles Call Recording Class Suit for $19.5-Mil.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Wells Fargo and other companies have
agreed to pay $19.5 million to resolve claims that they violated
California privacy laws by recording phone calls without consent.
The Wells Fargo settlement benefits individuals and businesses in
California who received a phone call from The Credit Wholesale Co.
Inc. between Oct. 22, 2014 and Nov. 17, 2023.
Plaintiffs in the Wells Fargo call recording lawsuit claim The
Credit Wholesale Co. Inc. recorded phone calls to California
businesses without informing the recipients that the calls were
being recorded. These calls allegedly violated the California
Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA).
The Credit Wholesale Co. Inc. is a sales organization that sells
credit card processing equipment and services on behalf of Wells
Fargo Bank N.A. and Priority Technology Holdings Inc.
Wells Fargo and other companies have not admitted any wrongdoing
but agreed to a $19.5 million class action settlement to resolve
the call recording allegations.
Under terms of the Wells Fargo settlement, class members can
receive a cash payment for each eligible call they received. The
payment of each call is estimated at around $86, but payments could
be as high as $5,000 per call depending on the number of claims
filed.
The Credit Wholesale Co. agreed to stop recording
appointment-setting calls to California businesses without
disclosing any call recording at the beginning of the call.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is April 4, 2025.
The final approval hearing for the Wells Fargo call recording
lawsuit settlement is scheduled for May 20, 2025.
In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit
a valid claim form by April 11, 2025.
Who's Eligible
All businesses or individuals who received a telephone call from
The Credit Wholesale Company Inc. in California between Oct. 22,
2014 and Nov. 17, 2023.
Potential Award
$86 per eligible call and up to $5,000 per call depending on the
number of claims submitted.
Proof of Purchase
Claimants must provide their phone number and/or business name that
received the calls.
Claim Form
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
04/11/2025
Case Name
Aguilar Auto Repair, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, et al., Case
No. 3:23-cv-06265-LJC, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California
Final Hearing
05/20/2025
Settlement Website
CallRecordingClassAction.com
Claims Administrator
Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 301132
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1132
admin@CallRecordingClassAction.com
(888) 733-1544
Class Counsel
Myron M. Cherry
Jacie C. Zolna
Benjamin R. Swetland
MYRON M. CHERRY & ASSOCIATES LLC
Defense Counsel
John Peterson
Matthew S. Knoop
POLSINELLI PC
Phyllis B. Sumner
Billie B. Pritchard
KING & SPALDING, LLP
Micah Nash
William J. Edelman
DELAHUNTY & EDELMAN, LLP [GN]
WEMLO LLC: Kim Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Loan Processors
-------------------------------------------------------------
CATHERINE KIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WEMLO, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
9:25-cv-80279-AMC (S.D. Fla., February 27, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a remote-based loan
processor, also known as senior loan processor, at 4800 T-Rex
Avenue, Suite 305, Boca Raton, Florida between late February 2022
and October 2024.
Wemlo, LLC is an owner and operator of a nationwide mortgage loan
processing business in Boca Raton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith M. Stern, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 2000
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 901-1379
Facsimile: (561) 288-9031
Email: employlaw@keithstern.com
WOODLANDS STORE: Carballo Files Labor Suit in Cal. State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Woodlands Store
Holdings, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as MARTHA CARBALLO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
WOODLANDS STORE HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Case No. CV0005220 (Cal.
Super., Marin Cty., January 27, 2025).
The suit is brought over the Defendants' alleged employment
violation.
A case management conference is set for May 27, 2025.
The Woodlands Store Holdings, Inc. is a retail company doing
business in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seung L. Yang, Esq.
THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC
355 S. Grand Ave., Ste. 1450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 985-1150
Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com
XACTUS LLC: Rosengarten Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against XACTUS LLC. The case
is styled as Morgan Rosengarten, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. XACTUS LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01080
(E.D. Pa., Feb. 28, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Xactus -- https://xactus.com/ -- is dedicated to offering unmatched
customer service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq.
KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, PC
30 E. Butler Ave.
Ambler, PA 19002
Phone: (267) 468-5374
Email: jginsburg@creditlaw.com
YESHIVAT SHVUT YEHUDA: Doe Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against YESHIVAT SHVUT
YEHUDA, et al. The case is styled as Jane Doe, individually, and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. YESHIVAT SHVUT YEHUDA, et
al., Case No. 506952/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., Feb. 28,
2025).[BN]
ZACKS INVESTMENT: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Bicker Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE BICKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ZACKS INVESTMENT RESEARCH, INC., Case No.
1:25-cv-02279 (N.D. Ill., March 4, 2025) sues the Defendants for
their failure to properly secure and safeguard personally
identifiable information.
As an investment research company, Zacks allegedly collects and
stores sensitive PII of its customers, and has a resulting duty to
secure such information from unauthorized access and exfiltration.
Zacks expressly recognizes these duties, representing that it has
"sought long-term relationships with our customers. This means that
customer data privacy and security are a top priority."
Further, Zacks states, "we are committed to protecting your
Personal Information. All information that you provide to us is
stored on our secure servers."
Despite its duties to safeguard individuals' PII, in late January
2025, a threat actor published data samples on a dark web forum
claiming that they breached Zacks website in June 2024, which
exposed the data of nearly 12 million customers (the "Data
Breach").
As a direct and proximate result of Zacks's negligent failure to
implement and follow basic security procedures, Plaintiff’s and
Class Members' PII—IP addresses, names, passwords in the form of
unsalted SHA-256 hashes, phone numbers, physical addresses, and
usernames—is now in the hands of cybercriminals.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly
increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft,
and other harms caused by the unauthorized disclosure of their
PII—risks which may last for the rest of their lives.
Consequently, the Plaintiff and Class Members must devote
substantially more time, money, and energy to protect themselves,
to the extent possible, from these crimes.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class as defined
herein, brings claims for negligence, negligence per se, unjust
enrichment, and declaratory judgment, seeking damages and
injunctive relief, including the adoption of reasonably sufficient
data security practices to safeguard the PII in Defendant's
possession in order to prevent incidents like the Data Breach from
reoccurring in the future.
