/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250328.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, March 28, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 63
Headlines
18.21 MAN MADE: Faces Cole Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Seiken Suit Moved From D. Ariz. to N.D. Ill.
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Ray Seeks to File Third Amended Complaint
AFFINITY INSURANCE: Must Submit Unredacted Discovery Documents
AIG WARRANTY: Shellenberger Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
AIR PRODUCTS: CamCara Bid to Seal Class Cert Docs OK'd
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Faces Antitrust Suit over Mouth Scanner Prices
AMAZON.COM INC: Discovery Coordination Order Entered in De Coster
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Greenwashing Class Suit Over Paper Products
AMAZON.COM: Discovery Coordination Order Entered in Brown Suit
AMAZON.COM: Discovery Coordination Order Entered in Frame-Wilson
AMERICAN ECONOMY: Bid to Dismiss Stanley Suit Tossed
AMPAM PARKS: Class Suit Over Stock Ownership Plan Certified
ANN ARBOR, MI: Agrees to Settle Tire Chalking Class Action Suit
APPLE INC: Class Settlement in Lopez Suit Gets Initial Nod
ARCONIC US: Vanderipe Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Advance Notice
ATHENA BITCOIN: Yilma Consumer Class Suit Removed to D. Colo.
AVIS BUDGET: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Parkin Class Suit
BACK TO NATURE: Bid for Discovery Conference Denied
BANK OF AMERICA: Class Cert Discovery in Pfeffer Suit Due July 31
BEVERLY HILLS, CA: Court Narrows Claims in Williams
BIG AL'S PIZZA: Vandegrift Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
BLUE PATH: Initial Case Order Entered in Garay Class Action
BLUEGRASS HOSPITALITY: Agrees to Settle Pay Class Action for $9MM
BOB AND RONNA: Faces Class Suit Over Homebuying Kickback Scheme
BOYD FRANCHISING: Rose Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
BSH HOME: Case Management Deadlines in Hedrick Suit Vacated
BYTEDANCE INC: Collects Minors' Info Without Consent, Ramlawi Says
C P SHADES: Fernandez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
CARGROUP HOLDINGS: Bid for Leave to File Sur-Reply Sought
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Class Suit
CENTURY GAMES: Standing Order Entered in Homa Class Action
CHARLESTON RETAIL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Wills Says
CLEARVIEW AI: Court Approves Privacy Class Action Settlement
CONOPCO INC: Candelaria Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
CONTEMPORARY CAR: Faces Rivera Wage-and-Hour Suit in D.N.J.
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Mitchell's Class Cert Bid Due March 5, 2026
CR CLICKS: Williams Sues Over Hidden Route Package Protection Fees
CREDIT SUISSE: Bid to Certify Misrepresentation Class Tossed
DANIEL JUAREZ: Court Sets Scheduling Conference in Bennett Suit
DAVID COFIELD: Court Dismisses Edwards Suit
DENCO CONSTRUCTION: Perez Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
DILLARD'S INC: Faces Guzman Suit for Discrimination, Retaliation
EDEN SENIOR: Swan Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
ENTERPRISE BANCORP: M&A Investigates Merger With Independent Bank
EVOLVE BANK: Tonner Seeks to Consolidate Class Complaints
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Bid to Transfer Osterhaus Case Tossed
FAIRFIELD, CT: Agrees to Settle Detainees' Class Suit for $1.2MM
FCA US: Bid to Strike Plaintiffs' Data Sheets Terminated
FCA US: Court Dismisses Biederman Amended Class Action
FIRST NATIONAL: Joint Pretrial Order in Bezek Class Suit Entered
FIRSTHAND TECHNOLOGY: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
FORD MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over Design Flaw in Mach-E Crossover
GEORGIA: Rowe Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
GIFTROCKET INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Gracie Due March 28
GLOBAL E-TRADING: Seeks to Exclude Merrifield's Testimony
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Underpays Assistant Managers, Echevarria Says
GOOGLE LLC: Agrees to Settle Racial Class Action for $28-Mil.
GOOGLE LLC: Bid for Class Notice Plan Approval Tossed
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Class Cert Bid in Steve Extended to June 2
HESAI GROUP: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
HPC INDUSTRIAL: Longley Action Consolidated with Moss Suit
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Ross Sues Over Deceptive Marketing of Hyundai Nexo
IAN MACALINAO: Dismissal Bid Evidentiary Hearing Set for May 20
IEC GAMES: Standing Order Entered in Homa Class Action
IFC CENTER: Agrees to Settle Ticket Fees Class Suit for $200,000
INTAKE DESK: Faces TCPA Class Lawsuit Over Telemarketing Calls
J.P.S. CONSTRUCTION: Toner Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
KNOX COMMUNITY: Sapp Sues Over Licensed Practical Nurses' Unpaid OT
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN: Expert Disclosures Extended to Sept. 8
LOANCARE LLC: Court OKs Summary Judgment in Consumer Credit Suit
LULO RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Soto Says
MAT KING: Bid for Appointment of Interim Class Counsel Tossed
MDL 2833: Court Dismisses Loan Servicing Suit
MDL 2873: AFFF Products "Defective," Bolton Suit Alleges
MDL 2873: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Wiedmaier Suit Alleges
MDL 2873: AFFF Products Harmful to Human Health, Eades Claims
MDL 2873: Chapman Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
MDL 2873: Edgar Sues Over Toxic Effects of AFFF Products
MDL 2873: Exposed AFFF Products' Users to PFAS, Hernandez Claims
MDL 2873: Exposed Firefighters to Toxic Products, Hebert Suit Says
MDL 2873: Faces Mercer Suit Over AFFF Products' PFAS Exposure
MDL 2873: Faces Mitchell Suit Over AFFF Products' Harmful Effects
MDL 2873: Faces Shepardson Suit Over AFFF Products' Design Defect
MDL 2873: Faces Taylor Suit Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
MDL 2873: Faces Wall Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Elements
MDL 2873: Hamilton Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products
MDL 2873: Hester Suit Alleges PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
MDL 2873: Kaleleiki Sues Over AFFF Products' Risk to Human Health
MDL 2873: Mcdowell Sues Over Side Effects of Using AFFF Products
MDL 2873: Resendez Sues Over Firefighters' Exposure to PFAS
MDL 2873: Starkey Sues Over Injuries Sustained From AFFF Products
MDL 2873: Stewart Suit Claims Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
MDL 2873: Stringer Suit Claims Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
MDL 2873: Tanner Sues Over AFFF Products' Risk to Human Health
MDL 2873: Waugh Sues Over Firefighters' Exposure to PFAS From AFFF
MDL 2873: Wicke Suit Alleges PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
MDL 3040: Zigler's Testimony in Product Liability Suit Excluded
NATIONAL STUDENT: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $9.95MM
NETCAP INC: Parties in Baus Must File Status Report
NEW YORK: Bass Appeals Court Order in Civil Rights Suit to 2nd Cir.
NOGIN COMMERCE: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
OB GOLF: Anding Suit Seeks Withheld Tips for Restaurant Servers
ODIN PROPERTIES: Collects Rent Despite Alleged Unsafe Structure
OPTOTRAFFIC LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Excessive Traffic Penalties
OPW FUELING: Canales Must Supplement Responses
OPW FUELING: Class Cert Scheduling Deadlines Extended
ORIGIN MATERIALS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
PACS GROUP: 1199SEIU Appointed as Lead Plaintiff in Manchin
PERPAY INC: Dominguez Balks at Unlawful Telemarketing Messages
PREMIUM LOUNGE: Wee-Ellis Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Pinto Due May 5
PROGRESSIVE CORP: Pryce Wins Bid Partial Summary Judgment
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bid for Settlement Deal Prelim. Approval Tossed
REFY BEAUTY: Herrera Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
REVISION SKINCARE: Girtley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
RIP N DIP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Isakov Says
SAFELITE GROUP: Faces Key Suit Over Illegal Tobacco Surcharge
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Case Management Deadlines in Norris Vacated
SAZERAC COMPANY: Koonce Must File Class Cert Exhibits Under Seal
SCHWEIGER DERMATOLOGY: Williams Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website
SCOTT SEMPLE: Arpin's Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice
SCOTT SEMPLE: Barker's Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice
SCOTT SEMPLE: Batiz's Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice
SCOTT SEMPLE: Rodriguez Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed
SDWC FINANCIAL: Faces Hauger Suit Over Ponzi Scheme
SECURITAS SECURITY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Ulloa Due Oct. 15
SHERRY BURT: Gordon Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
SPRECKELS SUGAR: Seeks to File Brief in Opposition to Class Cert
STIFEL FINANCIAL: Faces Class Suit Over Unfair Cash Sweep Program
T-MOBILE US: Class Cert Bid Filing in Zajong Modified to Oct. 9
TARGET CORPORATION: Bid to Decertify Class in Davis Suit Tossed
TD BANK: Fails to Protect Customers' Personal Info, Crumpe Says
TFI INTERNATIONAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 13
TUFT & NEEDLE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Chebul Due July 8
TUYA INC: Court Grants Motion for Judgment in Securities Class Suit
UAB QBIT: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Cryptocurrency Fraud
UNITED PLASTICS: Zhang Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Production Staff
UNITED STATES: Faces Doe Suit Over Termination of Parole Processes
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: Settles COVID Tuition Refund Suit for $4M
VALSOFT CORP: Ortiz Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info
VANGUARD GROUP: Quinn Balks at Unfair Account Closure Fees
VF OUTDOOR: PAGA Settlement Approval Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
VIRGIN GALACTIC: Parties Must Address Proposed Amended Complaint
WAKE COUNTY, NC: Court Rejects Appeal in 2021 Pepping Class Action
WEBMD LLC: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Jancik Suit to 11th Circuit
WEISER SECURITY: Faces Tunstall Wage-and-Hour Suit in W.D. Tenn.
WELLS FARGO: Echard Appeals Denied Bid to Enforce Mediation Right
WORKDAY INC: Class Cert Hearing in Mobley Suit Reset to April 29
XPLR INFRASTRUCTURE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 9
XTO ENERGY: Court Strikes Class Allegations
YES COMMUNITIES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, O'Leary Says
ZYNEX INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
[] Nebraska Governor Signs Data Breach Safe Harbor Laws
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNS Sub Has 58 Toxic-Tort Claims as of Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Indemnity Defends A&E Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Electric Has 3,591 Pending Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Defends 57,760 PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Has 115 Pending Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Faces 108 Personal Injury Cases
*********
18.21 MAN MADE: Faces Cole Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
HARON COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
Plaintiff v. 18.21 Man Made, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02091
(N.D. Ill., February 28, 2025) is a civil rights action against the
Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website, https://1821manmade.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers
that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using
keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive
and include, but are not limited to: ambiguous link texts, changing
of content without advance warning, inaccurate drop-down menus,
inaccurate heading hierarchy, inaccurate alt-text on graphics,
redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address,
the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements,
unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that
transactions be performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
18.21 Man Made's policies, practices, and procedures so that its
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.
18.21 Man Made, LLC operates the website that sells men's personal
care and grooming products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Davis B. Reyes, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
68-29 Main Street
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (630)-478-0856
E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Seiken Suit Moved From D. Ariz. to N.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARINA SEIKEN, surviving mother of deceased minor
K.S., individually and on behalf of all wrongful death statutory
beneficiaries; SHEN SEIKEN, individually, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES,
an Illinois corporation; and ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-00610, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 18, 2025.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:25-cv-02798 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs bring this suit against the Defendants for false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
cow's milk products designed for premature infants. The suit brings
claims for negligence, strict liability, negligent
misrepresentation, gross negligence, breach of warranties, and
punitive damages.
Abbott Laboratories is a manufacturer of infant formulas,
headquartered in Illinois.
Abbott Laboratories, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Abbott
Laboratories, headquartered in Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Craig A. Knapp, Esq.
David S. Friedman, Esq.
KNAPP & ROBERTS, PC
8777 North Gainey Center Drive, Suite 165
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
Telephone: (480) 991-7677
Email: knapp@krattorneys.com
friedman@krattorneys.com
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Ray Seeks to File Third Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JERRY W. RAY, on Behalf of
Himself and Others Similarly Situated, v. ADAPTHEALTH CORP., Case
No. 1:22-cv-00898-TDS-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order granting leave to file an Amended Class Action
Complaint (Third Amended Complaint) pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7.3.
Mr. Ray moves for leave to file an Amended Class Action Complaint
to clarify his existing claims, redefine the bounds of the proposed
classes of North Carolina consumers, and to assert separate claims
for each proposed class against AdaptHealth under the North
Carolina Debt Collection Act.
AdaptHealth will not be prejudiced by the proposed amendment
because it is being sought prior to the deadlines for discovery
(May 15, 2025) and class certification (June 16, 2025), and
predominantly serves to clarify or expand claims based on
AdaptHealth’s efforts to collect debts it was not owed and late
fees incidental to those debts—claims that were already
asserted—using information produced by AdaptHealth during the
discovery process.
Mr. Ray filed his Complaint in this Court on Oct. 20, 2022, against
the Defendants AdaptHealth Corp., Family Medical Supply, LLC, and
SIMM Associates, Inc., for violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, North Carolina Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
North Carolina Debt Collection Act, and the North Carolina Unfair
and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
On Nov. 1, 2022, Mr. Ray filed his First Amended Complaint as of
right to correct a typo in one allegation of the Complaint.
AdaptHealth provides home medical equipment.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Gj0wSR at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chad D. Hansen, Esq.
Richard J. Keshian, Esq.
Chase H. Stevens, Esq.
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
1001 West Fourth Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Telephone: (336) 607-7322
Facsimile: (336) 734-2645
E-mail: rkeshian@kilpatricktownsend.com
chadhansen@kilpatricktownsend.com
chstevens@kilpatricktownsend.com
AFFINITY INSURANCE: Must Submit Unredacted Discovery Documents
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISABEL WILLIAMS, et al.,
v. AFFINITY INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No.
4:23-cv-06347-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Alex Tse entered an
order directing the Defendants to produce unredacted versions of
documents responsive to Plaintiffs' requests within 14 days of the
date of the order.
The Court is not convinced that allowing discovery on every
possible retail partner, or on transactions beyond the Plaintiffs'
purchases, is appropriate at this stage. The Plaintiffs do not
explain how many other retail partners might be implicated; the
Defendants argue that dozens of different retailers will be
implicated.
More importantly, the Court is not convinced that the policies sold
via other retailers or in other transactions are substantially
similar, let alone that Plaintiffs have made a prima facie showing
in the joint discovery letter under Rule 23. The Plaintiffs include
only a few conclusory sentences in the joint letter as support for
their substantial similarity, but this is not sufficient for the
Court to so find.
The Plaintiffs purchased travel insurance policies through Carnival
Cruise Line and Norwegian Cruise Line. The policies in question are
connected with defendants Affinity Insurance Services, AIS Affinity
Insurance Agency, and Nationwide Mutual Insurance Services.
The parties disagree about whether the Defendants must produce
discovery pertaining to the Defendants' travel insurance policies
sold by retail partners other than Carnival and Norwegian and
including purchases beyond those made by the Plaintiff.
Affinity is the subsidiary of Aon that specializes in developing,
marketing and administering customized insurance programs.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PhGVZa at no extra
charge.[CC]
AIG WARRANTY: Shellenberger Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HADASSAH SHELLENBERGER is taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing her lawsuit entitled Hadassah Shellenberger,
individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. AIG Warranty Guard, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 2:24-cv-00657-JLR, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this putative
class action concerns Ms. Shellenberger's purchase of the
Defendants' warranty plan (the "Service Plan"), which provided
inferior coverage than she expected for her new KitchenAid
dishwasher. Ms. Shellenberger initiated this action on May 10,
2024, claiming the Defendants' marketing materials deceptively
misrepresented and omitted material terms of the Service Plan
contract. She alleges the Defendants' marketing impresses upon
consumers that the Service Plans are related to, and offer coverage
benefits comparable to, the Whirlpool manufacturer's warranty.
On July 15, 2024, the Defendants each filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, describing this case as a "copycat lawsuit" based on a
similar putative class action that Ms. Shellenberger's attorney
filed last year in the Central District of California (citing Salas
v. Whirlpool Corp., No. 5:23-CV-01549-AB-KK, 2024 WL 694067 (C.D.
Cal. Jan. 24, 2024)).
On Sept. 11, 2024, Judge James L. Robart granted the Defendants'
motions to dismiss.
On Oct. 2, 2024, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
the Defendants moved to dismiss on Oct. 30, 2024.
On Dec. 4, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a request of judicial notice.
On Feb. 3, 2025, Judge James L. Robart granted the Defendants'
motions to dismiss.
The appellate case is captioned Shellenberger v. AIG Warranty
Guard, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-1448, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 6, 2025.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 11,
2025;
-- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on April 15, 2025;
and
-- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on May 15, 2025.
[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant HADASSAH SHELLENBERGER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Evan E. Sumer, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF EVAN SUMER
145 Corte Madera Town Center, #464
Corte Madera, CA 94925
Defendants-Appellees AIG WARRANTY GUARD, INC., et al. are
represented by:
Donald J. Verfurth, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
701 5th Avenue Suite 2100, Suite 2100
Seattle, WA 98104
- and –
Rachel E. K. Lowe, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD, LLP
350 S. Grand Avenue, 16th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
- and –
Adam J. Kaiser, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD, LLP
90 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10016
- and –
David Baird Carpenter, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD, LLP
1201 W. Peachtree Street, Suite 4900
Atlanta, GA 30309
- and –
Emily J. Harris, Esq.
CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE LLP
1001 4th Avenue, Suite 3900
Seattle, WA 98154
- and –
Kristin E. Bateman, Esq.
CORR CRONIN, LLP
1015 2nd Avenue, 10th Floor
Seattle, WA 98104
- and –
Galen D. Bellamy, Esq.
WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL, LLP
370 17th Street, Suite 4500
Denver, CO 80202
AIR PRODUCTS: CamCara Bid to Seal Class Cert Docs OK'd
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CamCara, Inc., d/b/a AST
Manufacturing, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., Case No.