Zacks is an investment research company that utilizes independent
research and a team of experts to provide insights in order to give
investors a trading advantage.
Valerie Bicker was a citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
She is and was a customer of Zacks. The Plaintiff received an alert
from Google stating that her PII was in a data breach related to
Zacks.com and was found on the dark web.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
nickc@lcllp.com
ZEBRA STRATEGIES: Class Cert Bid Filing in Gross Due Oct. 27
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA GROSS and MARK
CHHABRIA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. ZEBRA STRATEGIES, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-08483-VSB-JW
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer Willis entered an order
adopting Report Of Rule 26(F) Meeting And Case Management Plan.
-- All fact discovery must be completed by March 9, 2026
-- Expert discovery shall be completed by March 30, 2026
-- The Plaintiffs shall file their motion by Oct. 27, 2025
-- The Defendant shall file its opposition to Plaintiffs' motion
by Dec. 29, 2025
-- The Plaintiffs shall file their reply brief in support of
class certification by Feb. 27, 2026
The Plaintiffs allege that as a result of Defendant's security
failures, an unauthorized employee or employees gained unauthorized
access to Defendant's network and computer systems for an unknown
period of time and obtained, exfiltrated, stole, and sold for
profit the sensitive personal information of Plaintiffs and roughly
20,000 Class Members.
Zebra is a market research company with two decades of experience
in tackling challenging research projects.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 26, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=M1hsog at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq.
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
405 East 50th Street
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
E-mail: vmaniatis@milberg.com
gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
Kevin M. Cox, Esq.
THE LYON FIRM
2754 Erie Ave.
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Telephone: (513) 381-2333
Facsimile: (513) 766-9011
E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
kcox@thelyonfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Allen Sattler, Esq.
Joseph A. McNelis III, Esq.
Xuan Zhou, Esq.
CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP
1650 Market Street, 36th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 996-8231
Facsimile: (609) 844-1102
E-mail: asattler@constangy.com
jmcnelis@constangy.com
xzhou@constangy.com
ZETA GLOBAL: Konigsberg, ACERS Approved as Lead Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARMIN DAVOODI,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
ZETA GLOBAL HOLDINGS CORP., et al, Case No. 1:24-cv-08961-DEH
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Dale Ho entered an order granting the
motions of Amir Konigsberg and the Allegheny County Employees'
Retirement System's motion to serve as lead plaintiff to the extent
that they are appointed co-lead plaintiffs, and their selection of
counsel is approved.
The remaining motions to serve as lead plaintiff are denied.
Because Dart Trust has not established Article III standing, it has
failed to make a preliminary showing of typicality or adequacy
under Rule 23—it "faces unique legal issues that other class
members do not."
The Court concludes that Dart Trust is not the most adequate
plaintiff. By contrast, Amir Konigsberg has submitted a detailed
declaration in support of his adequacy under Rule 23. His claims
are typical of those of the class. He has made a motion in response
to the notice in this case. And the Court concludes that he has the
next largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class.
The Court notes, however, that Konigsberg lives overseas, which may
present challenges to the expeditious litigation of this case. At
the conference, Pennsylvania-based institutional investor Allegheny
County Employees' Retirement System stated that it would be willing
to serve as co-lead plaintiff, and no movant objected to that
suggestion. Accordingly, the Court appoints Allegheny to serve
alongside Konigsberg as co-lead plaintiff.
Zeta offers companies a suite of multichannel marketing tools
focused on creating, maintaining, and monetizing customer
relationships.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 26, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=71gTCv at no extra
charge.[CC]
ZOOMINFO: Court Consolidates Two Shareholder Derivative Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington approved the stipulation by the
parties to consolidate the following shareholder derivative
actions:
(1) NICK HARLEY, derivatively on behalf of ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES
INC., Plaintiff, v. HENRY SCHUCK, CAMERON HYZER, KEITH ENRIGHT,
ASHLEY EVANS, ALISON GLEESON, MARK MADER,
PATRICK MCCARTER, D. RANDALL WINN, TODD CROCKETT, and MITESH DHRUV,
Defendants, and ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES INC., Nominal Defendant, Case
No. 3:24-cv-05987-TMC (W.D. Wash.); and
(2) JOSHUA STEFFENS, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant
ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES INC., Plaintiff, v. HENRY SCHUCK, PETER
CAMERON HYZER, KEITH ENRIGHT, ASHLEY EVANS, ALISON GLEESON, MARK
MADER, PATRICK MCCARTER, D. RANDALL WINN, TODD CROCKETT, and MITESH
DHRUV, Defendants, and ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES INC., Nominal
Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-05088-TMC (W.D. Wash.).
Plaintiffs Nick Harley and Joshua Steffens, Defendants Henry
Schuck, Peter Cameron Hyzer (a/k/a Cameron Hyzer), Keith Enright,
Ashley Evans, Alison Gleeson, Mark Mader, Patrick McCarter, D.
Randall Winn, Todd Crockett, and Mitesh Dhruv, and Nominal
Defendant ZoomInfo Technologies Inc., by and through their
undersigned counsel of record, jointly submit this stipulation to
consolidate the actions, to appoint co-lead counsel for plaintiffs
in the consolidated action, and to stay the consolidated action on
the terms set forth in the Court's previously-ordered Stay Order.
On Dec. 2, 2024, Plaintiff Harley filed a shareholder derivative
action in this Court on behalf of Nominal Defendant ZoomInfo
against the Individual Defendants, asserting claims for breach of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross
mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, contribution, and for
violations of Sections 14(a), 10(b), and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
On Jan. 21, 2025, Plaintiff Harley and Defendants filed a Joint
Stipulation and Proposed Order to stay the Harley Action pending
resolution of the motions to dismiss in the related securities
class action captioned City of Pontiac Police and Fire Retirement
System v. ZoomInfo Technologies, et al., Case No.
3:24-cv-05739-TMC, which the Court so ordered on Jan. 22, 2025.
On Feb. 4, 2025, Plaintiff Steffens filed a shareholder derivative
action in this Court on behalf of Nominal Defendant ZoomInfo
against the Individual Defendants, asserting claims for breach of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross
mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and for violations of
Sections 14(a), 10(b), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based upon the
same facts and circumstances as those underlying the Harley
Action.
The Parties agree that the Related Derivative Actions challenge
substantially similar alleged conduct by the same directors and
executive officers of ZoomInfo, involve substantially similar
questions of law and fact, and involve overlapping factual
allegations, and agree that the administration of justice would
best be served by consolidating the Related Derivative Actions.
The parties agree that, pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, the Related Derivative Actions should be
consolidated for all purposes into a single consolidated action in
order to avoid duplication of effort and potentially conflicting
results, and to conserve party and judicial resources.
In order to realize the efficiencies made possible by consolidation
of the Related Derivative Actions, Plaintiffs agree that The Brown
Law Firm, P.C. and Rigrodsky Law, P.A. shall be designated as
Co-Lead Counsel for plaintiffs in the Consolidated Derivative
Action.
Without waiving any rights, arguments or defenses, Defendants agree
that the Related Derivative Actions should be consolidated and take
no position regarding the appointment
of Co-Lead Counsel for plaintiffs.
The Related Derivative Actions are consolidated for all purposes,
including any pre-trial proceedings and trial, into the
Consolidated Derivative Action under Case No. 3:24-cv-05987-TMC.
All papers filed in connection with the Consolidated Derivative
Action shall be maintained in one file under Case No.
3:24-cv-05987-TMC.
Co-Lead Counsel for plaintiffs for the conduct of the Consolidated
Derivative Action shall be:
Timothy Brown, Esq.
THE BROWN LAW FIRM, P.C.
767 Third Avenue, Suite 2501
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (516) 922-5427
Facsimile: (516) 344-6204
Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
Vincent A. Licata, Esq.
Leah B. Wihtelin, Esq.
RIGRODSKY LAW, P.A.
825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 683-3516
E-mail: tjm@rl-legal.com
vl@rl-legal.com
lw@rl-legal.com
The Consolidated Derivative Action shall remain stayed pursuant to
the terms of the Stay Order, and all deadlines set forth in the
Feb. 13, 2025 Order shall be vacated.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O8rnDQ from PacerMonitor.com.
[^] Class Action Money & Ethics Conference 2025 -- The Sponsors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Registration is ongoing for the 9TH ANNUAL CLASS ACTION MONEY &
ETHICS CONFERENCE (CAME 2025), to be held May 7-8, 2025, at The
Harmonie Club, New York City.
This year's event is sponsored by:
(A) Major Sponsors
Atticus Administration, LLC
Visit at https://www.atticusadmin.com
ClaimScore
Visit https://www.claimscore.ai
Duane Morris LLP
Visit https://www.duanemorris.com
Esquire Bank
Visit https://esquirebank.com
Labaton Keller Sucharow
Visit https://www.labaton.com
Tremendous
Visit https://www.tremendous.com
(B) Patron Sponsors
AB Data
Visit https://www.abdataclassaction.com
Darrow AI
Visit https://www.darrow.ai
Miller Kaplan
Visit https://www.millerkaplan.com
(C) Supporting Sponsors
Verita
(Kurtzman Carson Consultants, LLC, KCC Class Action Services,
LLC, Gilardi & Co., LLC, and RicePoint Administration Inc. have
rebranded as Verita)
Visit https://veritaglobal.com
(D) Media Partners
Class Action Insights
Visit https://classactionsinsight.com
PacerMonitor, a Fitch Solutions Company
Visit https://www.pacermonitor.com/dashboard
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.
The CAME 2024 edition was attended by the industry's Who's Who.
Last year's conference attendees include:
Firm/Organization Firm/Organization
----------------- -----------------
A.B. Data, Ltd. Lake Avenue Capital
Alvarez & Marsal Levi & Korsinsky LLP
Analytics Consulting LLC Levine Law, LLC
Angeion Group Lieff Cabraser Heimann
Atticus Administration LLC & Bernstein, LLP
Avenue 33, LLC Locke Lord LLP
Beasley Allen Law Firm LTIMindtree
Beer Marketer's Insights Lynch Carpenter LLP
Berger Montague PC MarGrady Research
Blank Rome Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC
Bloomberg Law Messing & Spector LLP
Brann & Isaacson Milberg
BRG Miller Kaplan
Broadridge Morgan Lewis
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney New York Law Journal
Butsch Roberts & Associates New York Legal Assistance Group
Cardtable Enterprises New York Times
Certum Group New York University
Citi Law Firm Group O’Melveny & Myers LLP
ClaimScore Orr Taylor
Cohen Milstein Otterbourg P.C.
Cooley LLP PacerMonitor
Cozen O'Connor Parabellum Capital, LLC
CPT Group Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton
Darrow & Garrison LLP
DCirrus Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP
Dealpath PJT Partners
Disability Rights Michigan Pollock Cohen LLP
Duane Morris LLP Public Justice
Dukas Linden Public Relations Red Bridges Advisors LLC
EisnerAmper Riverdale Capital
Esquire Bank Sadaka Law
Farra & Wang PLLC Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law
Flexpoint Ford Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP
Foley & Lardner LLP Simpluris
Foster Yarborough PLLC Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher
George Feldman McDonald, PLLC & Flom LLP
Gernon Law Slarskey LLC
Giftogram Steptoe
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Tremendous
Hausfeld Tristate Capital Bank
Hook Point UConn Law
injuryclaims.com - Verus LLC
Typhon Interactive Wall Street Journal
Integrity Administration Western Alliance Bank
Janove PLLC Wilkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
KCC Winston & Strawn LLP
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check Wollmuth Maher & Deutsch LLP
King & Spalding Working Solutions
Kirkland & Ellis X Ante
Register for CAME 2025 at https://www.classactionconference.com
Breakfast and lunch included.
This year's conference will kick off with an 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 CAME 2024 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: Albany Int'l. Faces 3,646 Product Liability Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. is a defendant in suits brought in
various courts in the United States by plaintiffs who allege that
they have suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing paper machine clothing synthetic dryer fabrics
marketed during the period from 1967 to 1976 and used in certain
paper mills, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We were defending 3,646 claims as of December
31, 2024.