5:21-cv-02264-JLS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey Schmehl
entered an order granting unopposed motion to seal documents
relating to the Plaintiff's reply memorandum in support of motion
for class certification:
(1) A narrowly tailored portion of Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum
of Law in Support of Motion for Class Certification; and
(2) Exhibits 45 & 48 to Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum of Law in
support of motion for class certification.
The Court retains the right to allow disclosure of any subject
covered by this Order or to modify this Order at any time in the
interest of justice.
Air Products is a U.S.-based international corporation whose
principal business is selling gases and chemicals for industrial
use.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1UkgiK at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Faces Antitrust Suit over Mouth Scanner Prices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 28, 2025, that it is facing an
antitrust suit filed on June 5, 2020 by a dental practice named
Simon and Simon, PC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of itself and a putative class of
similarly situated practices seeking monetary damages and
injunctive relief relating to its alleged market activities in
alleged clear aligner and intraoral scanner markets.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and added VIP Dental Spas as a
plaintiff on August 14, 2020. On February 21, 2024, the court
granted Align's motion for summary judgment on all claims brought
by the plaintiffs. The court entered judgment on March 22, 2024.
Plaintiffs have appealed the district court's summary judgment
ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Plaintiff-Appellants' opening brief was filed July 15, 2024. Oral
argument is scheduled for April 10, 2025.
Align Technology is an American manufacturer of 3D digital scanners
and Invisalign clear aligners used in orthodontics.
AMAZON.COM INC: Discovery Coordination Order Entered in De Coster
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH DE COSTER, et
al., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:21-cv-00693-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Chun entered an
order regarding additional discovery coordination issues:
Amazon will use best efforts to produce in these actions documents
it produced in the California Action within 10 business days of
their production in the California Action.
As the parties have been undertaking to date, Amazon will produce
to Plaintiffs the search parameters, including, but not limited to,
search terms, custodians, and date ranges, used by Amazon to
produce documents in the FTC Action and the Parties will meet and
confer regarding the documents that Amazon will reproduce to
Plaintiffs because they are relevant to any "parity" claims
asserted in the above-captioned actions.
Regarding non-custodial documents Amazon produces in the FTC Action
(i.e., "go-get" productions), Amazon will provide to Plaintiffs an
index, which it will update periodically, describing the categories
of documents Amazon has produced pursuant to “go-get”
collections in the FTC Action. The Parties will meet and confer
regarding the non-custodial documents that Amazon will reproduce to
Plaintiffs because they are relevant to any "parity" claims
asserted in the above-captioned actions.
The Parties will meet and confer regarding the structured data
productions that Amazon has made in the FTC Action that Amazon will
reproduce to Plaintiffs because they are relevant to any "parity"
claims asserted in the above-captioned actions.
Notwithstanding any other provision in this Stipulated Motion, to
the extent Amazon reproduces to the California Attorney General any
documents (including data) Amazon produced in the FTC Action,
Amazon shall also reproduce such documents to Plaintiffs in the
above-captioned actions.
With respect to additional document productions Amazon makes to the
FTC, Amazon will use best efforts to produce such documents in
these actions within 10 business days of their production in the
FTC Action. Further, Amazon will use best efforts to substantially
complete its production to Plaintiffs of documents originally
produced in the FTC Action no later than 10 business days after
Amazon's deadline to substantially complete its productions in the
FTC Action. Amazon will notify Plaintiffs when its productions are
substantially complete.
Amazon will make best efforts to provide to Plaintiffs a privilege
log for all documents relevant to any “parity” claims asserted
in these actions but withheld from production in the FTC Action and
included on Amazon’s privilege log(s) in the FTC Action within 10
business days of Amazon’s transmittal of its privilege log(s) to
the FTC. Amazon agrees to meet and confer with Plaintiffs should
they have questions concerning privilege log entries.
When Amazon produces to Plaintiffs documents it originally produced
in the FTC Action, it will provide to Plaintiffs correspondence
that Amazon sent to the FTC that accompanies the productions to the
FTC (i.e., production cover letters). Amazon reserves the right to
redact or withhold any substantive information in those
correspondence that is not relevant to the claims in the
above-captioned actions and will meet and confer with Plaintiffs
about any such redactions to the extent reasonably necessary to
resolve Plaintiffs’ objections.
Upon Plaintiffs' request, Amazon will provide to Plaintiffs
unredacted versions of any redacted or sealed court filings and
orders entered in the California Action or in the FTC Action that
relate to Plaintiffs' parity-related claims, and/or entered in any
other action that has been defined as a "Coordinated Action" in the
California Action or FTC Action (an "Other Coordinated Action") to
the extent such filings and orders are relevant to these actions
(e.g., to the extent Plaintiffs have access to the underlying
materials supporting such filings and orders).
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v9P3cF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq.
Anne F. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
barbaram@hbsslaw.com
annej@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Zina G. Bash, Esq.
Jessica Beringer, Esq.
Shane Kelly, Esq.
Roseann Romano, Esq.
KELLER POSTMAN LLC
111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500
Austin, TX, 78701
Telephone: (512) 690-0990
E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com
Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com
shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com
roseann.romano@kellerpostman.com
- and -
Alicia Cobb, Esq.
Steig D. Olson, Esq.
David D. LeRay, Esq.
Nic V. Siebert, Esq.
Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq.
Aseem Chipalkatti, Esq.
Adam B. Wolfson, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
1109 First Avenue, Suite 210
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 905-7000
E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com
steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
davidleray@quinnemanuel.com
nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com
maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com
adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
aseemchipalkatti@quinnemanuel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John A. Goldmark, Esq.
MaryAnn Almeida, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Telephone: (206) 622-3150
Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com
JohnGoldmark@dwt.com
MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com
- and -
Karen L. Dunn, Esq.
William A. Isaacson, Esq.
Amy J. Mauser, Esq.
Kyle Smith, Esq.
Meredith R. Dearborn, Esq.
Yotam Barkai, Esq.
Mark A. Weiner, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1047
Telephone: (202) 223-7300
Facsimile: (202) 223-7420
E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com
wisaacson@paulweiss.com
amauser@paulweiss.com
ksmith@paulweiss.com
mdearborn@paulweiss.com
ybarkai@paulweiss.com
mweiner@paulweiss.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Greenwashing Class Suit Over Paper Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit challenges several environmental claims for Amazon
Basics paper products, alleging that the retail giant sources its
wood pulp from "deeply unsustainable" supply chains.
According to the 123-page Amazon greenwashing lawsuit, the pulp
used to manufacture Amazon Basics 2-ply Bath Tissue, Amazon Basics
Soft & Strong 2-ply Bath Tissue and Amazon Basics Paper Towels is
sourced through industrial logging practices that are devastating
Canada's centuries-old boreal forest. Nevertheless, Amazon.com's
product detail pages for these paper items consistently include
logos falsely touting sustainable supply chain practices, the
complaint alleges.
Specifically, the defendant misleadingly displays the Forest
Stewardship Council (FSC) logo, which is intended to indicate that
Amazon Basics products originate from responsibly managed forests,
the case claims. The suit contends that Amazon also uses the
Climate Pledge Friendly badge—recognized by a small leaf
icon—to deceptively convey that the items have a lower carbon
footprint than other products without this designation.
What consumers don't know, the case alleges, is that Amazon's
suppliers are systematically clearcutting and burning Canada's
boreal forest, rapidly transforming this "ecological jewel" into
environmentally devastating monoculture "tree farms" that lack the
rich biodiversity they once supported.
"The Canadian boreal is being cut down at the rate of one million
acres per year. That's 1.5 football fields' worth of forest every
single minute. It's a wildly unsustainable pipeline—trees that
grew for centuries are destroyed in hours, then turned into
products that are used for seconds."
The suit further notes that Canada's boreal forest acts as a
massive carbon storehouse that plays an important role in
mitigating climate change. In contrast, the "tree farm" replanting
efforts within the Amazon Basics paper products supply chain fail
to recreate the carbon capture abilities of the original forest,
the lawsuit explains. Not only that, but Amazon's suppliers release
over 26 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere
each year through their clearcutting and burning practices, the
complaint claims.
"As such, Amazon's logos and badges are essentially useless to
consumers in their search for sustainable products," the filing
asserts. "Yet Amazon still reaps the substantial financial and
reputational rewards of positioning itself as a leading
environmental steward offering sustainable products."
The complaint contends that Amazon intentionally misrepresents the
environmental impact of its paper products because it knows that an
increasing number of consumers seek out and are willing to pay more
for sustainable options.
The lawsuit cites violations of the Federal Trade Commission's
"Green Guides," which were designed to protect consumers from
unsubstantiated or misleading sustainability claims.
The lawsuit looks to represent all individuals who purchased an
Amazon Basics paper product since January 25, 2020 in Alabama,
Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia,
Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New
Mexico, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia. [GN]
AMAZON.COM: Discovery Coordination Order Entered in Brown Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER BROWN, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 22-cv-00965-JHC
(W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Chun entered an order regarding
additional discovery coordination issues:
Amazon will use best efforts to produce in these actions documents
it produced in the California Action within 10 business days of
their production in the California Action.
As the parties have been undertaking to date, Amazon will produce
to Plaintiffs the search parameters, including, but not limited to,
search terms, custodians, and date ranges, used by Amazon to
produce documents in the FTC Action and the Parties will meet and
confer regarding the documents that Amazon will reproduce to
Plaintiffs because they are relevant to any "parity" claims
asserted in the above-captioned actions.
Regarding non-custodial documents Amazon produces in the FTC Action
(i.e., "go-get" productions), Amazon will provide to Plaintiffs an
index, which it will update periodically, describing the categories
of documents Amazon has produced pursuant to “go-get”
collections in the FTC Action. The Parties will meet and confer
regarding the non-custodial documents that Amazon will reproduce to
Plaintiffs because they are relevant to any "parity" claims
asserted in the above-captioned actions.
The Parties will meet and confer regarding the structured data
productions that Amazon has made in the FTC Action that Amazon will
reproduce to Plaintiffs because they are relevant to any "parity"
claims asserted in the above-captioned actions.
Notwithstanding any other provision in this Stipulated Motion, to
the extent Amazon reproduces to the California Attorney General any
documents (including data) Amazon produced in the FTC Action,
Amazon shall also reproduce such documents to Plaintiffs in the
above-captioned actions.
With respect to additional document productions Amazon makes to the
FTC, Amazon will use best efforts to produce such documents in
these actions within 10 business days of their production in the
FTC Action. Further, Amazon will use best efforts to substantially
complete its production to Plaintiffs of documents originally
produced in the FTC Action no later than 10 business days after
Amazon's deadline to substantially complete its productions in the
FTC Action. Amazon will notify Plaintiffs when its productions are
substantially complete.
Amazon will make best efforts to provide to Plaintiffs a privilege
log for all documents relevant to any “parity” claims asserted
in these actions but withheld from production in the FTC Action and
included on Amazon’s privilege log(s) in the FTC Action within 10
business days of Amazon’s transmittal of its privilege log(s) to
the FTC. Amazon agrees to meet and confer with Plaintiffs should
they have questions concerning privilege log entries.
When Amazon produces to Plaintiffs documents it originally produced
in the FTC Action, it will provide to Plaintiffs correspondence
that Amazon sent to the FTC that accompanies the productions to the
FTC (i.e., production cover letters). Amazon reserves the right to
redact or withhold any substantive information in those
correspondence that is not relevant to the claims in the
above-captioned actions and will meet and confer with Plaintiffs
about any such redactions to the extent reasonably necessary to
resolve Plaintiffs’ objections.
Upon Plaintiffs' request, Amazon will provide to Plaintiffs
unredacted versions of any redacted or sealed court filings and
orders entered in the California Action or in the FTC Action that
relate to Plaintiffs' parity-related claims, and/or entered in any
other action that has been defined as a "Coordinated Action" in the
California Action or FTC Action (an "Other Coordinated Action") to
the extent such filings and orders are relevant to these actions
(e.g., to the extent Plaintiffs have access to the underlying
materials supporting such filings and orders).
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VZZxh4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq.
Anne F. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
barbaram@hbsslaw.com
annej@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Zina G. Bash, Esq.
Jessica Beringer, Esq.
Shane Kelly, Esq.
Roseann Romano, Esq.
KELLER POSTMAN LLC
111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500
Austin, TX, 78701
Telephone: (512) 690-0990
E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com
Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com
shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com
roseann.romano@kellerpostman.com
- and -
Alicia Cobb, Esq.
Steig D. Olson, Esq.
David D. LeRay, Esq.
Nic V. Siebert, Esq.
Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq.
Aseem Chipalkatti, Esq.
Adam B. Wolfson, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
1109 First Avenue, Suite 210
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 905-7000
E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com
steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
davidleray@quinnemanuel.com
nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com
maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com
adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
aseemchipalkatti@quinnemanuel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John A. Goldmark, Esq.
MaryAnn Almeida, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Telephone: (206) 622-3150
Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com
JohnGoldmark@dwt.com
MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com
- and -
Karen L. Dunn, Esq.
William A. Isaacson, Esq.
Amy J. Mauser, Esq.
Kyle Smith, Esq.
Meredith R. Dearborn, Esq.
Yotam Barkai, Esq.
Mark A. Weiner, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1047
Telephone: (202) 223-7300
Facsimile: (202) 223-7420
E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com
wisaacson@paulweiss.com
amauser@paulweiss.com
ksmith@paulweiss.com
mdearborn@paulweiss.com
ybarkai@paulweiss.com
mweiner@paulweiss.com
AMAZON.COM: Discovery Coordination Order Entered in Frame-Wilson
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH FRAME-WILSON, et
al., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:20-cv-00424-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Chun entered an
order regarding additional discovery coordination issues:
Amazon will use best efforts to produce in these actions documents
it produced in the California Action within 10 business days of
their production in the California Action.
As the parties have been undertaking to date, Amazon will produce
to Plaintiffs the search parameters, including, but not limited to,
search terms, custodians, and date ranges, used by Amazon to
produce documents in the FTC Action and the Parties will meet and
confer regarding the documents that Amazon will reproduce to
Plaintiffs because they are relevant to any "parity" claims
asserted in the above-captioned actions.
Regarding non-custodial documents Amazon produces in the FTC Action
(i.e., "go-get" productions), Amazon will provide to Plaintiffs an
index, which it will update periodically, describing the categories
of documents Amazon has produced pursuant to “go-get”
collections in the FTC Action. The Parties will meet and confer
regarding the non-custodial documents that Amazon will reproduce to
Plaintiffs because they are relevant to any "parity" claims
asserted in the above-captioned actions.
The Parties will meet and confer regarding the structured data
productions that Amazon has made in the FTC Action that Amazon will
reproduce to Plaintiffs because they are relevant to any "parity"
claims asserted in the above-captioned actions.
Notwithstanding any other provision in this Stipulated Motion, to
the extent Amazon reproduces to the California Attorney General any
documents (including data) Amazon produced in the FTC Action,
Amazon shall also reproduce such documents to Plaintiffs in the
above-captioned actions.
With respect to additional document productions Amazon makes to the
FTC, Amazon will use best efforts to produce such documents in
these actions within 10 business days of their production in the
FTC Action. Further, Amazon will use best efforts to substantially
complete its production to Plaintiffs of documents originally
produced in the FTC Action no later than 10 business days after
Amazon’s deadline to substantially complete its productions in
the FTC Action. Amazon will notify Plaintiffs when its productions
are substantially complete.
Amazon will make best efforts to provide to Plaintiffs a privilege
log for all documents relevant to any “parity” claims asserted
in these actions but withheld from production in the FTC Action and
included on Amazon’s privilege log(s) in the FTC Action within 10
business days of Amazon’s transmittal of its privilege log(s) to
the FTC. Amazon agrees to meet and confer with Plaintiffs should
they have questions concerning privilege log entries.
When Amazon produces to Plaintiffs documents it originally produced
in the FTC Action, it will provide to Plaintiffs correspondence
that Amazon sent to the FTC that accompanies the productions to the
FTC (i.e., production cover letters). Amazon reserves the right to
redact or withhold any substantive information in those
correspondence that is not relevant to the claims in the
above-captioned actions and will meet and confer with Plaintiffs
about any such redactions to the extent reasonably necessary to
resolve Plaintiffs’ objections.
Upon Plaintiffs' request, Amazon will provide to Plaintiffs
unredacted versions of any redacted or sealed court filings and
orders entered in the California Action or in the FTC Action that
relate to Plaintiffs' parity-related claims, and/or entered in any
other action that has been defined as a "Coordinated Action" in the
California Action or FTC Action (an "Other Coordinated Action") to
the extent such filings and orders are relevant to these actions
(e.g., to the extent Plaintiffs have access to the underlying
materials supporting such filings and orders).
Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=umgled at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq.
Anne F. Johnson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
barbaram@hbsslaw.com
annej@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Zina G. Bash, Esq.
Jessica Beringer, Esq.
Shane Kelly, Esq.
Roseann Romano, Esq.
KELLER POSTMAN LLC
111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500
Austin, TX, 78701
Telephone: (512) 690-0990
E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com
Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com
shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com
roseann.romano@kellerpostman.com
- and -
Alicia Cobb, Esq.
Steig D. Olson, Esq.
David D. LeRay, Esq.
Nic V. Siebert, Esq.
Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq.
Aseem Chipalkatti, Esq.
Adam B. Wolfson, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
1109 First Avenue, Suite 210
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 905-7000
E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com
steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
davidleray@quinnemanuel.com
nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com
maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com
adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
aseemchipalkatti@quinnemanuel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John A. Goldmark, Esq.
MaryAnn Almeida, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Telephone: (206) 622-3150
Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com
JohnGoldmark@dwt.com
MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com
- and -
Karen L. Dunn, Esq.
William A. Isaacson, Esq.
Amy J. Mauser, Esq.
Kyle Smith, Esq.
Meredith R. Dearborn, Esq.
Yotam Barkai, Esq.
Mark A. Weiner, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1047
Telephone: (202) 223-7300
Facsimile: (202) 223-7420
E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com
wisaacson@paulweiss.com
amauser@paulweiss.com
ksmith@paulweiss.com
mdearborn@paulweiss.com
ybarkai@paulweiss.com
mweiner@paulweiss.com
AMERICAN ECONOMY: Bid to Dismiss Stanley Suit Tossed
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROY STANLEY and GAIL
STANLEY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
v. AMERICAN ECONOMY INSURANCE COMPANY ("AEIC"), Case No.
1:24-cv-10622-DJC (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Denise Casper entered
an order:
-- denying AEIC's motion to transfer, and
-- denying AEIC's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
The balance of factors does not weigh in favor of allowing transfer
of venue. Accordingly, the Court denies AEIC's motion to transfer.
Because the Stanleys have, therefore, plausibly alleged a breach of
contract, AEIC's motion to dismiss this claim is denied.
The Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against the Defendant, alleging
breach of contract (Count I) and seeking declaratory judgment and
relief (Count II).
AEIC has moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of
Texas, and to dismiss the first amended complaint ("FAC") pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), D. 29.
AEIC operates as an insurance company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X0uWbu at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMPAM PARKS: Class Suit Over Stock Ownership Plan Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------
Participants in a plumbing subcontractor's defunct employee stock
ownership plan can proceed as a class in their lawsuit claiming the
plan overpaid for company shares and later sold them at a deflated
price, a California federal judge ruled, saying the workers leading
the suit are adequate representatives.
U.S. District Judge Kenly Kiya Kato granted class certification
Tuesday, March 17 in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
case accusing Ampam Parks Mechanical Inc., several executives and
ESOP trustee Ventura Trust Co. of mismanaging the plan. The class
includes all participants in and beneficiaries of the Ampam plan on
Aug. 6, 2023, when the ESOP sold the company's shares and the plan
was dissolved.
According to current Ampam employee Alfredo Ramirez and former
employee Ramón Santos Castro, the ESOP paid $247 million in 2019
for the plumbing company's stock, more than fair market value and
without gaining any control over the company. Ramirez and Castro
claimed the ESOP then sold the company's stock back to its former
owners, Ampam founders and brothers Charles E. Parks III and John
D. Parks, in 2023 for a much lower price.
The workers are represented by Michelle C. Yau, Ryan A. Wheeler,
Allison C. Pienta, Eleanor Frisch and Jacob T. Schutz of Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, and Shaun P. Martin of the University
of San Diego School of Law. [GN]
ANN ARBOR, MI: Agrees to Settle Tire Chalking Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Stanton of mlive.com reports that Ann Arbor is agreeing to a
class-action legal settlement offering $1 to anyone who had their
car tires chalked by the city's parking enforcement officers.
City Council voted 10-0 Monday, March 17, to OK the settlement to
resolve a proposed class-action lawsuit brought against the city in
2022 by Sean Yannotti.
Yannotti complained the tires of his 2017 Chevrolet Sonic were
marked when the city issued him an expired-meter parking ticket in
2019.
Ann Arbor for years used tire chalking for parking enforcement to
track how long cars were parked on streets and to see if they
moved, but it stopped the practice in April 2019 after a Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Taylor v. City of Saginaw.
In that case, the court found tire chalking constitutes a search
and requires either a search warrant or an applicable exception to
the Fourth Amendment's search warrant requirement.
Yannotti claimed his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when his
car tires were marked just weeks before the court decision and he
held out on paying $70 in fines and sued the city in U.S. District
Court seeking damages.
After being served with the proposed class action, the city denied
the allegations in the complaint and engaged in discovery.
Judge Nancy Edmunds issued an order last July granting the city's
motion for partial summary judgment, while Yanotti's requests for
declaratory and injunctive relief and nominal damages remained.
Yanotti was seeking "nominal damages in the amount of $1.00, with
interest," court records stated.
To avoid the cost of continued litigation, the parties now desire
to settle the lawsuit, with the city creating a settlement claim
process for the plaintiff and other eligible class members to
submit claims for $1 each in exchange for release of all claims
against the city, states the resolution council approved.
Assistant City Attorney Jennifer Richards said it's premature for
the city to comment on how many people may be entitled to a $1
payment because a class-action settlement is ultimately subject to
court approval and the city has not compiled a list of people who
may be in the class.
Once the court approves the settlement, the city plans to use data
from its parking vendor regarding tickets to verify claims during
the claim process, Richards said.
City records show there was an average of nearly 103,000 parking
violations in the city per year from 2012 to 2019. It's unclear how
many of those cases involved marking tires.
Towing is big business in Ann Arbor. Some call it 'hostile
suburbanism.' [GN]
APPLE INC: Class Settlement in Lopez Suit Gets Initial Nod
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FUMIKO LOPEZ, FUMIKO
LOPEZ, as Guardian of A.L., a Minor, JOHN TROY PAPPAS, and DAVID
YACUBIAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. APPLE INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-04577-JSW (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Jeffrey White entered an order:
-- granting motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement;
-- preliminarily certifying settlement class; and
-- approving form and content of class notice
1. The Settlement is preliminarily approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate such that Notice thereof should be
given to members of the Settlement Class.
2. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), the
Settlement Class is preliminarily certified for the purpose
of Settlement only as follows:
"All individual current or former owners or purchasers of a
Siri Device, who reside in the United States and its
territories, whose confidential or private communications
were obtained by Apple and/or were shared with third parties
as a result of an unintended Siri activation between Sept.
17, 2014 and Dec. 31, 2024."
The Settlement Agreement defines "Siri Device" as a Siri-
enabled iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, MacBook, iMac, HomePod,
iPod touch, or Apple TV.
Excluded from the Class are Apple; any entity in which Apple
has a controlling interest; Apple's directors, officers, and
employees; Apple's legal representatives, successors, and
assigns.
Also excluded from the Settlement Class are all judicial
officers assigned to this case as well as their staff and
immediate families.
2. The Plaintiffs are appointed as class representatives of the
Settlement Class. Christian Levis of Lowey Dannenberg, P.C.
and Erin Green Comite of Scott + Scott Attorneys at Law LLP,
together with their law firms, are appointed as Class
Counsel to represent the proposed Settlement Class.
3. The Final Approval Hearing shall be held by the Court on
Aug. 1, 2025.
Apple is an American multinational technology company headquartered
in Cupertino, California, in Silicon Valley.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JmhUuz at no extra
charge.[CC]
ARCONIC US: Vanderipe Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Advance Notice
------------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY VANDERIPE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARCONIC US LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:25-cv-00125 (N.D. Ind., March 17, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's action of terminating the
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees as part of a mass layoff
at its manufacturing facility in Lafayette, Indiana on or around
November 22, 2024 without giving the notice required under the WARN
Act.
Arconic US LLC is a manufacturing company, with its principal place
of business in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Ian R. Bensberg, Esq.
COHENMALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
Email: ltoops@cohenmalad.com
ibensberg@cohenmalad.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Michael C. Iadevaia, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
miadevaia@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI, LLP
613 Williamson St., Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
Email: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
ATHENA BITCOIN: Yilma Consumer Class Suit Removed to D. Colo.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GIRMA YILMA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ATHENA BITCOIN, INC., FOXFIELD WINE &
SPIRITS, LLC, and BIG D OIL CO., Case No. 2025CV30147, was removed
from the Arapahoe County District Court, Colorado, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado on February 21, 2025.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Colorado assigned Case No.
1:25-cv-00579-SBP to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff brings this class action suit against the Defendants
for civil theft, violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act,
unjust enrichment, negligence, and negligent design by refusing or
failing to refund any and all fees that the Defendants collected
from fraudulent transactions.
Athena Bitcoin, Inc. is an operator of bitcoin cryptocurrency
kiosks based in Illinois.
Foxfield Wine & Spirits, LLC is a liquor store operator in Aurora,
Colorado.
Big D Oil Co. is a convenience store operator based in Denver,
Colorado. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Allen R. Jones III, Esq.
RESOLVE LAW GROUP
885 Arapahoe Ave.
Boulder, CO 80302
Telephone: (720) 800-8338
Email: allen@resolvelawgroup.com
- and -
Brian D. Flick, Esq.
Marita I. Ramirez, Esq.
DANNLAW
15000 Madison Avenue
Lakewood, OH 44107
Telephone: (216) 373-0539
Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
Email: notices@dannlaw.com
AVIS BUDGET: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Parkin Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
AVIS BUDGET GROUP INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court
order denying their motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit
entitled Jane Parkin, et al., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Avis Rent a Car System
LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-05481, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
allege three claims against the Defendants: (1) breach of contract
(Count I), (2) fraudulent misrepresentation (Count II), and (3)
violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
("FDUTPA") (Count III).
On July 22, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration, which Judge Christine P. O'Hearn denied on Feb. 13,
2025. The Court finds that the Defendants have waived their right
to compel arbitration. Because waiver provides a clear and
independent basis for denial, the Court need not reach the
Plaintiffs' alternative arguments.
The appellate case is captioned Jane Parkin, et al. v. Avis Rent a
Car System LLC, et al., Case No. 25-1385, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on March 6, 2025.
[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees JANE PARKIN, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
Defendants-Appellants AVIS BUDGET GROUP INC., et al. are
represented by:
William P. Donovan, Jr., Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY
2049 Century Park E., Suite 3200
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 788-4121
- and –
Jason D. Gerstein, Esq.
Jessica G. Griffith, Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY
One Vanderbilt Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 547-5844
(212) 547-5578
BACK TO NATURE: Bid for Discovery Conference Denied
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Venticinque v. Back to
Nature Foods Company, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-7497 (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Valerie Caproni entered an order denying request for a
discovery conference.
The case has not been referred to Magistrate Judge Figueredo, as
that was not jointly requested on the case management plan that the
parties submitted. Pursuant to the Undersigned's Individual Rule
3(B), any party wishing to raise a discovery dispute with the Court
must first meet and confer in good faith with the opposing party
and if that process fails to resolve the dispute, then the parties
must jointly call Chambers for a joint teleconference.
Back to Nature offers cookies, cereals, crackers, soup, granola,
juices, and nuts and trail mix.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GKJRJ4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles D. Moore, Esq.
REESE LLP
121 North Washington Ave.
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
BANK OF AMERICA: Class Cert Discovery in Pfeffer Suit Due July 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUSSELL PFEFFER, et al.,
v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION and BANK OF AMERICA N.A., Case No.
3:23-cv-00813-KDB-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge David Keesler
entered an order that discovery proceed pursuant to the following
schedule and scope.
Item Deadline
Mediation deadline: 30 days prior to the
close of discovery
Close of discovery, absent July 31, 2025
additional discovery permitted
for good cause shown:
Rule 23 Certification and 21 days after the
Decertification Motions FLSA Final close of discovery
Certification and Decertification
Motions:
Finally, regarding the chosen 10% of Opt-In Plaintiffs plus the New
York and New Jersey putative class members, Plaintiffs seek usage
logs from numerous systems of Defendants; expense reports; entry
and exit logs for Defendants' buildings; and notices sent to Opt-In
Plaintiffs related to their exempt/non-exempt status.
Observing no clear objection to this request from Defendants,
Plaintiffs may seek these records for the limited sample of Opt-In
Plaintiffs and putative class members.
The Amended Complaint alleges that the "Named Plaintiffs were
Mortgage Loan Officers ("MLOs") employed by Bank of America" and
that Bank of America "systematically misclassified Named Plaintiffs
and thousands of loan officers across the country as exempt
employees under the FLSA and state labor laws" and "then,
apparently on the basis of this misclassification, simply did not
track or pay overtime to Named Plaintiffs and thousands of other
loan officers across the country for at least seven years."
On July 26, 2024, Judge Bell entered an Order granting in part and
denying in part "Plaintiff's Motion For Conditional Collective
Certification And Facilitated Notice."
Specifically, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for conditional
collective certification with regards to the following defined
class:
"All current or former employees of Bank of America, N.A. who
worked as Enterprise Lending Officers/Sr. Lending Officer (job
code SM172), Sr. Wealth Management Lending Officer - Reg. (job
code SM603), Sr. Wealth Management Lending Officer (job code
SM604), WM Lending Officer (job code SM605), Sr. Financial
Center Lending Officer – E (job code SM610), and/or Sr. PB
Wealth Management lending Officer (job code SM618) on or after
July 26, 2021 (or three years prior to the filing of this
action for the Named Plaintiffs or three years prior to the
date of their filed Consent to Join Suit for the Plaintiffs
who opted-in before conditional certification)."
Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and
financial services holding company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AEq981 at no extra
charge.[CC]
BEVERLY HILLS, CA: Court Narrows Claims in Williams
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASMINE WILLIAMS, et al.,
in Their Individual and Representative Capacities on Behalf of a
Class of All Persons similarly situated, v. CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS,
et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-08698-FMO-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Fernando Olguin entered an order that the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint is denied in part
and granted in part.
The Plaintiffs' claims against the individual defendants are
dismissed with leave to amend. Williams, White, Swift, Rogers, and
York's section 1983 malicious prosecution claims are dismissed with
leave to amend.
To the extent plaintiffs wish to amend their malicious prosecution
claims, plaintiffs shall plead their false imprisonment, and
malicious prosecution claims as separate, distinct causes of
action. The Plaintiffs' official-capacity claims against the
individual defendants are dismissed without leave to amend.
The Plaintiffs shall file a Fourth Amended Complaint no later than
March 6, 2025. The Fourth Amended Complaint must be labeled "Fourth
Amended Complaint," filed in compliance with Local Rule 3-2 and
contain the case number assigned to the case. In addition,
plaintiffs are informed that the court cannot refer to a prior
pleading in order to make their Fourth Amended Complaint complete.
Local Rule 15-2 requires that an amended pleading be complete in
and of itself without reference to any prior pleading.
The Plaintiffs are cautioned that failure to timely file a Fourth
Amended Complaint may result in this action being dismissed without
prejudice for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with a
court order.
The Defendants shall file their Answer to the Fourth Amended
Complaint or a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 no later than
March 27, 2025. In the event defendants decide to file another Rule
12 motion, the motion shall be limited to addressing the
sufficiency of plaintiffs’ claims against the individual
defendants -- that is, whether plaintiffs have adequately
identified the specific defendants and their conduct -- and/or the
sufficiency of plaintiffs’ malicious prosecution claims.
In the event defendants wish to file another motion to dismiss,
then counsel for the parties shall, on March 20, 2025, at 10:00
a.m.15 meet and confer in person at an agreed upon location within
the Central District of California to discuss defendants' motion to
dismiss. The Defendants' motion must include copies of all meet and
confer letters as well as a declaration that sets forth, in detail,
the entire meet and confer process (i.e., when and where it took
place, how long it lasted and the position of each attorney with
respect to each disputed issue that will be the subject of the
motion). Failure to include such a declaration will result in the
motion being denied.
In short, the court finds that the plaintiffs' TAC adequately
pleads a claim under section 1983 for violation of the Equal
Protection Clause.
The Plaintiffs allege that "the City of Beverly Hills has a
widespread, policy, practice and custom of racial profiling against
Black Americans resulting in unconstitutional detentions, arrests,
and illegal searches and seizure."
The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of "all Black people who
were detained or arrested" by BHPD "from Aug. 30, 2019, through
Aug. 30, 2021 without being convicted of any crime."
The class "is comprised of approximately 1,086 Black Americans."
The Plaintiffs also identify two subclasses based on the task
forces:
(1) "the 80 Black Americans arrested by the City of Beverly
Hills Police Department's Rodeo Drive Task Force, ('RDT')
between Aug. 29, 2020 and Oct. 25, 2020"; and
(2) "the 99 Black Americans arrested by the City of Beverly
Hills Police Department's EDD Task Force ('EDD') between
Aug. 29, 2020, and Oct. 25, 2020."
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kLRETn at no extra
charge.[CC]
BIG AL'S PIZZA: Vandegrift Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN VANDEGRIFT, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. BIG AL'S PIZZA, INC., HAPPY PEOPLE PIZZA,
LLC, and ALLAN ERWIN, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-00063 (D. Wy.,
March 4, 2025) is a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and as a class action under South Dakota's Minimum
Wage Law to recover unpaid minimum wages owed to Plaintiff and
similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendants at their
Domino's Pizza stores.
The Defendants employ Plaintiff and other delivery drivers who use
their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to
their customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers
for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their
vehicles, the Defendants used a flawed method to determine
reimbursement rates that neither reimburses the drivers for their
actual expenses, nor at the IRS business mileage rate which is
legally required and a reasonable approximation of those expenses.
This under reimbursement causes their wages to fall below the
federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks, says the suit.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from approximately June
2012 to June 2024 as a delivery driver at Defendants' Domino's
Pizza store located in Box Elder, South Dakota.
The Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise
stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stacey Kirven, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
121 Washington Ave N, 4th Floor, Office 352
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (689) 219-2212
Facsimile: (689) 219-2242
E-mail: skirven@forthepeople.com
- and -
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
Jolie N. Pavlos, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
P.O. Box 4979
Orlando, FL 32802-4979
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com
JPavlos@forthepeople.com
BLUE PATH: Initial Case Order Entered in Garay Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCHESKY GARAY, v. BLUE
PATH ABA, INC. et al., Case No. 6:25-cv-00254-JSS-RMN (M.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Julie Sneed entered an initial case order:
For a just and efficient resolution of this case, the parties are
directed to read and comply with the Middle District of Florida’s
Local Rules. See M.D. Fla. Loc. R. 1.01(a). While not exhaustive,
this Order establishes deadlines for filings required at the
initial stages of an action.
No later than 14 days from the date of this Order, Lead Counsel and
any pro se plaintiff shall file a notice as to whether a related
action is pending in the Middle District or elsewhere as required
under Local Rule 1.07(c).
No later than 14 days from the date of this Order, each party, pro
se party, governmental party, intervenor, non-party movant, and
Rule 69 garnishee shall file the attached Disclosure Statement and
Certification as required under Local Rule 3.03
When required by Local Rule 3.02, counsel and any unrepresented
party shall confer and file a Case Management Report using the
standard form on the court’s website
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73,
the parties may consent to have the assigned United States
Magistrate Judge conduct any and all further proceedings in this
case, including the trial.