"We anticipate that additional claims will be filed against the
Company and related companies in the future, but are unable to
predict the number and timing of such future claims. Due to the
fact that information sufficient to meaningfully estimate a range
of possible loss of a particular claim is typically not available
until late in the discovery process, we do not believe a meaningful
estimate can be made regarding the range of possible loss with
respect to pending or future claims and therefore we are unable to
estimate a range of reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts
already accrued for pending or future claims.
"While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we
have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable
given the facts and circumstances of each case. Our insurance
carrier has defended each case and funded settlements under a
standard reservation of rights. As of December 31, 2024 we had
resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 38,051 claims. The
total cost of resolving all claims was $10.7 million. Of this
amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier, who has
confirmed that we have approximately $140 million of remaining
coverage under primary and excess policies that should be available
with respect to current and future asbestos claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5BER4R
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alcoa Corp. Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Some of Alcoa Corporation's subsidiaries as premises owners are
defendants in active lawsuits filed in various jurisdictions on
behalf of persons seeking damages for alleged personal injury as a
result of occupational exposure to asbestos at various facilities,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Our subsidiaries and acquired companies all
have had numerous insurance policies over the years that provide
coverage for asbestos based claims. Many of these policies provide
layers of coverage for varying periods of time and for varying
locations. We have significant insurance coverage and believe that
our reserves are adequate for known asbestos exposure related
liabilities. The costs of defense and settlement have not been and
are not expected to be material to the results of operations, cash
flows, and financial position of Alcoa Corporation."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TSHT2K
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------
AMETEK, Inc. (including its subsidiaries) has been named as a
defendant in a number of asbestos-related lawsuits, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
Certain of these lawsuits relate to a business which was acquired
by the Company and do not involve products which were manufactured
or sold by the Company. In connection with these lawsuits, the
seller of such business has agreed to indemnify the Company against
these claims. The Indemnified Claims have been tendered to, and are
being defended by, such seller. The seller has met its obligations,
in all respects, and the Company does not have any reason to
believe such party would fail to fulfill its obligations in the
future. To date, no judgments have been rendered against the
Company as a result of any asbestos-related lawsuit. The Company
believes that it has good and valid defenses to each of these
claims and intends to defend them vigorously.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zl2fYD
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Burlington Northern Defends Exposure Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC (BNSF) is party to asbestos
claims by employees and non-employees who may have been exposed to
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
BNSF states, "Because of the relatively finite exposed population,
the Company has recorded an estimate for the full amount of
probable exposure. This is determined through an actuarial analysis
based on estimates of the exposed population, the number of claims
likely to be filed, the number of claims that will likely require
payment, and the cost per claim. Estimated filing and dismissal
rates and average cost per claim are determined utilizing recent
claim data and trends.
"BNSF estimates its personal injury liability claims and expense
using standard actuarial methodologies based on the covered
population, activity levels and trends in frequency, and the costs
of covered injuries. The Company monitors actual experience against
the forecasted number of claims to be received, the forecasted
number of claims closing with payment, and expected claim payments
and records adjustments as new events or changes in estimates
develop."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6xdVys
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CECO Environmental Faces Product Liability Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CECO Environmental Corp.'s subsidiary, Met-Pro, along with numerous
other third parties, has been named as a defendant in
asbestos-related lawsuits filed against a large number of
industrial companies including, in particular, those in the pump
and fluid handling industries, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
In management's opinion, the complaints typically have been vague,
general and speculative, alleging that Met-Pro, along with the
numerous other defendants, sold unidentified asbestos-containing
products and engaged in other related actions that caused injuries
(including death) and loss to the plaintiffs. The Company's
insurers have hired attorneys who, together with the Company, are
vigorously defending these cases. The Company believes that its
insurance coverage is adequate for the cases currently pending
against the Company and for the foreseeable future, assuming a
continuation of the current volume, nature of cases and settlement
amounts. However, the Company has no control over the number and
nature of cases that are filed against it, nor as to the financial
health of its insurers or their position as to coverage. The
Company also presently believes that none of the pending cases will
have a material adverse impact upon the Company's results of
operations, liquidity or financial condition.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MfTApZ
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CenterPoint Energy Still Faces Exposure Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc., from time to time named, along with
numerous others, as defendants in lawsuits filed by a number of
individuals who claim injury due to exposure to asbestos, and
anticipates that additional claims may be asserted in the future,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Some facilities owned by the Registrants or their predecessors
contain or have contained asbestos insulation and other
asbestos-containing materials. Although their ultimate outcome
cannot be predicted at this time, the Registrants do not expect
these matters, either individually or in the aggregate, to have a
material adverse effect on their financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KcXkVf
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enviri Corp. Has 17,000 Pending PI Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Enviri Corporation is named as one of many defendants in legal
actions in the U.S. alleging personal injury from exposure to
airborne asbestos over the past several decades, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
As of December 2024, there were approximately 17,000 pending
asbestos personal injury actions filed against the Company. The
vast majority of these actions were filed in the New York Supreme
Court (New York County), of which the majority of such actions were
on the Deferred/Inactive Docket created by the New York Supreme
Court in December 2002 for all pending and future asbestos actions
filed by persons who cannot demonstrate that they have a malignant
condition or discernible physical impairment. A relatively small
portion of cases are on the Active or In Extremis docket in New
York County or on active dockets in other jurisdictions. The
complaints in most of those actions generally follow a form that
contains a standard demand of significant damages, regardless of
the individual plaintiff's alleged medical condition, and without
identifying any Company product.
The Company has liability insurance coverage under various primary
and excess policies that the Company believes will be available, if
necessary, to substantially cover any liability that might
ultimately be incurred in the asbestos actions referred to above.
The costs and expenses of the asbestos actions are being paid by
the Company's insurers.