Blue Path is a provider of ABA therapy services for children with
developmental or special disabilities.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MG8AgB at no extra
charge.[CC]
BLUEGRASS HOSPITALITY: Agrees to Settle Pay Class Action for $9MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Madison Carmouche, writing for WKYT, reports that Bluegrass
Hospitality Group agreed to pay current and former employees $9
million.
The company owns several restaurants in Lexington, including
Drake's and Malone's.
Keaton Sant is not one of the listed plaintiffs but worked at a
Lexington Drake's for nearly three years.
She said her experience aligned with the claims in the lawsuit. "As
I got older, I realized, like wait a minute, it's not supposed to
be this hard. I'm not supposed to be this hard, I'm not supposed to
be here this long, I'm not supposed to, you know, not get a break,"
Sant said.
The people who filed the lawsuit claimed they were not compensated
for the 'inordinate amount of janitorial, cleaning, dishwashing,
cooking, food, preparation and other non-tip-producing work'.
The Bluegrass Hospitality Group sent a statement to WKYT saying:
At Bluegrass Hospitality Group, there is nothing more important
than providing a workplace where team members are treated and feel
like family. The foundation of our organization is built on our
people, who are deeply cared for, fairly treated, and appropriately
compensated. The decision to settle was made allowing our team to
move forward while continuing to focus on providing a positive
environment for team members and guests alike.
Keaton said her job at Drake's was her first in the restaurant
industry and she did not understand she was being overworked.
"But, you don't pay your family members anything hourly? you pay
them 2.13 an hour, you pay them the bare minimum," Keaton said.
Keaton said she filed for her compensation from the class action
suit, which includes employees from Kentucky who worked from April
22, 2019 to November 7, 2024. [GN]
BOB AND RONNA: Faces Class Suit Over Homebuying Kickback Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lillian Reed, writing for The Baltimore Banner, reports that a
prominent Maryland real estate team and its affiliates face a class
action lawsuit in Baltimore County, alleging that they participated
in a kickback scheme in 2024 affecting more than 100 homebuyers and
borrowers.
Joshua and Jacqueline Kladifko, of Randallstown, and Shawn Gaines,
of Gambrills, filed the suit in Baltimore County Circuit Court
against The Bob and Ronna Group, Bay Capital Mortgage Corp. and
Elite Home Title LLC, as well as several executives for the
businesses.
The plaintiffs claim that the three businesses based in Ellicott
City and Annapolis violated the federal Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act, also known as RESPA, which aims to protect
consumers by requiring certain cost disclosures and prohibiting
kickbacks in real estate transactions. RESPA complaints carry a
one-year statute of limitations.
The suit takes aim at one of the top real estate duos in Maryland.
The Bob and Ronna Group's website boasts that the Ellicott
City-based firm has handled billions in sales since it was founded
in 2002 and consistently ranks in the top 1% of Realtors
nationwide.
The complaint describes a kickback scheme in which The Bob and
Ronna Group allegedly received several thousand dollars each month
solely to assign and refer clients to Bay Capital for residential
mortgage loans and to Elite Home Title for title and settlement
services.
Bay Capital and Elite Home Title earned service fees while The Bob
and Ronna Group used the kickbacks to purchase leads from Zillow's
flex program and to generate leads on consumers in the market to
purchase or sell real estate, the suit states.
Attorneys for the defendants say the claims in the suit filed in
December against their clients are false. They have since filed a
joint motion to dismiss the suit as well as separate requests for
summary judgement.
Bill Sinclair, of Silverman Thompson, is representing The Bob and
Ronna Group and its founders, Robert Chew and Ronna Corman-Chew in
the litigation. Sinclair said in a statement that the plaintiffs
failed to allege that they or anyone else had been harmed in the
matter.
"For this and other reasons, we have asked the court to dismiss the
matter with prejudice and sanction the plaintiffs and/or their
attorneys for filing this lawsuit in the first place," Sinclair
said.
The attorney for Ellicott City-based Elite Home Title, Brian
Moffett of Miles and Stockbridge, called the allegations
"demonstrably false" in an email.
G. Russell Donaldson, who represents Annapolis-based Bay Capital
Mortgage and its vice president, Daniel Gough, referred to the
lawsuit as "baseless" and also said it fails to allege anyone was
harmed by the overcharges.
"Federal courts in Maryland have tossed out similar cases in which
no harm is alleged, and we have asked the Maryland state court to
toss this case out, too," Donaldson said.
According to the suit, The Bob and Ronna Group allegedly tracked
the kickback arrangement with its software. Sales staff who
received leads were required to refer home purchasers to Elite Home
Title and Bay Capital — even if the purchaser was already working
with another lender, the suit states.
Leads were withheld from sales staff who did not comply with the
referral arrangement, according to the suit.
That was the case for the Kladifkos, who said in the suit that a
salesperson for The Bob and Ronna Group convinced them around March
2024 to obtain pre-approval for a home loan through Bay Capital
instead of their preferred lender, Veterans United Home Loans. Then
they were instructed to use Elite Home Title for title and
settlement services, the suit states.
The other plaintiff, Gaines, was already working with Veterans
United to obtain a loan to finance a purchase, but said a
salesperson with The Bob and Ronna Group ignored his request and
instead referred Gaines purchase to Bay Capital, and later Elite
Home Title, according to the suit.
The complaint goes on to say The Bob and Ronna Group never
disclosed the arrangement with Bay Capital and Elite Home Title to
buyers. And, the suit states, the real estate group did not
disclose that it had an ownership interest in Elite Home Title.
The Chews have denied in legal filings that they ever held an
interest in Elite. [GN]
BOYD FRANCHISING: Rose Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------
MARIO ROSE and CURTIS POWERS, Individually and on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BOYD
FRANCHISING, LLC, d/b/a D'BO's DAIQUIRIS, and JULIAN BOYD,
Individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02243 (W.D. Tenn., March
4, 2025) is brought against the Defendants as a multi-Plaintiff
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid
overtime compensation and other damages for Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated current and former hourly-paid employees.
The Plaintiffs allege they and similarly situated hourly-paid
employees performed overtime hours within weekly pay periods during
all times material to this cause of action without being paid for
such overtime at one and one-half times their regular hourly rates
of pay.
Plaintiffs Rose and Powers were employed by Defendants as
hourly-paid employees within this district during the relevant
period.
Boyd Franchising, LLC owns D'Bo's Daiquiris restaurants in Memphis,
Tennessee.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq.
Joshua Autry, Esq.
Cooper Mays, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
jautry@jsyc.com
jleatherwood@jsyc.com
cmays@jsyc.com
BSH HOME: Case Management Deadlines in Hedrick Suit Vacated
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT HEDRICK, NICHOLAS
KALERGIS, and IVAN ANTIC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION, Case No.
8:23-cv-00358-JWH-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Holcomb
entered an order vacating case management deadlines pending ruling
on motion to dismiss:
1. The current deadlines for the Plaintiffs to move for class
certification and for the Defendant to oppose class
certification, are vacated.
2. In the event that the Court denies BSH's pending motion to
dismiss and allows any claims to proceed, the Parties are
directed to meet and confer within 14 days of the Court's
forthcoming order on that motion to discuss the status of
the matter.
3. The Parties are further directed to submit a joint status
report to the Court within 14 days after their conference.
BSH produces luxury home appliances under the Gaggenau, Thermador
and Bosch brands.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=23qblz at no extra
charge.[CC]
BYTEDANCE INC: Collects Minors' Info Without Consent, Ramlawi Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
FAY RAMLAWI-BENTON, on behalf of J.B., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BYTEDANCE, INC.;
BYTEDANCE LTD.; TIKTOK LTD.; TIKTOK INC.; TIKTOK PTE. LTD.; and
TIKTOK U.S. DATA SECURITY, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:25-cv-21259-WPD (S.D. Fla., March 18, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendants for unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy,
conspiracy to commit invasion of privacy, violation of Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to disclose that they
collect and sell personally identifiable information (PII) of
millions of minor children without the consent of the minors or
their parents. The Defendants allegedly use the PII collected from
children (under the age of 13) to target them with advertising. The
Defendants knowingly enriched by revenues and profits they received
from unjustly and illegally collecting and using the personal
information of minor children to build profiles and target
advertisements to those children. The Plaintiff's minor child and
Class Members seek relief, including disgorgement of all revenues
and profits that the Defendants earned as a result of their
unlawful and wrongful conduct, says the suit.
Bytedance, Inc. is a technology company based in Mountain View,
California.
Bytedance, Ltd. is a technology company based in Cayman Islands.
TikTok, Ltd. is a technology company based in Cayman Islands.
TikTok, Inc. is a short-form video hosting service provider based
in Culver City, California.
TikTok Pte. Ltd. is a short-form video hosting service provider
based in Singapore.
TikTok U.S. Data Security, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business shared with TikTok Inc. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Parafinczuk, Esq.
PARAFINCZUK WOLF
5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (954) 462-6700
Facsimile: (954) 462-6567
Email: JParafinczuk@Parawolf.com
C P SHADES: Fernandez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
--------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. C P SHADES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-01819-MMG (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2025) is a civil rights
action against Defendant for the failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, www.cpshades.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.
On August 22, 2024, the Plaintiff visited Defendant's website to
purchase women's clothing. Despite her efforts, however, she 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 her from having an
unimpeded shopping experience.
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 suit
alleges.
The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
C P SHADES, Inc. operates the website that sells clothing made from
natural materials.[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
CARGROUP HOLDINGS: Bid for Leave to File Sur-Reply Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEGAN STEAHLE, v. CARGROUP
HOLDINGS, LLC, d/b/a www.WeBuyAnyCar.com, Case No.
2:24-cv-01447-MMB (E.D. Pa.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter
an order granting motion for leave to file Sur-Reply in further
opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification
and Notice to the Putative Collective.
The Plaintiff's Reply raises the new argument that the Putative
Collective must be conditionally certified because, as of Jan. 1,
2025, CarGroup reclassified Territorial Sales Representatives
(TSRs), Sales Representatives (SRs), Branch Managers (BMs), Senior
Branch Managers (SBMs), and Assistant Area Managers (AAMs) as
non-exempt.
The Plaintiff's Reply also introduces new testimony, through
affidavits, of five new Opt-In Plaintiffs and one former Area
Manager who was not previously disclosed as a potential witness nor
deposed during discovery.
On Nov. 21, 2024, the Plaintiff filed her motion for conditional
certification and notice to the putative collective. On Dec. 27,
2024, CarGroup—through prior counsel—filed its Opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion.
Cargroup operates as a car dealer.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 21, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uuoGgf at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Patrick M. Dalin, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP
Two Logan Square
100 N. 18th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102-2555
Telephone: (610) 230-6112
E-mail: pdalin@fisherphillips.com
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cassava Sciences Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2025, that the Company
continues to defend itself from a federal securities class suit in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Texas.
On December 13, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed,
purportedly on behalf of the Company, alleging violations of the
federal securities law by the Company and certain named officers.
The complaint alleges that various statements made by the
defendants regarding simufilam were revealed to be materially false
and misleading by the release of top-line results for the Company's
RETHINK-ALZ Phase 3 clinical trial on November 25, 2024.
The action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas.
The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other
relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
Company's securities between February 7, 2024, and November 24,
2024.
The Company believes that the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome
is not probable, however, it is reasonably possible that the
Company may incur a loss.
The Company is unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of
potential loss at this time.
Cassava Sciences is an American pharmaceutical company.
CENTURY GAMES: Standing Order Entered in Homa Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HOMA GAMES SAS, v. CENTURY
GAMES PTE. LTD., et al. Case No. 2:25-cv-00717-CV-E (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Cynthia Valenzuela entered a standing order as
follows:
Discovery Matters Referred to United States Magistrate Judge All
discovery matters are referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge,
who will hear all discovery disputes.
Motions shall be filed in accordance with Local Rules 6 and 7. The
Court hears motions in civil actions on Fridays, beginning at 1:30
p.m.
Motions Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 Many motions
to dismiss or strike can be avoided if the parties confer in good
faith as required by Local Rule 7-3, especially for perceived
defects in a complaint, answer, or counterclaim that can be
corrected by amendment.
Motions in limine shall be noticed for hearing not later than four
(4) weeks before the Final Pretrial Conference date. Unless leave
of Court is granted, each party is limited to five motions in
limine.
Daubert motions shall be noticed for hearing not later than eight
(8) weeks before the Final Pretrial Conference date. The Defendant
is
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AyZlVc at no extra
charge.[CC]
CHARLESTON RETAIL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Wills Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
LAURENCE WILLS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHARLESTON RETAIL, INC. D/B/A PETER ELLIOT
BLUE, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01156 (E.D.N.Y., February 28,
2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for the
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website,
www.peterelliot.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York
City Human Rights Law.
On January 14, 2025, the Plaintiff visited Defendant's website to
purchase a polo shirt. Despite his 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.
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 seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Charleston Retail, Inc., d/b/a Peter Elliot Blue, operates the
website that offers clothing and accessories for men, women, and
boys.[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
CLEARVIEW AI: Court Approves Privacy Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Smalley of The Record reports a federal judge has approved
a proposed settlement between Clearview AI and class action
plaintiffs, ruling that the deal fairly resolves allegations that
the company infringed upon millions of Americans' privacy rights.
Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman estimated damages to be over $50
million. The unusual financial structure for the deal gives
plaintiffs and their lawyers a stake in Clearview's future value
instead of a lump sum payment.
The controversial company did not have money for such a payout in
part because nearly all Americans could be considered class members
since most people's faces appear online.
The case, tried in an Illinois federal court, alleged Clearview,
which scrapes billions of Americans' facial images from the web and
sells them without individuals' consent, violated Illinois'
Biometric Privacy Act.
Clearview does not acknowledge liability under the terms of the
settlement.
Twenty-two state attorneys general and the District of Columbia had
fought the settlement, saying it does not do enough to prevent
future harms and because a majority of the settlement will be used
to pay plaintiffs' lawyers.
In 2022, Clearview resolved a separate case with the ACLU, agreeing
to no longer provide most private companies and Illinois government
agencies' access to its database for five years.
The company recently went through a leadership shakeup, with Hoan
Ton-That resigning as CEO in February. Clearview now has two
co-CEOs, one with strong ties to President Donald Trump. [GN]
CONOPCO INC: Candelaria Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH CANDELARIA, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CONOPCO,
INC. d/b/a UNILEVER HOME & PERSONAL CARE USA, Case No.
1:21-cv-06760-NCM-TAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff Elizabeth
Candelaria and Zebin Hossain asks the Court to enter an order
certifying, under Rule 23(a), (b), and (c)(4), a class of
individuals who suffered hair loss after using TRESemme shampoo or
conditioner containing DMDM, MCI, and/or MI during the applicable
statute of limitations and who have retained Squitieri & Fearon,
LLP as their counsel, with respect to the following issues:
1. Whether TRESemme containing DMDM, MCI, and MI (alone or in
combination) can cause dermatitis or hair loss.
2. Whether (and when) Unilever knew or should have known that
DMDM, MCI, and MI (alone or in combination) can cause
dermatitis or hair loss.
3. Whether Unilever had a duty to warn Plaintiffs and the Class
of the dermatitis or hair loss risk.
4. Whether Unilever breached the duty to warn by failing to
include any warnings to users that it had received reports
of hair loss and to stop using TRESemme if they experienced
a skin reaction, dermatitis, or hair loss;
5. Whether TRESemme products containing DMDM, MCI, and/or MI
were defectively designed and posed a substantial risk of
causing dermatitis and hair loss; and
6. Whether a reasonable alternative design existed that did not
contain DMDM, MCI, or MI, including a design based on sodium
benzoate, a non-sensitizing preservative Unilever eventually
used to reformulate TRESemme.
The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint themselves as Class
Representatives and appoint Squitieri & Fearon, LLP as Class
Counsel under Rule 23(g).
Conopco provides personal care products.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tAFQjM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq.
Paul Sweeny, Esq.
SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
305 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 421-6492
Facsimile: (212) 421-6553
E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com
paul@sfclasslaw.com
CONTEMPORARY CAR: Faces Rivera Wage-and-Hour Suit in D.N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL RIVERA and CARLOS CUELLO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CONTEMPORARY CAR WASH INC.
D/B/A CONTEMPORARY HAND CAR WASH and ROSENDO MOTA, Defendants, Case
No. 2:25-cv-01940 (D.N.J., March 18, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law, New Jersey Wage Payment
Law, and New Jersey Wage Theft Law including failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay full amount of
wages, failure to provide wage statements, and failure to provide
hiring notices.
Plaintiffs Rivera and Cuello were employed by the Defendants as car
washers and detailer salespersons at their business located at 820
Riverside Avenue, Lyndhurst, New Jersey from January 25, 2004,
until January 27, 2025 and from April 26, 2024, until January 27,
2025, respectively.
Contemporary Car Wash Inc., doing business as Contemporary Hand Car
Wash, is a provider of car washing service, with a principal place
of business in Lyndhurst, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Reena Forst, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF REENA FORST
345 Union Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 568-5689
Facsimile: (201) 568-4479
Email: rforst@rflawfirm.com
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Mitchell's Class Cert Bid Due March 5, 2026
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MITCHELL MINERALS, LLC on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. CONTINENTAL
RESOURCES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00218-KHR (D. Wyo.), the Hon.
Judge Scott Klosterman entered a class certification scheduling
order:
Event Proposed Date
Fact Discovery for Class Certification Oct. 17, 2025
Discovery Deadline (not including expert
discovery):
Plaintiff's Rule 26 Expert Disclosures for Nov. 3, 2025
Class Certification, including Expert
Report(s) (not filed of record):
Defendant's Rule 26 Expert Disclosures for Jan. 5, 2026
Class Certification, including Expert
Report(s) (not filed of record):
Plaintiff's Rule 26 Rebuttal Expert Feb. 5, 2026
Disclosures for Class Certification,
including Rebuttal Expert Report(s)
(not filed of record):
Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion: March 5, 2026
Defendant's Class Certification Response: May 5, 2026
Plaintiff's Class Certification Reply: June 5, 2026
Class Certification Hearing: July 16, 2026, at
10:00 a.m.
The Plaintiff brings this suit as a class action on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated.
In particular, the Plaintiff seeks class certification for Class I
and Class II for Defendant's violations of Wyoming law. Defendant's
violations include:
(1) Defendant's failure to pay the statutorily required interest on
untimely payments of oil-and-gas proceeds in violation of WYO.
STAT. sections 30-5-301(a), which has damaged Class I and (2)
Defendant's failure to properly report the required information on
check stubs in violation of WYO. STAT. section 30-5-305(b), which
has damaged Class II.
Continental Resources is a petroleum and natural gas exploration
and production company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Smrwzy at no extra
charge.[CC]
CR CLICKS: Williams Sues Over Hidden Route Package Protection Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
KEIONAS WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CR CLICKS ECOMM INC. D/B/A
CHARLOTTE RUSSE, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02356 (C.D. Cal.,
March 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for unjust
enrichment, violations of California's Unfair Competition Law and
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and false and misleading
advertising.
The case arises from the Defendant's use of surreptitiously tacking
on "Route Package Protection" fees on all orders placed on its
website without consumers' consent. According to the complaint,
when consumers make a purchase through Charlotte Russe's website,
it vastly diverts from the standard experience on the final payment
screen by secretly tacking on a so-called "Route Package
Protection" fee, which is a percentage of the transaction that is
automatically added to all orders. Consumers, including the
Plaintiff, did not affirmatively choose to add the "Route Package
Protection" to their shopping cart. Instead, Charlotte Russe
secretly adds this fee without consumers' consent right before the
purchase is complete. The Plaintiff seeks damages and, among other
remedies, injunctive relief that fairly allows consumers to decide
whether they will pay Charlotte Russe's surreptitiously added-on
fee.
CR Clicks Ecomm Inc., doing business as Charlotte Russe, is a
fashion retailer, headquartered in Toronto, Canada. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
1925 Century Park E., Ste. 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
CREDIT SUISSE: Bid to Certify Misrepresentation Class Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SET CAPITAL LLC, et al.,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, CREDIT SUISSE
INTERNATIONAL, TIDJANE THIAM, DAVID R. MATHERS, Case No.
1:18-cv-02268-AT-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Analisa Torres
entered an order granting the Lead Plaintiffs' motions in part and
denying in part:
1. Lead Plaintiffs' motion to certify the Misrepresentation
Class is denied with prejudice.
2. Lead Plaintiffs' motion to certify the Manipulation Class is
granted.
3. Lead Plaintiffs’ motion to appoint the Trust as
representative of the Manipulation Class is granted.
4. Lead Plaintiffs' motion to appoint Slarskey as class counsel
for the Manipulation Class is granted.
First, Lead Plaintiffs amend the definitions of the Exchange Act
Classes to provide exact times delineating the class periods:
(1) The Misrepresentation Class, now defined as:
"All persons and entities that purchased or acquired [XIV]
Notes between Jan. 29, 2018, and 4:15 PM Eastern Time on
Feb. 5, 2018, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby;" and
(2) The Manipulation Class, now defined as:
"All persons and entities that sold or redeemed the [XIV]
and who were damaged thereby."
Accordingly, the Court finds that questions of law and fact common
to all class members predominate over any individualized
questions.
The case arises out of the collapse of XIV Notes, a derivative
financial product issued by Credit Suisse that increased in value
when market volatility fell and decreased in value when market
volatility rose. XIV Notes were Exchange Traded Notes ("ETNs").
Credit Suisse is a global investment bank and financial services
firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dHmoOp at no extra
charge.[CC]
DANIEL JUAREZ: Court Sets Scheduling Conference in Bennett Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER S. BENNETT, v.
DANIEL JUAREZ, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00930-AH-JDE (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Anne Hwang entered a standing order setting
scheduling conference as follows:
All discovery matters are referred to the assigned Magistrate
Judge. All documents relating to discovery matters must include the
words "discovery matter" in the caption to ensure proper routing.
Counsel must follow the Magistrate Judge’s procedures for
scheduling matters for a hearing.
Limited District Court Review of Discovery Matters. The decision of
the Magistrate Judge shall be final, subject to limited review
requiring a showing that the decision is clearly erroneous or
contrary to law.
Time for Filing and Hearing Motions. Motions shall be filed in
accordance with Local Rules 6 and 7. The Court hears civil motions
on Wednesdays, beginning at 1:30 p.m.
Motions Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. Many
motions to dismiss or strike can be avoided if the parties confer
in good faith as required by Local Rule 7-3, especially for
perceived defects in a complaint, answer, or counterclaim that can
be corrected by amendment.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XOFfqz at no extra
charge.[CC]
DAVID COFIELD: Court Dismisses Edwards Suit
-------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KANDACE KAY EDWARDS, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. DAVID
COFIELD, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00321-WKW-SMD (M.D. Ala.), the
Hon. Judge W. Keith Watkins entered an order accordingly as
follows:
(1) The Defendants' motions to dismiss are granted;
(2) The Plaintiffs' motion for oral argument is denied as moot;
(3) The Plaintiffs' motion to file a sur-reply is granted, and
the sur-reply has been considered; and
(4) All claims are dismissed.
All Plaintiffs' claims against Randolph County's bail system that
existed prior to the 2017 Standing Bail Order are mooted under
Schultz and must be dismissed.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs' equal protection,
procedural-due-process, substantive-due-process, and
right-to-counsel claims against the face of Randolph County's 2017
Standing Bail Order fail to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted under Rule 12(b)(6) and must be dismissed.
More than seven years ago, on May 17, 2017, the Plaintiff Kandace
Kay Edwards, who was nearly eight months pregnant at the time, was
arrested for forging a $75.00 check. She was charged with a Class C
felony offense and taken to the Randolph County Jail. Upon her
arrival at the jail, she was told that she would be released only
if she paid a $7,500 secured appearance bond.
The day after her arrest, Ms. Edwards initiated this action with a
three-count complaint, alleging that Randolph County's bail system
violated the equal protection and due process guarantees of the
Fourteenth Amendment, as enforced by 42 U.S.C. section 1983.
Ms. Edwards alleged that the Defendants detained anyone pretrial—
regardless of the charged crime or risk to the community or
financial status -- who was unable to post predetermined secured
money bail.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9Vibe9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
DENCO CONSTRUCTION: Perez Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILMAR PEREZ, RUBY ORANTES
and EDGAR SUAREZ ACEROS, v. DENCO CONSTRUCTION LLC, d/b/a DENCO and
ROA CONSTRUCTION GROUP LLC and ABC COMPANIES 1-10 (names
fictitious) and BRUCE RAHMANI, JESSICA ROA, and John Does 1-10
(names fictitious) individually, Case No. 1:24-cv-02766-RMR-NRN (D.
Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order to:
1. Conditionally certify this case to proceed as a "collective
Action" under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and define the class
as:
"All construction workers worked on or after Oct. 7, 2021
who worked for Defendants";
2. Approve the Notice and Consent to Join form (attached as
Exhibit 1 to the declaration of Jacob Aronauer);
3. Direct the Plaintiffs to deliver the Notice and Consent to
Join form to all potential collective action members via
first-class U.S. Mail;
4. Direct the Defendants to post the Notice and Consent to Join
form, in English and Spanish, in conspicuous places in their
place of business for a period of 60 days;
5. Direct the Defendants to include a copy of the Notice and
Consent to Join form, in English and Spanish, in two
consecutive pay envelopes of all putative collective action
members currently employed by the Defendants;
6. Direct the Defendants to produce the names, addresses and
dates of employment of all potential class members within 14
days of the Court's order so that the Plaintiffs may
disseminate the Notice and Consent to Join form in a timely
fashion; and
7. Direct that the putative class members shall have 60 days
from the date the Plaintiffs disseminates the Notice in
which to opt-in to the action.
The SAC Plaintiffs pleaded substantial allegations of the
Defendants' company-wide violations of the Fair Labor Standards act
(FLSA). The Plaintiffs discuss in detail the elaborate scheme
created by Defendant Rahmani to pay his employees at straight time
and how he conspired with his Denco employee Jessica Roa.
Specifically, Defendant Rahmani required Roa to create her own
company—Roa Construction LLC—to not pay his employees at
straight time for work performed after 40 hours.
Denco operates a construction company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 23, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rClme8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
250 Broadway, Suite 600
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 323-6980
E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com
DILLARD'S INC: Faces Guzman Suit for Discrimination, Retaliation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cathya Guzman and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff
v. Dillard's Inc., d/b/a Dillard's Defendant, Case No.
0:25-cv-60398-WPD (S.D. Fla., February 28, 2025) seeks to redress
the injury done to Plaintiff by the Defendant's discriminatory
treatment and retaliation based on her race, color, and ethnicity.
The Plaintiff is a 59-year-old Hispanic female of Peruvian national
origin. She resides in Miramar, Broward County, and was employed by
Defendant Dillard's as a sales associate from approximately
February 29, 2024 to September 19, 2024, totaling 29 weeks of
employment. The Plaintiff belongs to protected classes based on her
race, color, and ethnicity.
Despite her exemplary performance, the Plaintiff was subjected to
unlawful discrimination, including harassment, a hostile work
environment, and unfavorable terms and conditions of employment.
Ultimately, she was discharged due to her race, color, and Hispanic
ethnicity, says the suit.
Dillard's Inc., d/b/a Dillard's, is a department store chain
operating in 29 states, including 42 locations in Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
EDEN SENIOR: Swan Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------
LYNZHONIAH SWAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EDEN SENIOR CARE, LLC and SENIOR SUITES AT
WOODSIDE VILLAGE, LLC d/b/a WOODSIDE SENIOR LIVING, Defendants,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00434 (N.D. Ohio, March 4, 2025) challenges
Defendants' timekeeping and pay practices by which they willfully
violated Plaintiff and other employees' rights under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Ohio's Prompt Pay Act.
The complaint asserts that Defendants regularly and systematically
failed to pay non-exempt employees overtime compensation at one and
one-half times their regular rate for hours employees worked in
excess of forty per workweek.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from December 6, 2023 to
March 22, 2024 as a Resident Care Assistant, a position that was
paid on an hourly basis and was non-exempt from overtime pay.
Eden Senior Care, LLC operates a skilled nursing and rehabilitation
facility known as Woodside Senior Living located in Bedford,
Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kathleen R. Harris, Esq.
TITTLE & PERLMUTER
4106 Bridge Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 308-1522
Facsimile: (888) 604-9299
E-mai: scott@tittlelawfirm.com
katie@tittlelawfirm.com
ENTERPRISE BANCORP: M&A Investigates Merger With Independent Bank
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and are
investigating:
-- Enterprise Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ: EBTC), relating to the
proposed merger with Independent Bank Corp. Under the terms of the
agreement, shareholders of Enterprise will receive 0.60 shares of
Independent, and $2.00 in cash, per share held.
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for April 3, 2025.
Visit link for more:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/enterprise-bancorp-inc-ebtc/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Logility Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. (NASDAQ: LGTY), relating
to the proposed merger with Aptean. Under the terms of the
agreement, Aptean will acquire all of Logility's outstanding common
stock for $14.30 per share in an all-cash transaction.
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for April 3, 2025.
Visit link for more:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/logility-supply-chain-solutions-inc-lgty/.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Triumph Group, Inc. (NYSE: TGI), relating to the proposed
merger with Warburg Pincus and Berkshire Partners. Under the terms
of the agreement, shareholders of Triumph will receive $26.00 per
share in cash.
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for April 16, 2025.
Visit link for more:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/triumph-group-inc-tgi/. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Playa Hotels & Resorts N.V. (NASDAQ: PLYA), relating to the
proposed merger with Hyatt Hotels Corporation. Under the terms of
the agreement, Hyatt will acquire all outstanding shares of Playa
for $13.50 per share in cash.
ACT NOW. The Tender Offer expires on April 25, 2025.
Visit link for more:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/playa-hotels-resorts-n-v-plya/ It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and
we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a
national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
EVOLVE BANK: Tonner Seeks to Consolidate Class Complaints
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL TONNER, on behalf of
himself and all similarly situated persons, v. EVOLVE BANK & TRUST,
an Arkansas bank, and EVOLVE BANCORP, INC., an Arkansas bank
holding company, and AMG NATIONAL TRUST BANK, a national bank, and
LINEAGE BANK, a Tennessee bank, and AMERICAN BANK, N.A., a national
bank, Case No. 1:24-cv-03509-DDD-NRN (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order striking AMG's motion to dismiss
subject to refiling after the Related Actions are consolidated or,
alternatively, staying all responsive pleading deadlines pending a
ruling on unopposed motion to consolidate this action with four
other related cases, filed in Margul et al., v. Evolve Bank & Trust
et al., Case No. 24-cv-3259-DDD-NRN.
The Plaintiffs explained to AMG that it would be far more efficient
for them to consolidate and file a single master complaint before a
single judge to avoid these inefficiencies and waste of judicial
resources. Upon consolidation, Plaintiffs will confer with all
Defendants and endeavor to reach a mutually-agreeable schedule for
the Consolidated Complaint and responsive motions before this Court
to present for the approval of the assigned judge. AMG shared this
understanding but declined for its own reasons.
The case concerns the alleged gross mismanagement and
misappropriation of cash deposits of ordinary consumers who have
lost access to their holdings. Plaintiffs and members of the
proposed class created accounts on various financial technology
platforms ("the FinTechs") and initiated cash deposits.
Evolve Bank accepts deposits, makes loans, and provides mortgage
solutions, card facilities, and online banking services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 5, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6vGxZV at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
Dylan J. Gould, Esq.
Spencer D. Campbell, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 East Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com
dgould@msdlegal.com
scampbell@msdlegal.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Carmel I. Dooling, Esq.
Kevin Christopher McAdam, Esq.
Julia Oksasoglu, Esq.
HOLLAND & HART LLP
E-mail: carmel.dooling@bfkn.com
jnoksasoglu@hollandhart.com
kcmcadam@hollandhart.com
- and -
Matthew F. Singer, Esq.
Stanley F. Orszula, Esq.
William S. Porterfield, Esq.
BARACK FERRAZZANO KIRSCHBAUM & NAGELBERG LLP
E-mail: matthew.singer@bfkn.com
stan.orszula@bfkn.com
scott.porterfield@bfkn.com
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Bid to Transfer Osterhaus Case Tossed
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OSTERHAUS PHARMACY, INC.,
et al., v. EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC., et al., Case No.
2:24-cv-00039-RAJ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Richard Jones
entered an order granting in part and denying part the Defendant'
motion to dismiss as follows:
-- The Court denies transfer of the case and dismissal of
Plaintiffs claims with respect to Defendant Express Scripts,
Inc.
The Court accepts Plaintiffs allegations as true and finds that
Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated that ESI and the
Co-Conspirators had a contract which is clearly sufficient for the
Court to plausibly infer an agreement.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have met the burdens of asserting a per
se antitrust violation for horizontal price-fixing. Therefore, the
Court will not dismiss the Plaintiffs' antitrust claims under
section1 of the Shearman Act at this time.
The Court notes that it need not separately analyze the Plaintiffs
claims under the rule of reason at this time as it concludes
Plaintiffs properly pleaded a Section 1 claim. However, if the
Plaintiffs cannot prove a per se violation later in this
litigation, they may proceed with their claims under the rule of
reason.
The Plaintiffs, a group of pharmacies, challenge agreements that
Defendant ESI, a large pharmacy benefit manager ("PBM"), made with
each of the alleged Co-Conspirators.
The Plaintiffs identify three of ESI's contracts with each
Co-Conspirator, as horizontal price-fixing agreements. Plaintiffs
allege that each agreememt fixes the Co-Conspirator’s
reimbursement rates and fees in accordance with ESI’s rates and
fees schedule, effectively "renting" ESI's market power.
Express Scripts is a pharmacy benefit management organization.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8K4ixK at no extra
charge.[CC]
FAIRFIELD, CT: Agrees to Settle Detainees' Class Suit for $1.2MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Edwards Baker of FOX 19 Now, reports that a $1.2 million
settlement was recently reached in a class action lawsuit involving
some 500 people arrested in Fairfield and held at the Butler County
Jail for more than 48 hours before seeing a judge, federal court
records show.
The suit was filed in 2019 by two men following their arrests,
Anselm Caddell and Caleb Lawson. The court certified the case a
class action in 2023.
Both men were held for four days at the Butler County Jail before
they made their initial appearances in Fairfield Municipal Court,
according to the lawsuit.
The suit names the city of Fairfield, Fairfield Municipal Court
Judge Joyce Campbell and Butler County Sheriff Richard Jones.
Shortly after it was filed, the court changed policies and
procedures to ensure hearings were held within 48 hours of arrest
and the sheriff's office began tracking it.
Campbell retired last fall after 25 years on the bench and Gov.
Mike DeWine recently appointed a new judge, Zachary Zoz.
The sheriff was elected last year to his sixth term in office --
the third time unopposed -- and recently received approval for the
jail to hold U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
detainees once again.
Caddell will receive $35,000 out of the settlement and Lawson will
get $20,000, court records show.
The other plaintiffs will each receive $500 and Caddell and Lawson
will "be permitted to make additional claims on the Settlement Fund
as SettlementClass Members."
The lawyers for Caddell and Lawson also will be paid out of the
settlement.
Court records show they are seeking up to $405,000 plus costs and
expenses.
The defendants are not objecting to that sum, the settlement notes,
and the court has the final say on the amount. [GN]
FCA US: Bid to Strike Plaintiffs' Data Sheets Terminated
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONYA CLAYTON, et al., v.
FCA US LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-12995-MFL-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Hon.
Judge Matthew Leitman entered an order that the Defendant's motion
to strike Plaintiffs' data sheets, the Plaintiffs' motion for leave
to take limited discovery, the Plaintiffs' motion for a protective
order, and the Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery are
terminated because they have been superseded by further
developments in this case.