In view of the persistence of asbestos litigation in the U.S., the
Company expects to continue to receive additional claims in the
future. The Company intends to continue its practice of vigorously
defending these claims and cases. As of December 2024, the Company
has successfully dismissed approximately 28,500 cases by
stipulation or summary judgment prior to trial.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m7riy1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ESAB Corp. Records $294.1MM Liability at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ESAB Corporation's subsidiaries are defendants in a large number of
lawsuits that claim personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos from products manufactured with components that are
alleged to have contained asbestos, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
ESAB Corp. states, "At December 31, 2024, the Company's asbestos
liability balance was $294.1 million. The Company records an
asbestos liability for probable pending and future claims over the
period that the Company believes it can reasonably estimate such
claims.
"Auditing the asbestos liability was complex and highly judgmental
due to the significant estimation of numerous variables required in
determining the asbestos obligation. In particular, the estimates
were sensitive to significant assumptions such as the period of
time over which claims activity can be reasonably predicted, the
number of future asbestos-related claims that may be received, the
type and severity of disease alleged by each claimant, dismissal
rates, the latency period associated with asbestos exposure, and
settlement values. These assumptions have a significant effect on
the asbestos liability.
"We obtained an understanding, evaluated the design and tested the
operating effectiveness of controls over the Company's process to
estimate the asbestos liability, including controls related to
estimates of expected future claims and other key assumptions
underlying the calculation of the obligation. We also tested
management's controls over the completeness and accuracy of the
data used in the calculation."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p0qIXu
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation is a defendant in a substantial number of
lawsuits that seek to recover damages for personal injury allegedly
caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured
and/or distributed by its heritage companies in the past, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Typically, these lawsuits have been brought
against multiple defendants in state and federal courts. While the
overall number of asbestos-related claims in which we or our
predecessors have been named has generally declined in recent
years, the number of new claims may fluctuate or increase between
periods, and there can be no assurance that total outstanding
claims will continue to decline, or that the average cost per claim
to us will not further increase. Asbestos-containing materials
incorporated into any such products were encapsulated and used as
internal components of process equipment, and we do not believe
that significant emission of asbestos fibers occurred during the
use of this equipment.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JG6SCG
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GATX Corp. Defends Personal Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
GATX Corporation and its subsidiaries have been named as defendants
in various legal actions and claims, governmental proceedings, and
private civil suits arising in the ordinary course of business,
including environmental matters, workers' compensation claims, and
other personal injury claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Some of these proceedings include claims for
punitive as well as compensatory damages. Several of our
subsidiaries have also been named as defendants or co-defendants in
cases alleging injury caused by exposure to asbestos. The
plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages based on common
law, statutory, or premises liability. In addition, demand has been
made against GATX for asbestos-related claims under limited
indemnities given in connection with the sale of certain of our
former subsidiaries. These matters are subject to many
uncertainties, and it is possible that some of these matters could
ultimately be decided, resolved, or settled adversely."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xgOwtn
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Genuine Parts Accrues $256MM for Product Liability
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Genuine Parts Company is subject to pending asbestos-related
product liability lawsuits resulting from its distribution and sale
of asbestos-containing brake and friction products, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company accrues for asbestos-related product liabilities if it
is probable that the Company has incurred a loss and the amount of
the loss can be reasonably estimated. The amount accrued for the
asbestos-related product liability as of December 31, 2024 was $256
million.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6Thsmc
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Insurance Reports $10.9MM Net A&E Reserve
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., as of December 31, 2024, had
$10.9 million of net asbestos and environmental reserves, comprised
of $8.7 million of direct reserves and $2.2 million of assumed
reinsurance pool reserves, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "This compares to net reserves of $12.4 million
as of December 31, 2023. Ending loss and LAE reserves for all
direct business written by our insurance companies related to
asbestos and environmental damage liability were $8.7 million and
$10.3 million, net of reinsurance of $17.2 million and $16.9
million for the years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023,
respectively. Activity for our direct asbestos and environmental
reserves was not significant to our 2024 or 2023 financial results.
As a result of our historical direct underwriting mix of Core
Commercial and Specialty policies toward smaller and middle market
risks, past asbestos and environmental damage liability loss
experience has remained minimal in relation to our total loss and
LAE incurred experience. Although we attempt to limit our exposures
to asbestos and environmental damage liability through specific
policy exclusions, we have been, and may continue to be, subject to
claims related to these exposures."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2NF8qK
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp. Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation and eight of its subsidiaries are presently named
as defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming various
asbestos-related personal injuries, allegedly as a result of
exposure to products manufactured with components that contained
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These components were acquired from third
party suppliers and were not manufactured by the Company or any of
the defendant subsidiaries. To date, the majority of the Company's
settlements and legal costs, except for costs of coordination,
administration, insurance investigation and a portion of defense
costs, have been covered in full by insurance, subject to
applicable deductibles. However, the Company cannot predict whether
and to what extent insurance will be available to continue to cover
these settlements and legal costs, or how insurers may respond to
claims that are tendered to them. Asbestos-related claims have been
filed in jurisdictions throughout the United States and the United
Kingdom. Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed
without payment. The balance of the claims have been settled for
various immaterial amounts. Only one case has been tried, resulting
in a verdict for the Company's business unit. No provision has been
made in the financial statements of the Company, other than for
insurance deductibles in the ordinary course, and the Company does
not currently believe the asbestos-related claims will have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial
position, results of operations or cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SSQSlF
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingredion Inc. Faces Asbestos Related Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ingredion Incorporated is currently subject to claims and suits
arising in the ordinary course of business, including workplace and
labor matters, asbestos related claims, environmental proceedings
and other commercial claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We also routinely receive inquiries from
regulators and other government authorities relating to various
aspects of our business, including with respect to compliance with
laws and regulations relating to the environment, and at any given
time we have matters at various stages of resolution with the
applicable governmental authorities. The outcomes of these matters
are not within our complete control and may not be known for
prolonged periods. We do not believe that the results of currently
known legal proceedings and inquires will be material to us. There
can be no assurance, however, that such proceedings, matters,
claims, suits or investigations or those arising in the future,
whether taken individually or in the aggregate, will not have a
material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of
operations."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dgjTHI
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Int'l. Paper Records $100MM Claims Liability
-------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company has been named as a defendant in
various asbestos-related personal injury litigation, in both state
and federal court, primarily in relation to the prior operations of
certain companies it previously acquired, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company's total recorded liability with respect to pending and
future asbestos-related claims was $100 million and $97 million,
both net of insurance recoveries as of associated with the alleged
anticompetitive conduct. Given the early stages of these claims and
the intention of the Company to defend robustly against such
claims, it is too early to predict with any real degree of
certainty, the precise overall outcome and ultimate potential
liability (if any) that might be incurred in connection therewith,
and there can be no guarantee that the aggregate of possible
damages against IP Italy and DS Smith Italy could not, together,
have a material impact on the Company's financial condition.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=09MhG8
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Co-Defends 1,300 Exposure Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., as of December 31, 2024, was a
co-defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving
claims by approximately 1,300 plaintiffs, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "In each instance, we are one of a large number
of defendants. The asbestos claimants allege that exposure to
asbestos contained in welding consumables caused the plaintiffs to
develop adverse pulmonary diseases, including mesothelioma and
other lung cancers. Asbestos use in welding consumables in the
United States ceased in 1981.
"Since January 1, 1995, we have been a co-defendant in asbestos
cases that have been resolved as follows: 57,080 of those claims
were dismissed, 23 were tried to defense verdicts, 7 were tried to
plaintiff verdicts (which were reversed or resolved after appeal),
1 was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount and 1,018 were
decided in favor of the Company following summary judgment
motions.
"The long-term impact of the asbestos loss contingency, in the
aggregate, on operating results, operating cash flows and access to
capital markets is difficult to assess, particularly since claims
are in many different stages of development and we benefit
significantly from cost-sharing with co-defendants and insurance
carriers. While we intend to contest these lawsuits vigorously, and
believe we have applicable insurance relating to these claims,
there are several risks and uncertainties that may affect our
liability for personal injury claims relating to exposure to
asbestos, including the future impact of changing cost sharing
arrangements or a change in our overall trial experience.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bIVcK8
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Defends 1,300 Exposure Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., as of December 31, 2024, was
co-defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving
claims by approximately 1,300 plaintiffs, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "In each instance, we are one of a large number
of defendants. The asbestos claimants allege that exposure to
asbestos contained in welding consumables caused the plaintiffs to
develop adverse pulmonary diseases, including mesothelioma and
other lung cancers. Asbestos use in welding consumables in the
United States ceased in 1981.
"Since January 1, 1995, we have been a co-defendant in asbestos
cases that have been resolved as follows: 57,080 of those claims
were dismissed, 23 were tried to defense verdicts, 7 were tried to
plaintiff verdicts (which were reversed or resolved after appeal),
1 was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount and 1,018 were
decided in favor of the Company following summary judgment
motions.
"The long-term impact of the asbestos loss contingency, in the
aggregate, on operating results, operating cash flows and access to
capital markets is difficult to assess, particularly since claims
are in many different stages of development and we benefit
significantly from cost-sharing with co-defendants and insurance
carriers. While we intend to contest these lawsuits vigorously, and
believe we have applicable insurance relating to these claims,
there are several risks and uncertainties that may affect our
liability for personal injury claims relating to exposure to
asbestos, including the future impact of changing cost sharing
arrangements or a change in our overall trial experience."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GkSocD
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Markel Group Reports $122.1MM Gross A&E Reserves
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Markel Group Inc., at December 31, 2024, has A&E reserves of $122.1
million and $32.5 million on a gross and net basis, respectively,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
At December 31, 2023, A&E reserves were $132.5 million and $39.6
million on a gross and net basis, respectively.
The Company's reserves for losses and loss adjustment expenses
related to A&E exposures represent management's best estimate of
ultimate settlement values based on statistical analysis of these
reserves by the Company's actuaries. A&E exposures are subject to
significant uncertainty due to potential loss severity and
frequency resulting from the uncertain and unfavorable legal
climate. A&E reserves could be subject to increases in the future,
however, management believes the Company's gross and net A&E
reserves at December 31, 2024 are adequate.
The Company has exposure to asbestos and environmental (A&E) claims
primarily resulting from policies written by acquired insurance
operations before their acquisition by the Company. The Company's
exposure to A&E claims originated from umbrella, excess and
commercial general liability insurance policies and assumed
reinsurance contracts that were written on an occurrence basis from
the 1970s to mid-1980s. Exposure also originated from claims-made
policies that were designed to cover environmental risks provided
that all other terms and conditions of the policy were met. A&E
claims include property damage and clean-up costs related to
pollution, as well as personal injury allegedly arising from
exposure to hazardous materials. Development on A&E loss reserves
is monitored separately from the Company's ongoing underwriting
operations and is not included in a reportable segment.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=J4CumV
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Merck & Co. Has 415 Pending Cases as of Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in
the U.S. arising from consumers' alleged exposure to talc in Dr.
Scholl's foot powder, which Merck acquired through its merger with
Schering-Plough Corporation and sold as part of the divestiture of
Merck's consumer care business to Bayer in 2014, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "As of December 31, 2024, approximately 415
cases were pending against Merck in various state courts."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pWxrgW
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Faces 2,936 New Exposure Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc., has received 2,936 new claims during the year
December 31, 2024, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large
number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts.
These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs
suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and
seek both actual and punitive damages. MLIC has never engaged in
the business of manufacturing or selling asbestos-containing
products, nor has MLIC issued liability or workers' compensation
insurance to companies in the business of manufacturing or selling
asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits principally have focused
on allegations with respect to certain research, publication and
other activities of one or more of MLIC's employees during the
period from the 1920s through approximately the 1950s and allege
that MLIC learned or should have learned of certain health risks
posed by asbestos and, among other things, improperly publicized or
failed to disclose those health risks. MLIC believes that it should
not have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most
asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be
impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal
rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury
and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims
asserted against MLIC.