The Court takes under advisement the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and FCA's motions to exclude the Plaintiffs' expert
witnesses.
FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1TftqG at no extra
charge.[CC]
FCA US: Court Dismisses Biederman Amended Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK BIEDERMAN, et al.,
v. FCA US LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-06640-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order re Defendants'
motions to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint
for failure to state a claim:
-- Count I (civil RICO)
-- Count II (common law fraud brought on behalf of the nationwide
class)
-- Count V (breach of express warranty under the California
Commercial Code)
-- Count VI (breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly
Act)
-- Count VII (breach of implied warranty under the California
Commercial Code)
-- Count IX (breach of express emissions warranties
Any amended complaint shall be filed within 30 days of the Order.
The Plaintiffs do not allege FCA declined to perform the Recall 67A
repair on the Class Trucks or stated the repair could not resolve
emissions or performance problems. Some Plaintiffs did not even
bring in their vehicle for repair.
On these spare allegations, a breach of express warranty claim must
be dismissed. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to dismiss
the breach of express warranty claims.
The putative class action arises from alleged "defeat devices" in
diesel engines manufactured by Defendant Cummins Inc. and installed
in RAM 2500 and 3500 pick-up trucks by Defendant FCA US LLC.
The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action alleging the
Defendants' representations about the Class Trucks' performance and
compliance with regulatory standards were false and misleading
since the vehicles could only perform as advertised while emitting
pollutants beyond established limits
FCA designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. The
Company offers passenger cars, utility vehicles, mini-vans, trucks
and commercial vans.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e4SETx at no extra
charge.[CC]
FIRST NATIONAL: Joint Pretrial Order in Bezek Class Suit Entered
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JILL BEZEK, et al., v.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF PENNSYLVANIA, Case No. 1:17-cv-02902-SAG (D.
Md.), the Hon. Judge Stephanie Gallagher entered a joint pretrial
order as follows:
The Plaintiffs allege claims for fraudulent concealment tolling of
RESPA’s statute of limitations. The Plaintiffs will identify and
prove that First Mariner Bank undertook affirmative acts to conceal
the kickbacks and the resulting injuries to borrowers, including
Plaintiffs and Class Members.
First Mariner Bank employees will testify to receiving and
accepting kickbacks through sham LLCs to conceal the fact and
amount of the kickbacks. First Mariner Bank employees will testify
to using the First Mariner Bank Right to Select Agent form to
facilitate the referral of loans to Genuine Title under the
kickback scheme and to conceal the referral agreements with Genuine
Title.
Class Representative Jill Bezek obtained a loan from First Mariner
Bank through loan officer and sales manager Anthony Sergei in
December, 2010. Brandon Glickstein, Genuine Title's marketing
manager, will testify that at the Sergei had an agreement to refer
First Mariner loans to Genuine Title for title and settlement
service in exchange for kickbacks in the form of both referring
cash and/or free marketing materials.
First National is a diversified financial services company
operating in eight states.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TrBC27 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Timothy F. Maloney, Esq.
Veronica B. Nannis, Esq.
JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE
6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
Greenbelt, MD 20770
Telephone: (301) 220-2200
Facsimile: (301) 220-1214
E-mail: tmaloney@jgllaw.com
vnannis@jgllaw.com
- and -
Michael Paul Smith, Esq.
Melissa L. English, Esq.
Eric R. Harlan, Esq.
SMITH, GILDEA & SCHMIDT, LLC
600 Washington Avenue, Suite 200
Towson, MD 21204
Telephone: (410) 821-0070
Facsimile: (410) 821-0071
E-mail: mpsmith@sgs-law.com
menglish@sgs-law.com
eharlan@sgs-law.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael E. Blumenfeld, Esq.
Peter W. Sheehan, Jr., Esq.
Meredith A. Storm, Esq.
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP
100 S. Charles Street, Suite 1600
Baltimore, MD 21201
Telephone: (443) 392-9402
Facsimile: (410) 392-9499
E-mail: michael.blumenfeld@nelsonmullins.com
petersheehan@nelsonmullins.com
Meredith.storm@nelsonmullins.com
FIRSTHAND TECHNOLOGY: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Morris Kandinov LLP announces that purchasers or
acquirers of common stock of Firsthand Technology Value Fund, Inc.
(OTC: SVVC) (the "Fund") between January 1, 2021 and November 14,
2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until May 20,
2025 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the pending class
action lawsuit filed in the District of Maryland and captioned Star
Equity Fund, LP v. Firsthand Capital Management, Inc., et al., No.
1:25-cv-00677-SAG (the "Firsthand Action"). The Firsthand Action
charges the Fund's investment adviser, Firsthand Capital Management
Inc., certain of the Fund's officers and directors, and the Fund's
valuation consultant, Scalar, LLC, with, among other things,
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
The Fund is a closed-end investment company registered as a
business development company. The Firsthand Action alleges, among
other things, that the defendants, as the Fund's managers and/or
service providers, destroyed over $200 million in shareholder value
and, from at least January 2021, begin hiding the losses by
publishing fraudulently inflated net asset values ("NAVs") based on
facially implausible valuations of portfolio companies that
defendants knew had failed or were in the process of failing. As a
result, purchasers of the Fund's shares during the Class Period
were damaged by significant inflation in the market price caused by
the fraudulent NAVs. Please reference the Complaint in its entirety
for complete information regarding the claims and allegations set
forth in the Action.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased or acquired SVVC common stock during the
Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the putative
class in the Firsthand Action. Investors are not required to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff in order to share in a future
recovery obtained in the Firsthand Action. As of the date of this
release, the plaintiff in the Firsthand Action intends to apply to
the court for appointment as lead plaintiff as well as the
appointment of Morris Kandinov LLP as lead counsel.
Morris Kandinov LLP is a national law firm that represents
individual and institutional investors in cases involving fraud and
fiduciary misconduct.
For further information, contact:
Aaron Morris
Morris Kandinov LLP
aaron@moka.law
(212) 431-7473 [GN]
FORD MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over Design Flaw in Mach-E Crossover
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Symes, writing for Yahoo!Autos, reports that Ford is facing
a new class action lawsuit over what's being called a design flaw
in the Mach-E all-electric crossover. We know you might be hoping
this is all about that problematic pony badge on the grocery getter
or the taillights confusing people. Instead, it has to do with the
way owners can get into the cabin.
One social media post about muscle cars and Boomers touches off a
huge debate.
More specifically, the class action suit focuses on E-latch or
electronically latched doors. Just like in other EVs, the Mach-E
doesn't have a traditional keyhole in the event the battery fails
or is completely drained.
That design has in turn lead to instances where children have been
trapped inside the Ford electric vehicle. We've seen at least one
case like this involving a Tesla. Usually, what ends up happening
is someone, likely first responders, break a window and rescue the
child that way.
Inside EVs there's usually a mechanical latch or handle that's
hidden out of view which you can actuate to get out of the interior
if the battery fails or is drained. But little kids can't do that
on their own.
In traditional vehicles with keyless entry, there's usually a
traditional blade key hidden in the fob. In the event the key fob's
battery dies, owners can use the blade key to manually unlock the
doors. This class action lawsuit might result in Ford and
potentially other automakers adding something like that to their
EVs.
These sorts of court cases, this one having been filed in
California, can take years to play out. We'd expect Ford will
settle this matter out of court. But the plaintiffs are asking for
a jury trial. Considering how much Ford was forced to pay out in a
Georgia court recently, that could spell big bucks. [GN]
GEORGIA: Rowe Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD CARL ROWE III, V.
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT
SERVICES, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00235-TCB (N.D. Ga.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order as follows:
1. Taking judicial notice of O.C.G.A. section 19-6-1 5(m).
2. Appointing class counsel under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(g).
3. Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.
4. Granting injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from
enforcing child support orders that do not comply with
Georgia law.
Accordingly, the evidence supports class certification because: •
The failure to comply with O.C.G.A. section 19-6-15(m) is a
systemic, class-wide issue. • Defendants' enforcement of invalid
orders violates due process. • This failure affects all
noncustodial parents subjected to Title IV-D enforcement
The Plaintiff Richard Carl Rowe III, proceeding pro se, submits
this Supplemental Brief in further support of his Motion for Class
Certification.
This brief presents statistical evidence that, under the
preponderance of the evidence standard, it is highly improbable
that all 1.2 million child support enforcement cases processed in
Georgia from 2021 to 2024 complied with O.C.G.A. section
19-6-15(m), which mandates that a signed child support worksheet be
attached to every order.
The Georgia Department of Human Services investigates child and
elderly abuse, facilitates adoption and foster parenting, accepts
applications for Medicaid.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EnhSXg at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff appears pro se:
Richard C. Rowe III
185 Courtland Drive
Fayetteville, GA 30215
E-mail: richardrowe545@amail.com
Telephone: (334) 505-7372
GIFTROCKET INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Gracie Due March 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gracie Baked LLC, et al.,
v. GiftRocket, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04019 (E.D.N.Y., Filed July
8, 2022), the Hon. Judge Rachel P. Kovner entered an order adopting
the parties' proposed schedule for summary judgment and class
certification motions:
-- A response to the summary judgment is due March 6, 2025, and
a reply is due March 25, 2025.
-- Any motion for class certification is due March 28, 2025,
a response due May 16, 2025, and reply due June 13, 2025.
-- Any subsequent motion for summary judgment will be due 60
days after a ruling on the class certification motion.
The suit alleges violation of the Lanham Act involving trademark
infringement.
GiftRocket provides online gift cards for restaurants, bars, spas,
shopping, night life and food.[CC]
GLOBAL E-TRADING: Seeks to Exclude Merrifield's Testimony
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANET SIHLER, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; CHARLENE BAVENCOFF,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
GLOBAL E-TRADING, LLC DBA CHARGEBACKS911, GARY CARDONE, MONICA
EATON, Case No. 8:23-cv-01450-VMC-LSG (M.D. Fla.), the Defendants
ask the Court to enter an order excluding the testimony of the
Plaintiffs' expert, Kerrie Merrifield.
The expert opinions of the Plaintiffs' damages expert, Kerrie
Merrifield, should be excluded for two fundamental reasons. First,
Ms. Merrifield's opinion that the Class was "charged $18,779,273
more than expected after deducting charge backs and refunds," is
not based on sufficient data or a reliable methodology.
Second, Ms. Merrifield's damages opinions improperly assume that
all purported damages to Class members are attributable to, and
recoverable from, any defendant, including Ms. Eaton and Mr.
Cardone.
In sum, Ms. Merrifield's methodology uses shipping data that is
inaccurate and cannot be verified and refund and chargeback data
that is indisputably incomplete.
On Aug. 13, 2024, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification and certified the following class:
"All consumers in the United States who, within the applicable
statute of limitations period until the date notice is
disseminated, were billed for shipments of either three
bottles or five bottles of Ultrafast Keto Boost, Insta Keto,
or InstantKeto."
Chargebacks911 is a global company dedicated to remediating
chargebacks and helping to eliminate first-party fraud and misuse.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 5, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IHQWsl at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Corey W. Roush, Esq.
Taylor Randleman, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
1501 K St, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 736-8624
E-mail: corey.roush@sidley.com
taylor.randleman@sidley.com
- and -
William J. Schifino, Jr., Esq.
Lauren V. Purdy, Esq.
Justin P. Bennett, Esq.
Gregory L. Pierson, Esq.
GUNSTER, YOAKLEY & STEWART,
P.A.
401 E. Jackson Street, Suite 1500
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 228-9080
E-mail: wschifino@gunster.com
lpurdy@gunster.com
jbennett@gunster.com
gpierson@gunster.com
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Underpays Assistant Managers, Echevarria Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Odelys Echevarria, and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. Goodwill Industries of South Florida, Inc. Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-20956 (S.D. Fla., February 28, 2025) is an action
to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The complaint alleges the failure of the Defendant to pay Plaintiff
overtime wages, at the rate of one time and a half her regular
rate, for every hour that she worked in excess of 40.
Plaintiff Echevarria was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt,
full-time, hourly employee from approximately March 1, 2013 to
September 27, 2024, spanning a period of more than 11 years. The
Plaintiff held the position of assistant manager with additional
clerical responsibilities.
Goodwill Industries is a human welfare organization performing
regular business activities. The Company runs a network of thrift
stores that sell donated items such as clothing, furniture, and
household items.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
GOOGLE LLC: Agrees to Settle Racial Class Action for $28-Mil.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dexter Tilo, writing for HRD, reports that Google has agreed to pay
$28 million to settle a high-profile class action alleging that the
tech company favoured White and Asian employees when it comes to
pay.
Judge Charles Adams of the Santa Clara County Superior Court
granted preliminary approval of the settlement last week, according
to Gunn Coble LLP, a Los Angeles civil rights law firm that
represented the plaintiffs.
Under the settlement, Google also agreed to work with a labour
economist and an industrial or occupational psychologist to review
its annual pay equity audits. They would also review the
recommendations to address the allegations raised in the lawsuit.
Allegations against Google
Ana Cantu, who identifies as Mexican and racially Indigenous, led
the class-action suit in 2021 for at least 6,632 people who were
employed by Google between 15 February 2018 and 31 December 2024,
according to Reuters.
The suit accused Google of paying employees who identified as
Hispanic, Latinx, Indigenous, Native American, American Indian,
Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islands and/or Alaska Native less than
their White, Asian, or Asian American employees for carrying out
similar work.
According to Gunn Coble, Cantu relied on a 2022 employee internal
pay spreadsheet that leaked, showing that Google's diverse
employees had lower compensation than White, Asian and
Asian-American workers.
Cathy Coble, founding partner of Gunn Coble LLP, commended Cantu
for raising the case against Google.
"She risked her career to raise race/ethnicity pay disparity at
Google," Coble said in a statement.
"I also want to acknowledge the bravery of both the diverse and
ally Googlers who self-reported their pay and leaked that data to
the media, enabling us to push for discovery of the data necessary
to support this class action. Suspected pay inequity is too easily
concealed without this kind of collective action from employees."
Google's response
Google confirmed the lawsuit in a statement to Reuters. However, it
continued to deny the allegations.
"We continue to disagree with the allegations that we treated
anyone differently and remain committed to paying, hiring and
leveling all employees fairly," a Google spokesperson told the news
outlet.
Google is one of the major organisations in the United States that
pulled back on its diversity efforts.
In February, it was reported that the tech giant is ending its
diversity hiring targets, while also removing a line in its annual
SEC report that stressed its commitment to "making diversity,
equity, and inclusion part of everything we do."
Google's withdrawal comes amid a wave of corporate withdrawal on
DEI in the United States following a shifting legal landscape and
rising conservative backlash.
US President Donald Trump, in one of his earliest executive orders
for his second term, also placed on leave all employees working on
DEI offices.
Beth Gunn, founding partner of Gunn Coble LLP, said she hopes
California will continue taking the lead in enacting and enforcing
civil rights laws despite the current national political climate.
"Committing to closing the loopholes allowing discriminatory wage
gaps to continue will stop losses of millions of dollars in
employee take-home pay and tax revenue to the State, and ensure
that workers of diverse races and ethnicities are equitably
compensated," Gunn said in a statement.
"We hope this result will prompt California employers to seriously
commit to this goal." [GN]
GOOGLE LLC: Bid for Class Notice Plan Approval Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Google Assistant Privacy Litigation,
Case No. 5:19-cv-04286-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson
Freeman entered an order denying Google's motion to enforce order
approving class notice plan and reject mass exclusion request.
In sum, although the Court acknowledges that the Arbitration
Claimants' opt-out requests did not adhere to the procedure laid
out in the Long-Form Notice, the Court concludes that their
exclusion requests were nonetheless effective. The Arbitration
Claimants shall be excluded from the Class.
On Feb. 9, 2024, the Court approved Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order
Approving Class Notice Plan.
On Aug. 29, 2024, Labaton emailed
info@googleassistantprivacylitigation.com with a letter stating
that they "represent the 69,507 individuals identified" on an
attached spreadsheet "in privacy claims stemming from the
Claimants’ use of Google Assistant-enabled devices."
Google is an American multinational corporation and technology
company focusing on online advertising, search engine technology,
cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing, e-commerce,
consumer electronics, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K6ATyz at no extra
charge.[CC]
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Class Cert Bid in Steve Extended to June 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE CHING INSURANCE,
INC., et al., v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
Case No. 8:23-cv-03033-PX (D. Md.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order that all current discovery deadlines be extended by
two months, as follows:
Requirement Current Proposed
Dates Dates
Plaintiffs' 26(a)(2) Apr. 2, 2025 June 2, 2025
disclosures, including expert
report(s):
Plaintiffs' motion for class Apr. 2, 2025 June 2, 2025
Certification:
Defendants' 26(a)(2) July 2, 2025 Sept. 2, 2025
disclosures, including
expert report(s):
Defendants' response in July 2, 2025 Sept. 2, 2025
opposition to the motion for
class certification:
Plaintiffs' reply in support of Oct. 2, 2025 Dec. 2, 2025
motion for class certification:
Plaintiffs' rebuttal Rule Oct. 2, 2025 Dec. 2, 2025
26(a)(2) disclosures:
Hearing on motion for class Dec. 18, 2025 Feb. 18, 2026
Certification: or at the
Court's
earliest
convenience
thereafter
The case is a complex commercial class action brought against
Defendants by two GEICO insurance agencies on behalf of themselves,
a putative nationwide class of all current and
former GEICO insurance agencies, and a putative nationwide class of
all former GEICO insurance agencies, and alleging claims for Breach
of Contract – Termination (Count I), Unjust Enrichment
– Termination and Renewal Commissions (Count II), Breach of
Contract – Renewal Commissions (Count III), and Unjust Enrichment
– Misappropriation of Commissions (Count IV).
On Oct. 4, 2024, the parties served their Rule 26(a)(1)
disclosures, held a Rule 26(f) conference, and discovery commenced
GEICO provides motorcycle, ATV, RV, boat, snowmobile, travel, pet,
event, homeowner, renter, and jewelry insurance options.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 15, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Xl4hoh at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
Amy E. Keller, Esq.
John Tangren, Esq.
Eaghan S. Davis, Esq.
Diandra S. Debrosse Zimmerman, Esq.
Eli Hare, Esq.
Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq.
Justin J. Hawal, Esq.
Eviealle J. Dawkins, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
10 North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
akeller@dicellolevitt.com
jtangren@dicellolevitt.com
edavis@dicellolevitt.com
fu@dicellolevitt.com
ehare@dicellolevitt.com
kabbarno@dicellolevitt.com
jhawal@dicellolevitt.com
edawkins@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Benjamin Crump, Esq.
Gabrielle Higgins, Esq.
Brendan H. Chandonnet, Esq.
BEN CRUMP LAW, PLLC
122 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Telephone: (800) 691-7111
E-mail: ben@bencrump.com
gabrielle@bencrump.com
brendan@bencrump.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq.
Jennifer A. Riley, Esq.
Jeffrey R. Zohn, Esq.
Justin Donoho, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
190 S. LaSalle St., Suite 3700
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 499-6700
Facsimile: (312) 499-6701
E-mail: gmaatman@duanemorris.com
jariley@duanemorris.com
jzohn@duanemorris.com
jrdonoho@duanemorris.com
HESAI GROUP: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Hesai Group (NASDAQ: HSAI) resulting from
allegations that Hesai may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
So What: If you purchased Hesai securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=13347 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
What is this about: On March 18, 2025, Blue Orca Capital published
a report in which it announced that it had a short position in
Hesai Group. Blue Orca stated that, in its opinion, Hesai is a
"Nasdaq-listed Chinese scam actively lying to investors, the
Department of Defense, and a United States federal court. In our
view, it dishonestly attempts to escape its designation as a
'Chinese military company' by insisting that it has no involvement
with the Chinese military. Yet, we found clear smoking-gun
photographic and video evidence that Chinese military vehicles are
outfitted with Hesai LiDar systems."
On this news, the price of Hesai American Depositary Shares
("ADSs") fell 7.8% on March 18, 2025.
Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS
Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class
action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4
each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438
million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was
named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's
attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
HPC INDUSTRIAL: Longley Action Consolidated with Moss Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRAVIS LONGLEY, v. HPC
INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00860-KES-CDB (E.D.
Cal.), the court entered an order consolidating actions pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a):
1. The following actions are consolidated under Rule 42(a) for
all purposes:
a. The lead case, Travis Longley v. HPC Industrial Services,
LLC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00860-KES-CDB;
b. Derek Moss, et al. v. HPC Industrial Services, LLC, et
al., Case No. 1:24-cv01479-KES-CDB.
2. All further filings in this consolidated action shall be
made in lead case Travis Longley v. HPC Industrial Services,
LLC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00860-KES-CDB.
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close member case
Derek Moss, et al. v. HPC Industrial Services, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01479-KES-CDB.
4. The parties shall appear via Zoom videoconference for a
scheduling conference in this consolidated action on Feb.
25, 2025, at 9:30 AM.
Both actions assert substantially similar facts, arising out of
Defendant HPC’s failure to pay all straight and overtime wages,
failure to provide lawful meal and rest periods, failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse employees
for business expenses and illegal deductions, failure to adopt a
compliant sick/paid time off policy, and other claims in violation
of the rights of Plaintiffs and a putative class of hourly,
non-exempt employees.
Absent consolidation, the Court would anticipate addressing
substantially similar issues in each case involving discovery,
motion practice, and pre-trial proceedings, as well as in trial
itself.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Lfsd6L at no extra
charge.[CC]
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Ross Sues Over Deceptive Marketing of Hyundai Nexo
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STACY ROSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, a California
corporation; FIRSTELEMENT FUEL INC., a California corporation;
GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official capacity as Governor of California;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:25-cv-01480-AH-BFM (C.D. Cal., February 21, 2025) is a class
action against the Defendants for fraud, breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability,
negligence, injunctive relief, and violations of Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, False Advertising, California Business and
Professions Code, and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of the Hyundai Nexo
hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. According to the complaint, Defendant
Hyundai markets the Nexo as a practical zero-emissions vehicle
suitable for daily transportation while concealing critical
limitations that make it unfit for ordinary consumer use. These
limitations include a severely inadequate service network,
unreliable fueling infrastructure, persistent safety defects, and
undisclosed environmental harms. Both Defendants Hyundai and
FirstElement have perpetuated a system that consistently fails
consumers while continuing to market and sell vehicles they know
cannot be practically operated. Meanwhile, Defendant Newsom
continues to allocate substantial taxpayer funds to support this
failing infrastructure despite clear evidence of its commercial
nonviability and environmental harm, suit says.
Hyundai Motor America is an automobile manufacturer, with its
principal place of business in Fountain Valley, California.
FirstElement Fuel Inc. is a company that owns and operates hydrogen
fueling stations throughout California, headquartered in Irvine,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason M. Ingber, Esq.
Serach B. Shafa, Esq.
INGBER LAW GROUP
3580 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1260
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 805-8373
Email: ji@jasoningber.com
IAN MACALINAO: Dismissal Bid Evidentiary Hearing Set for May 20
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IAN DUFFY et al., v. IAN
MACALINAO and DYLAN MACALINAO, Case No. 2:24-cv-00209-RWS-RSP (E.D.
Tex.), the Hon. Judge Roy Payne entered a scheduling order as
follows:
-- The Plaintiff's motion to compel is set for hearing on Feb.
24, 2025.
-- The Defendants' response is due by Feb. 18, 2025.
-- The motion to dismiss is set for an evidentiary hearing on May
20, 2025.
-- By Feb. 21, 2025, the parties shall file a Joint Notice
setting forth their agreements and disputes concerning the
scope of discovery to be allowed in advance of the class
certification hearing.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TC7qLJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
IEC GAMES: Standing Order Entered in Homa Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HOMA GAMES SAS, v. IEC
GAMES AUSTRALIA PTY LTD, et al. Case No. 2:25-cv-00721-FLA-JPR
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha entered a
standing order as follows:
Plaintiff shall promptly serve the complaint in accordance with
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to Local
Rule 5-3.1. Any defendant not timely served under Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(m), including "Doe" or fictitiously named defendants, shall be
dismissed from the action
Discovery Matters Referred to United States Magistrate Judge All
discovery matters are referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge,
who will hear all discovery disputes. Counsel are directed to
contact the Magistrate Judge's Courtroom Deputy Clerk to schedule
matters for hearing and must follow the Magistrate Judge's
procedures for scheduling matters for hearing.
Motions shall be filed in accordance with Local Rules 6 and 7. The
court hears motions in civil actions on Fridays, beginning at 1:30
p.m.
Motions Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Many motions to dismiss or
strike can be avoided if the parties confer in good faith as
required by Local Rule 7-3, especially for perceived defects in a
complaint, answer, or counterclaim that can be corrected by
amendment.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fKCcPN at no extra
charge.[CC]
IFC CENTER: Agrees to Settle Ticket Fees Class Suit for $200,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that IFC Center agreed to a $200,000
class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that it failed to
disclose service fees when selling electronic tickets on its
website.
The IFC Center class action settlement benefits individuals who
paid a service fee when purchasing electronic tickets through the
IFC Center website between Aug. 29, 2022, and May 3, 2024.
According to the IFC Center ticket fees class action lawsuit, the
IFC Center's failure to disclose service fees violated New York
state law.
The IFC Center is an independent movie theater in New York City.
The center has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $200,000
settlement to resolve the ticket fee class action lawsuit.
Under terms of the IFC Center class action settlement, class
members can receive a proportional share of the net settlement fund
based on the amount they paid in service fees.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is April 11, 2025.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for May
12, 2025.
In order to receive settlement benefits, potential class members
must submit a valid claim form by June 26, 2025.
Who's Eligible
Consumers who paid a service fee when purchasing electronic tickets
through the IFC Center website between Aug. 29, 2022, and May 3,
2024.
Potential Award
Amounts vary based on the refund of any service fee paid on a
ticket or tickets bought within the stipulated period of the
claim.
Proof of Purchase
Unique notice ID and confirmation code.
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
06/26/2025
Case Name
Kovacs v. IFC Theatres LLC d/b/a IFC Center, et al., Case No.
650700/2024, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County
of New York.
Final Hearing
05/12/2025
Settlement Website
IFCCenterTicketFeesSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
IFC Center Ticket Fee Settlement Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
info@IFCCenterTicketFeeSettlement.com
(844) 440-4083
Class Counsel
Rachel Dapeer
DAPEER LAW PA
Defense Counsel
Christine M. Reilly
Patrice Ruane
MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS LLP [GN]
INTAKE DESK: Faces TCPA Class Lawsuit Over Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tammana Malik of Troutman Amin, LLP, in an article for The National
Law Review, reports that in an ironic twist, Intake Desk LLC, a
company that recruits plaintiffs for personal injury lawsuits and
uses the tagline "File More Mass Tort Cases," now finds itself on
the other side of the courtroom—as a defendant in a TCPA class
action.
The Complaint in Emily Teman v. Intake Desk LLC (Mar. 19, 2025, D.
Mass.) alleges that Intake Desk violated the TCPA by making
telemarketing calls to Plaintiff Teman and other putative class
members while their numbers were listed on the National Do Not Call
Registry and without their written consent, as well as by calling
individuals who had previously requested not to receive such
calls.
Plaintiff Teman claims she received more than a dozen calls from
Intake Desk over several months in 2023, allegedly attempting to
sign her up for personal injury lawsuits related to talcum powder.
However, Teman asserts that she never consented to these calls, and
that her number has been on the National Do Not Call Registry since
2003.
Interestingly, Teman filed another TCPA class action with similar
allegations against Select Justice, LLC, a self-proclaimed advocacy
group "committed to helping injured individuals seek justice and
compensation." In Emily Teman v. Select Justice, LLC (Mar. 20,
2025, D. Mass.), Teman alleges that she received more than a dozen
calls from Select Justice over several months in 2023, including
multiple harassing voicemails from different representatives.
According to the Complaint, the voicemails implied that Teman had
contacted Select Justice to join class action suits related to
talcum powder and rideshare assault. Teman asserts that she had
never been a customer of Select Justice and never consented to
receive calls from them. The Complaint further alleges that the
calls prompted Teman to file a Consumer Complaint with the
Massachusetts Attorney General's Office against Select Justice on
January 26, 2024.
While the Complaint against Intake Desk states that Teman "never
made an inquiry into" its services, the Complaint against Select
Justice alleges that she "was not interested in Select Justice's
services." Perhaps this is just a trivial semantic difference –
but in TCPAWorld, every word carries weight. [GN]
J.P.S. CONSTRUCTION: Toner Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK TONER, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees,
Plaintiff v. J.P.S. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-01139 (E.D. Pa., March 4, 2025) arises from the Defendant's
alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant credited Plaintiff with
40 hours attributable to work at the construction site (for which
he received a straight-time wage of $53.75/hour) and 6 hours
attributable to travel (for which he received a straight-time wage
of $36.00/hour). Even though Plaintiff was credited with working 46
hours during this sample week, he did not receive any overtime
premium compensation for hours worked over 40, says the suit.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as an hourly employee at
various times during the three-year period relevant to this
lawsuit.
J.P.S. Construction Company, Inc. is a corporate entity
headquartered in Glenside, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Telephone: (215) 884-2491
E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
KNOX COMMUNITY: Sapp Sues Over Licensed Practical Nurses' Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LISA SAPP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KNOX COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-00275-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, March 18, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a home health
Licensed Practical Nurse at its health center in Mt. Vernon, Ohio
from approximately 2017 until December 2024.
Knox Community Hospital is an operator of a network of hospitals
and regional clinics throughout Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
Tristan T. Akers, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
takers@mcoffmanlegal.com
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN: Expert Disclosures Extended to Sept. 8
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL COYNE, individually
and on behalf of those similarly situated; DAVID DENTON,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated; and SEAN
BOLLIG, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v.
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT; Case No.
2:22-cv-00475-APG-DJA (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge entered an order
granting Parties' joint request to extend the discovery deadlines
by 180 days, and extend all discovery deadlines as follows:
Current New Deadline
Deadline Date Date
Amending Pleadings and Adding May 14, 2024 No Extension
Parties
Requested Initial Expert March 10, 2025 Sept. 8, 2025
Disclosures:
Rebuttal Expert Disclosures: Apr. 11, 2015 Jan. 6, 2026
Discovery Cut Off: May 12, 2025 Feb. 9, 2026
Final Date to File June 12, 2025 Mar. 11, 2026
Dispositive Motions:
The Joint Pretrial Order will now be due on April 10, 2026.
However, in the event dispositive motion(s) are filed, the date for
filing the joint pretrial order shall be suspended until 30 days
after decision on the dispositive motion(s) or further order of the
Court.
This is a document-intensive case which includes 1,598 Plaintiffs
(the three initial Plaintiffs and 1,595 opt-ins). To date,
Defendants have produced over 230,000 pages of documents, with the
last production occurring on January 3, 2025. Defendant’s last
production contained in excess of 100,000 pages, which the
Plaintiffs are still reviewing.
The Court granted preliminary certification of a collective action
on August 15, 2023.
Las Vegas is a combined city and county law enforcement agency for
the City of Las Vegas and Clark County, Nevada.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8yQJ3t at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anthony P. Sgro, Esq.
Alanna C. Bondy, Esq.
SGRO & ROGER
2901 El Camino Ave., Suite 204
Las Vegas, NV 89102
Telephone: (702) 384-9800
E-mail: TSGRO@SgroandRoger.com
ABONDY@SgroandRoger.com
- and -
Dennis L. Kennedy, Esq.
Joseph A. Liebman, Esq.
Paul C. Williams, Esq.
BAILEY-KENNEDY
8984 Spanish Ridge Avenue
Las Vegas, NV 89148-1302
Telephone: (702) 562-8820
Facsimile: (702) 562-8821
E-mail: DKennedy@BaileyKennedy.com
JLiebman@BaileyKennedy.com
PWilliams@BaileyKennedy.com
LOANCARE LLC: Court OKs Summary Judgment in Consumer Credit Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
McGlinchey Stafford, in an article for JDSupra, reports that On
February 24, 2025, the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary
judgment in favor of Defendant LoanCare, LLC, on a putative class
action alleging that LoanCare violated fair debt collection
provisions of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act,
W. Va. Code Sec. 46A-2-122 et seq. (WVCCPA).
In sum and substance, Plaintiffs Gary and Lisa Tederick alleged
that LoanCare improperly and unlawfully misapplied mortgage
principal payments to the interest of the loan. According to the
Court, under the language of the loan and the plain language of the
WVCCPA, however, Plaintiffs could not state a violation of the Act,
and therefore, summary judgment was granted.
Background
In 2002, Plaintiffs Gary and Lisa Tederick built their home in
Hedgesville, West Virginia. On March 4, 2004, the Tedericks
refinanced their home by taking out a loan from Mid-States
Financial Group, Inc., using a Note backed by a Deed of Trust held
by Fannie Mae. The terms of the loan required the Tedericks to make
scheduled monthly payments of $875.36 beginning May 1, 2004.
The terms of the loan required that any interest was to be "charged
on unpaid principal until the full amount of Principal has been
paid." The Note further stated that "[e]ach monthly payment will be
applied as of its scheduled due date and will be applied to
interest before Principal," and the Tedericks were entitled to
"make payments of Principal at any time before they are due, known
as a "Prepayment." Notably, the Tedericks could not designate a
payment as a Prepayment if they had not made all the monthly
payments due under the note. Under the terms, the note holder was
also authorized "to apply [a] Prepayment to the accrued and unpaid
interest on the Prepayment amount before applying [the] Prepayment
to reduce the Principal amount of the Note."
Nonetheless, throughout the life of the loan, the Tedericks
frequently made Prepayments, often writing one check containing
their monthly payment amount, along with a Prepayment amount, and
writing in the memo line that a Prepayment amount was included in
the total. Between 2005 and 2020, the Tedericks wrote these dual
checks 180 times before their monthly payment due date. Unbeknownst
to the Tedericks, for at least 152 of those payments, the servicer
applied the scheduled monthly payment, then the Prepayment, as
opposed to the Prepayment first.
Around April 2019, LoanCare became the subservicer of the
Tedericks' mortgage loan and began accepting and applying their
loan payments. At that time, the Tedericks had learned of the issue
with their dual payments and contacted LoanCare to inform them that
previous servicers had misapplied their Prepayments and requested
that LoanCare correct the account to accurately reflect the amount
of interest on the loan. According to the Tedericks, a customer
service representative assured the Tedericks that the issue had
been rectified. This was not the case; LoanCare continued to apply
payments in the same manner as previous servicers, and the
Tedericks sued.
Analysis
According to the Court, a simple question was at issue: Could the
Tedericks obtain relief under the WVCCPA?
The Court first examined the language of the WVCCPA. The Tedericks
argued that LoanCare violated Sections 46A-2-127(d) and 46A-2-128
of the Act.
In examining the specific language of the Act, the Court stated:
The dispositive text of Section 127 of the WVCCPA prohibits debt
collectors from using "any fraudulent, deceptive or misleading
representation or means to collect claims or to obtain information
concerning consumers." W. Va. Code Sec. 46A-2-127. The statute
lists instances in which a debt collector would be liable under the
Act. Subsection (d) prohibits "[a]ny false representation or
implication of the character, extent or amount of a claim against a
consumer, or of its status in any legal proceeding." W. Va. Code
Sec. 46A-2-127(d). Thus, the Tedericks must be the victim of a
"false representation or implication" at the hands of LoanCare. W.
Va. Code Sec. 46A-2-127(d). In other words, LoanCare must have
incorrectly applied the Prepayments. Section 128 states that no
debt collector may use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or
attempt to collect any claim. W. Va. Code Sec. 46A-2-128.
The Court concludes that LoanCare's conduct, even if they
misapplied the Prepayments, does not rise to the level of a "false
representation."