"MLIC's defenses include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty to the
plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of MLIC;
(iii) MLIC’s conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs'
injuries; and (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers
of asbestos were known. During the course of the litigation,
certain trial courts have granted motions dismissing claims against
MLIC, while other trial courts have denied MLIC’s motions. There
can be no assurance that MLIC will receive favorable decisions on
motions in the future. While most cases brought to date have
settled, MLIC intends to continue to defend aggressively against
claims based on asbestos exposure, including defending claims at
trials."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Na6PDL
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Tech. Defends Over 600 Exposure Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries are
among numerous defendants in over six hundred cases seeking damages
for alleged exposure to asbestos-contaminated talc products sold by
its subsidiary Oldco, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company's position is that these cases are meritless and all
talc products sold by Oldco are safe. On October 2, 2023 (the
"Petition Date"), notwithstanding the Company's confidence in the
safety of Oldco's talc products, the Chapter 11 Debtors filed
voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of Texas (the "Chapter 11 Cases") to address and
comprehensively resolve Oldco's liabilities associated with talc.
Minerals Technologies Inc. and the Company's other subsidiaries
were not included in the Chapter 11 filing. In the second quarter
of 2024, Oldco sold its talc assets under section 363 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code. In addition, in the second quarter of 2024, the
Company entered into a Debtor-in-Possession Credit Agreement with
Oldco (the "DIP Credit Agreement") and recorded a provision for
credit loss of $30 million for the maximum principal amount under
such DIP Credit Agreement. Proceeds of the sale of Oldco's talc
assets, as well as the funds drawn by Oldco under the DIP Credit
Agreement, will be used to fund the Chapter 11 Cases. The Chapter
11 Debtors' ultimate goal in the Chapter 11 Cases is to confirm a
plan of reorganization under Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy
Code and utilize this provision of the Bankruptcy Code to establish
a trust that will address all current and future talc-related
claims. In January 2024, the Chapter 11 Debtors and Minerals
Technologies Inc. commenced a court-approved mediation process with
the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (appointed in the
Chapter 11 Cases as the representative of current talc claimants)
and the Future Claimants Representative (appointed in the Chapter
11 Cases as the representative of future talc claimants) regarding
the terms of a potential consensual plan of reorganization and the
ultimate amount to be contributed to any trust. The mediation
process is ongoing. During the pendency of the Chapter 11 Cases,
the Company anticipates that the Chapter 11 Debtors will benefit
from the operation of the automatic stay, which stays ongoing
litigation in connection with talc-related claims against Oldco. In
addition, subject to certain exceptions, the filing or continued
prosecution of all talc-related claims against Oldco's non-debtor
affiliates is temporarily stayed through April 15, 2025 (subject to
further extensions), the date on which a hearing is scheduled on
the status of the Chapter 11 Cases. The Chapter 11 Debtors have
been deconsolidated from the Company's financial statements since
the Petition Date. Although the Chapter 11 Cases are progressing,
it is not possible to predict the form of any ultimate resolution
or when an ultimate resolution might occur at this time.
Accordingly, the amount that will be necessary to fully and finally
resolve all of the Chapter 11 Debtors' current and future
talc-related claims in connection with a confirmed Chapter 11 plan
of reorganization cannot be estimated with certainty at this time.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=snOAk2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Defends Product Liability Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The ODP Corporation's operating subsidiary OfficeMax, is named as a
defendant in a number of lawsuits, claims, and proceedings arising
out of the operation of certain paper and forest products assets
prior to those assets being sold in 2004, for which OfficeMax
agreed to retain responsibility, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Also, as part of that sale, OfficeMax agreed to retain
responsibility for all pending, threatened and future proceedings
alleging asbestos-related injuries arising out of the operation of
the paper and forest products assets prior to the closing of the
sale. The Company does not believe any of these OfficeMax retained
proceedings are material to the Company's financial position,
results of operations, or cash flows; however, the Company has made
provision for losses with respect to the pending proceedings.
Additionally, as of December 28, 2024, the Company has made
provision for environmental liabilities with respect to certain
sites where hazardous substances or other contaminants are or may
be located. For all of the above-mentioned liabilities, the
Company’s combined estimated range of reasonably possible losses
was approximately $20 million to $25 million. The Company regularly
monitors its estimated exposure to contingent liabilities. As
additional information becomes known, these estimates may change.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eO2mjr
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Paramount Global Receives 3,100 New PI Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paramount Global, as of December 31, 2024, had pending
approximately 18,310 asbestos claims, as compared with
approximately 19,970 as of December 31, 2023 and 21,580 as of
December 31, 2022, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "During 2024, we received approximately 3,100
new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket approximately
4,760 claims.
"We are a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal injuries
related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly occurred
as a result of exposure caused by various products manufactured by
Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally prior to the early 1970s.
Westinghouse was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos.
We are typically named as one of a large number of defendants in
both state and federal cases. In the majority of asbestos lawsuits,
the plaintiffs have not identified which of our products is the
basis of a claim. Claims against us in which a product has been
identified most commonly relate to allegations of exposure to
asbestos-containing insulating material used in conjunction with
turbines and electrical equipment.
"Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may
make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of
pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to
period. We do not report as pending those claims on inactive,
stayed, deferred or similar dockets that some jurisdictions have
established for claimants who allege minimal or no impairment. We
report claims as closed when we become aware that a dismissal order
has been entered by a court or when we have reached agreement with
the claimants on the material terms of a settlement. Settlement
costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that form the basis
of the claims, the quality of evidence supporting the claims and
other factors. Our total costs for the years 2024 and 2023 for
settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance
recoveries and net of tax were approximately $34 million and $54
million, respectively. Our costs for settlement and defense of
asbestos claims may vary year to year and insurance proceeds are
not always recovered in the same period as the insured portion of
the expenses.
"Filings include claims for individuals suffering from
mesothelioma, a rare cancer, the risk of which is allegedly
increased by exposure to asbestos; lung cancer, a cancer which may
be caused by various factors, one of which is alleged to be
asbestos exposure; other cancers, and conditions that are
substantially less serious, including claims brought on behalf of
individuals who are asymptomatic as to an allegedly
asbestos-related disease. A significant number of pending claims
against us are non-cancer claims. It is difficult to predict
long-term future asbestos liabilities, as events and circumstances
may impact the estimate. We record an accrual for a loss
contingency when it is both probable that a liability has been
incurred and when the amount of the loss can be reasonably
estimated. The reasonably estimable period for our long-term
asbestos liability is 10 years, which we determined in consultation
with a third-party firm with expertise in estimating asbestos
liability and is due to the inherent uncertainties in the tort
litigation system. Our estimated asbestos liability is based upon
many factors, including the number of outstanding claims, estimated
average cost per claim, the breakdown of claims by disease type,
historic claim filings, costs per claim of resolution and the
filing of new claims, and is assessed in consultation with the
third-party firm. Based on an assessment of these factors during
the fourth quarters of 2024 and 2023, we increased the accrual for
asbestos matters by $57 million and $23 million, respectively,
which were recorded as charges in "Restructuring,
transaction-related items, and other corporate matters" on the
Consolidated Statements of Operations. The increased accrual in
each year was primarily the result of a lower-than-expected rate of
decline in new claims. Changes in circumstances in future periods
could cause our actual liabilities to be higher or lower than our
current accrual. We will continue to evaluate our estimates and
update our accrual as needed."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OPFgK6
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair plc Has 690 Pending Claims as of Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pentair plc, as of December 31, 2024, reported that approximately
690 asbestos-related claims were pending against its subsidiaries,
substantially all of which relate to its discontinued operations,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Our subsidiaries, subsidiaries, along with
numerous other companies, are named as defendants in a substantial
number of lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
materials, substantially all of which relate to our discontinued
operations. These cases typically involve product liability claims
based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution
of industrial products that either contained asbestos or were
attached to or used with asbestos-containing components
manufactured by third parties or to which asbestos insulation was
applied after installation. In addition, some cases brought against
us involve the presence of asbestos at facilities that we own or
used to own. Each case typically names a large number of product
manufacturers, service providers and premises owners. Historically,
our subsidiaries have been identified as defendants in
asbestos-related claims. Our strategy has been, and continues to
be, to mount a vigorous defense aimed at having unsubstantiated
suits dismissed, and settling claims before trial only where
appropriate. We cannot predict with certainty the extent to which
we will be successful in litigating or otherwise resolving lawsuits
in the future, and we continue to evaluate different strategies
related to asbestos claims filed against us. Unfavorable rulings,
judgments or settlement terms could have a material adverse impact
on our business and financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows. In addition, while most of the asbestos claims against
us are covered by liability insurance policies from many years ago,
not all claims are insured. As our insurers resolve claims relating
to past policy periods, the aggregate coverage provided by those
policies erodes. If we exhaust our coverage under those policies,
we will be exposed to potential uninsured losses. Over time, the
uninsured portion of our asbestos docket may increase, which may
require us to set greater reserves to resolve future asbestos
cases."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HVvvMO
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Has $45MM Reserves as of Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc., as of December 31, 2024 and 2023, has
reported asbestos-related reserves of $45 million and $48 million,
respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "For many years, PPG has been a defendant in
lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure to
asbestos. Those lawsuits and claims may relate to contract, patent,
environmental, product liability, asbestos exposure, antitrust,
employment, securities and other matters arising out of the conduct
of PPG's current and past business activities. Any such claims,
whether with or without merit, could be time consuming and
expensive to defend and could divert management's attention and
resources. We maintain insurance against some, but not all, of
these potential claims, and the levels of insurance we maintain may
not be adequate to fully cover any and all losses. We believe that,
in the aggregate, the outcome of all current lawsuits and claims
involving PPG, including those described in Note 15, "Commitments
and Contingent Liabilities" in Item 8 of this Form 10-K, will not
have a material effect on PPG's consolidated financial position or
liquidity; however, such outcome may be material to the results of
operations of any particular period in which costs, if any, are
recognized. Nonetheless, the results of any future litigation or
claims are inherently unpredictable, and such outcomes could have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, Cash from
operating activities or financial condition."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b6VWgW
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regal Rexnord Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Regal Rexnord Corporation's certain subsidiaries are co-defendants
in various lawsuits in a number of US jurisdictions alleging
personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos that was used
in certain components of legacy Rexnord PMC business products,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "The uncertainties of litigation and the
uncertainties related to insurance and indemnification coverage
make it difficult to accurately predict the ultimate financial
effect of these claims. If our insurance or indemnification
coverage is not adequate to cover our potential financial exposure,
our insurers or indemnitors dispute their obligations to provide
coverage, or the actual number or value of claims differs
materially from our existing estimates, we could incur material
costs that could have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x87LDc
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Reports $5.4MM Current Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation, in its press release issued on February 19,
2025, has reported asbestos-related liabilities, current portion of
$5.4 million and asbestos-related liabilities, non-current portion
of $52.1 million, respectively, as of December 31, 2024, according
to the Company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CxI1aj
ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Fire Group Has $0.7MM A&E Loss Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Fire Group, Inc., at December 31, 2024 and 2023, had $0.7
million and $0.8 million, respectively, in direct and assumed
asbestos and environmental loss reserves, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "The estimation of loss reserves for
environmental claims and claims related to long-term exposure to
asbestos and other substances is one of the most difficult aspects
of establishing reserves, especially given the inherent
uncertainties surrounding such claims and the likelihood that these
uncertainties will not be resolved for many years. Although we
record our best estimate of loss and loss settlement expense
reserves, the ultimate amounts paid upon settlement of such claims
may be more or less than the amount of the reserves."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g30Goc
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. R. Berkley Reports $16MM Net A&E Reserves
-------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Berkley Corporation's net reserves for losses and loss
expenses relating to environmental and asbestos claims on policies
written before adoption of the absolute exclusion was $16 million
and $17 million at December 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The estimation of these liabilities is subject to significantly
greater than normal variation and uncertainty because it is
difficult to make an actuarial estimate of these liabilities due to
the absence of a generally accepted actuarial methodology for these
exposures and the potential effect of significant unresolved legal
matters, including coverage issues, as well as the cost of
litigating the legal issues. Additionally, the determination of
ultimate damages and the final allocation of such damages to
financially responsible parties are highly uncertain.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1cpiY9
*********
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 ***