The Court next examined the purpose of the WVCCPA and further
concluded that the Tedericks' claims could not continue. According
to the Court, the purpose of the WVCCPA is "to protect consumers
from unfair, illegal, and deceptive acts or practices by providing
an avenue of relief for consumers who would otherwise have
difficulty proving their case under a more traditional cause of
action." Boczek v. Pentagon Fed. Credit Union, 725 F. Supp. 3d 542,
546 (N.D.W. Va. 2024).
Moreover, according to the Court, the question under the act was
not whether LoanCare misapplied the Tedericks' Prepayments,
resulting in LoanCare receiving unearned interest, but whether
LoanCare meant to misapply the payments. According to the Court,
nothing in the record suggested that LoanCare engaged in
"fraudulent, deceptive or misleading representations or means to
collect or attempt to collect claims or to obtain information
concerning consumers." W. Va. Code Sec. 46A-2-127. Likewise, there
is nothing "unfair or unconscionable" about the way LoanCare
applied the Prepayments -- W. Va. Code Sec. 46A-2-128 -- and they
had, in fact, applied payments in an effort to comply with the
language of the Fannie Mae Servicing Guidelines.
In summary, even if LoanCare had misapplied payments (which is a
matter of debate), the Tedericks still could not proceed with their
claim because, under the WVCCPA, they could not show that the
conduct arose to "fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading" conduct
required under the law. [GN]
LULO RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Soto Says
--------------------------------------------------------
GEODARY SOTO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LULO RESTAURANT BRONX CORP. (d/b/a LULO
RESTAURANT), OLIVO TORRES, and LEONARDO TORRES, Defendants, Case
No. 1:25-cv-01803 (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations of the
New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiff Soto was employed as a delivery worker at Lulo Restaurant
in Bronx, New York. He worked for the Defendants in excess of 40
hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime
compensation for the hours that he worked. The Defendants also
failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and
failed to pay him appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium, says
the Plaintiff.
Lulo Restaurant Bronx Corp. owns, operates, and controls a
Dominican Restaurant in Bronx, New York under the name "Lulo
Restaurant." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE ESQ.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
MAT KING: Bid for Appointment of Interim Class Counsel Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN LINDKE, et al., v.
MAT KING, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-11767-MFL-JJCG (E.D. Mich.), the
Hon. Judge Matthew Leitman entered an order denying without
prejudice the plaintiffs' motion for appointment of interim class
counsel and for issuance of case management, and setting period for
class discovery.
On Feb. 14, 2025, the Court held an on-the-record status
conference.
1. The Plaintiffs' motion for appointment of interim class
counsel and for issuance of case management order is denied
without prejudice.
2. The parties shall conduct discovery on class certification
issues until May 15, 2025.
3. At the conclusion of the discovery period, the Court will
schedule a status conference to discuss next steps.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3VBvDe at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 2833: Court Dismisses Loan Servicing Suit
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: FEDLOAN STUDENT LOAN SERVICING
LITIGATION, Case No. 2:18-md-02833-NIQA (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
grants the Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims.
Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs'
claims in the action because the Plaintiffs either lack Article III
standing or the claims have become moot.
The changes to the PSLF Loan Forgiveness Program that have now
provided the PSLF Plaintiffs the remedies sought in the operative
complaint are the result of a series of regulatory actions taken by
the Department under the authority of the HEROES Act, 20 U.S.C.
section 1098bb.
These regulatory changes began in 2021 and, though these changes
included a Limited PSLF Waiver, that limited waiver was extended
through June 30, 2024. Moreover, each PSLF Plaintiff has obtained,
or is eligible to obtain, the relief sought in the operative
complaint.
There is no record evidence to overcome the presumption of the
Government's good faith in implementing these changes. Under these
undisputed facts, it is absolutely clear that Defendants cannot
resort to their alleged previous misconduct to the PSLF Plaintiffs'
detriment.
The Plaintiffs, a group of thirty-three federal student loan
borrowers, filed these putative class actions against the
Defendants, based on alleged administration and servicing errors
relating to three federal student borrower benefit programs: (1)
the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education
Grant Program (the "TEACH Program"), (2) the Public Service Loan
Forgiveness Program (the "PSLF Loan Forgiveness Program"), and (3)
the income driven repayment ("IDR") plans.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Feb. 18, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=l6ScrO
at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 2873: AFFF Products "Defective," Bolton Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW BOLTON, 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.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01016-RMG (D.S.C.,
February 22, 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) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF 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 Bolton 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.
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.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products based
in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
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.
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. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Hochman, Esq.
THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC
5411 McPherson Rd., Ste. 110
Laredo, TX 78041
Telephone: (956) 704-5187
Facsimile: (956) 368-1343
MDL 2873: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Wiedmaier Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL L. WIEDMAIER, 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.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORP.; 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.; DAIKIN
AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; JOHNSON CONTROLS INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS LP; 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.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01029-RMG (D.S.C.,
February 21, 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) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF 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 Wiedmaier 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.
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.
BASF Corp. is a chemicals company based in New Jersey.
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.
Daikin America Inc. is a chemicals company based in Alabama.
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.
Johnson Controls Inc. is a global diversified technology firm based
in Wisconsin.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products based
in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
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.
Perimeter Solutions LP is a chemicals company headquartered in St.
Louis, Missouri.
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. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chandler B. Duncan, Esq.
Andrew T. Kagan, Esq.
Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq.
KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC
295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6
Humacao, PR, 00791
Telephone: (939) 220-2424
Facsimile: (939) 220-2477
MDL 2873: AFFF Products Harmful to Human Health, Eades Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS E. EADES, 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.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01059-RMG (D.S.C.,
February 21, 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) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF 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 Eades 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.
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.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products based
in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
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.
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. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Hochman, Esq.
THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC
5411 McPherson Rd., Ste. 110
Laredo, TX 78041
Telephone: (956) 704-5187
Facsimile: (956) 368-1343
MDL 2873: Chapman Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
JIMMY CHAPMAN, 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.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01044-RMG (D.S.C.,
February 21, 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) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF 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 Chapman 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.
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.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products based
in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
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.
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. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Hochman, Esq.
THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC
5411 McPherson Rd., Ste. 110
Laredo, TX 78041
Telephone: (956) 704-5187
Facsimile: (956) 368-1343
MDL 2873: Edgar Sues Over Toxic Effects of AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------
PAUL EDGAR, 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.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01009-RMG (D.S.C.,
February 21, 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) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF 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 cancer and thyroid
disease.
The Edgar 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.
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.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products based
in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
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.
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. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Hochman, Esq.
THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC
5411 McPherson Rd., Ste. 110
Laredo, TX 78041
Telephone: (956) 704-5187
Facsimile: (956) 368-1343
MDL 2873: Exposed AFFF Products' Users to PFAS, Hernandez Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO HERNANDEZ, 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.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORP.; 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.; DAIKIN
AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; JOHNSON CONTROLS INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS LP; 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.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01037-RMG (D.S.C.,
February 21, 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) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF 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 Hernandez 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.
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.
BASF Corp. is a chemicals company based in New Jersey.
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.
Daikin America Inc. is a chemicals company based in Alabama.
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.
Johnson Controls Inc. is a global diversified technology firm based
in Wisconsin.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products based
in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
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.
Perimeter Solutions LP is a chemicals company headquartered in St.
Louis, Missouri.
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. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chandler B. Duncan, Esq.
Andrew T. Kagan, Esq.
Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq.
KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC
295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6
Humacao, PR, 00791
Telephone: (939) 220-2424
Facsimile: (939) 220-2477
MDL 2873: Exposed Firefighters to Toxic Products, Hebert Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARK HEBERT, 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.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01020-RMG (D.S.C.,
February 21, 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) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF 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 Hebert 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.
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.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products based
in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
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.
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. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Hochman, Esq.
THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC
5411 McPherson Rd., Ste. 110
Laredo, TX 78041
Telephone: (956) 704-5187
Facsimile: (956) 368-1343
MDL 2873: Faces Mercer Suit Over AFFF Products' PFAS Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD MERCER, 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.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01060-RMG (D.S.C.,
February 21, 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) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF 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 and high
cholesterol.
The Mercer 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.
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.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products based
in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
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.
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. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Hochman, Esq.
THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC
5411 McPherson Rd., Ste. 110
Laredo, TX 78041
Telephone: (956) 704-5187
Facsimile: (956) 368-1343
MDL 2873: Faces Mitchell Suit Over AFFF Products' Harmful Effects
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JERRY MITCHELL, 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.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORP.; 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.; DAIKIN
AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; JOHNSON CONTROLS INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS LP; 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.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01040-RMG (D.S.C.,
February 21, 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) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF 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 Mitchell 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.
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.
BASF Corp. is a chemicals company based in New Jersey.
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.
Daikin America Inc. is a chemicals company based in Alabama.
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.
Johnson Controls Inc. is a global diversified technology firm based
in Wisconsin.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products based
in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
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.
Perimeter Solutions LP is a chemicals company headquartered in St.
Louis, Missouri.
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. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chandler B. Duncan, Esq.
Andrew T. Kagan, Esq.
Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq.
KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC
295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6
Humacao, PR, 00791
Telephone: (939) 220-2424
Facsimile: (939) 220-2477
MDL 2873: Faces Shepardson Suit Over AFFF Products' Design Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EARLE SHEPARDSON 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.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORP.; 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.; DAIKIN
AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; JOHNSON CONTROLS INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS LP; 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.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01011-RMG (D.S.C.,
February 21, 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) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF 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 Shepardson 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.
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.
BASF Corp. is a chemicals company based in New Jersey.
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.
Daikin America Inc. is a chemicals company based in Alabama.
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.
Johnson Controls Inc. is a global diversified technology firm based
in Wisconsin.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products based
in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
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.
Perimeter Solutions LP is a chemicals company headquartered in St.
Louis, Missouri.
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. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chandler B. Duncan, Esq.
Andrew T. Kagan, Esq.
Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq.
KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC
295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6
Humacao, PR, 00791
Telephone: (939) 220-2424
Facsimile: (939) 220-2477
MDL 2873: Faces Taylor Suit Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT TAYLOR, 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.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORP.; 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.; DAIKIN
AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; JOHNSON CONTROLS INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS LP; 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.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01018-RMG (D.S.C.,
February 21, 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) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF 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 Taylor 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.
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.
BASF Corp. is a chemicals company based in New Jersey.
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.
Daikin America Inc. is a chemicals company based in Alabama.
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.
Johnson Controls Inc. is a global diversified technology firm based
in Wisconsin.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products based
in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
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.
Perimeter Solutions LP is a chemicals company headquartered in St.
Louis, Missouri.
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. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chandler B. Duncan, Esq.
Andrew T. Kagan, Esq.
Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq.
KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC
295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6
Humacao, PR, 00791
Telephone: (939) 220-2424
Facsimile: (939) 220-2477
MDL 2873: Faces Wall Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Elements
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH T. WALL, 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.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORP.; 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.; DAIKIN
AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; JOHNSON CONTROLS INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS LP; 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.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01023-RMG (D.S.C.,
February 21, 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) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF 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 Wall 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.
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.
BASF Corp. is a chemicals company based in New Jersey.
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.
Daikin America Inc. is a chemicals company based in Alabama.
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.
Johnson Controls Inc. is a global diversified technology firm based
in Wisconsin.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products based
in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
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.
Perimeter Solutions LP is a chemicals company headquartered in St.
Louis, Missouri.
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. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chandler B. Duncan, Esq.
Andrew T. Kagan, Esq.
Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq.
KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC
295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6
Humacao, PR, 00791
Telephone: (939) 220-2424
Facsimile: (939) 220-2477
MDL 2873: Hamilton Sues Over Exposure to PFAS From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD HAMILTON, 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.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01063-RMG (D.S.C.,
February 22, 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) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF 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 Hamilton 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.
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.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products based
in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
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.
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. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Hochman, Esq.
THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC
5411 McPherson Rd., Ste. 110
Laredo, TX 78041
Telephone: (956) 704-5187
Facsimile: (956) 368-1343
MDL 2873: Hester Suit Alleges PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT HESTER, 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.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORP.; 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.; DAIKIN
AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; JOHNSON CONTROLS INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS LP; 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.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01042-RMG (D.S.C.,
February 21, 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) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF 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 colon cancer.
The Hester 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.
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.
BASF Corp. is a chemicals company based in New Jersey.
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.
Daikin America Inc. is a chemicals company based in Alabama.
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.
Johnson Controls Inc. is a global diversified technology firm based
in Wisconsin.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products based
in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
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.
Perimeter Solutions LP is a chemicals company headquartered in St.
Louis, Missouri.
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. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chandler B. Duncan, Esq.
Andrew T. Kagan, Esq.
Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq.
KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC
295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6
Humacao, PR, 00791
Telephone: (939) 220-2424
Facsimile: (939) 220-2477
MDL 2873: Kaleleiki Sues Over AFFF Products' Risk to Human Health
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DARREN KALELEIKI, 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.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01061-RMG (D.S.C.,
February 22, 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) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF 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 Kaleleiki 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.
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.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products based
in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
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.
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. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Hochman, Esq.
THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC
5411 McPherson Rd., Ste. 110
Laredo, TX 78041
Telephone: (956) 704-5187
Facsimile: (956) 368-1343
MDL 2873: Mcdowell Sues Over Side Effects of Using AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMY MCDOWELL, 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.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01062-RMG (D.S.C.,
February 22, 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) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF 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 ulcerative colitis.
The Mcdowell 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.
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.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products based
in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
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.
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. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Hochman, Esq.
THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC
5411 McPherson Rd., Ste. 110
Laredo, TX 78041
Telephone: (956) 704-5187
Facsimile: (956) 368-1343
MDL 2873: Resendez Sues Over Firefighters' Exposure to PFAS
-----------------------------------------------------------
REY RESENDEZ, 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.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORP.; 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.; DAIKIN
AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; JOHNSON CONTROLS INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS LP; 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.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01030-RMG (D.S.C.,
February 21, 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) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF 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 testicular cancer.
The Resendez 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.
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.
BASF Corp. is a chemicals company based in New Jersey.
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.
Daikin America Inc. is a chemicals company based in Alabama.
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.
Johnson Controls Inc. is a global diversified technology firm based
in Wisconsin.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products based
in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
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.
Perimeter Solutions LP is a chemicals company headquartered in St.
Louis, Missouri.
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. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chandler B. Duncan, Esq.
Andrew T. Kagan, Esq.
Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq.
KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC
295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6
Humacao, PR, 00791
Telephone: (939) 220-2424
Facsimile: (939) 220-2477
MDL 2873: Starkey Sues Over Injuries Sustained From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT STARKEY, 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.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01015-RMG (D.S.C.,
February 21, 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) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF 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, prostate
cancer, and colon cancer.
The Starkey 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.
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.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products based
in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
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.
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. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Hochman, Esq.
THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC
5411 McPherson Rd., Ste. 110
Laredo, TX 78041
Telephone: (956) 704-5187
Facsimile: (956) 368-1343
MDL 2873: Stewart Suit Claims Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD STEWART, 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.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORP.; 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.; DAIKIN
AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; JOHNSON CONTROLS INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS LP; 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.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01012-RMG (D.S.C.,
February 21, 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) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF 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 Stewart 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.
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.
BASF Corp. is a chemicals company based in New Jersey.
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.
Daikin America Inc. is a chemicals company based in Alabama.
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.
Johnson Controls Inc. is a global diversified technology firm based
in Wisconsin.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products based
in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
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.
Perimeter Solutions LP is a chemicals company headquartered in St.
Louis, Missouri.
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. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chandler B. Duncan, Esq.
Andrew T. Kagan, Esq.
Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq.
KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC
295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6
Humacao, PR, 00791
Telephone: (939) 220-2424
Facsimile: (939) 220-2477
MDL 2873: Stringer Suit Claims Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
KYLE STRINGER, 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.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORP.; 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.; DAIKIN
AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; JOHNSON CONTROLS INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS LP; 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.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01014-RMG (D.S.C.,
February 21, 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) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF 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 ulcerative colitis.
The Stringer 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.
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.
BASF Corp. is a chemicals company based in New Jersey.
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.
Daikin America Inc. is a chemicals company based in Alabama.
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.
Johnson Controls Inc. is a global diversified technology firm based
in Wisconsin.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products based
in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
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.
Perimeter Solutions LP is a chemicals company headquartered in St.
Louis, Missouri.
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. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chandler B. Duncan, Esq.
Andrew T. Kagan, Esq.
Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq.
KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC
295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6
Humacao, PR, 00791
Telephone: (939) 220-2424
Facsimile: (939) 220-2477
MDL 2873: Tanner Sues Over AFFF Products' Risk to Human Health
--------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS TANNER, 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.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01019-RMG (D.S.C.,
February 21, 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) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF 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 Tanner 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.
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.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products based
in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
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.
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. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Hochman, Esq.
THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC
5411 McPherson Rd., Ste. 110
Laredo, TX 78041
Telephone: (956) 704-5187
Facsimile: (956) 368-1343
MDL 2873: Waugh Sues Over Firefighters' Exposure to PFAS From AFFF
------------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER WAUGH, 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.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORP.; 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.; DAIKIN
AMERICA INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; JOHNSON CONTROLS INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS LP; 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.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01025-RMG (D.S.C.,
February 21, 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 her exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF 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 ulcerative colitis.
The Waugh 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.
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.
BASF Corp. is a chemicals company based in New Jersey.
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.
Daikin America Inc. is a chemicals company based in Alabama.
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.
Johnson Controls Inc. is a global diversified technology firm based
in Wisconsin.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products based
in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
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.
Perimeter Solutions LP is a chemicals company headquartered in St.
Louis, Missouri.
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. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chandler B. Duncan, Esq.
Andrew T. Kagan, Esq.
Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq.
KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC
295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6
Humacao, PR, 00791
Telephone: (939) 220-2424
Facsimile: (939) 220-2477
MDL 2873: Wicke Suit Alleges PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN W. WICKE, 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.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01022-RMG (D.S.C.,
February 21, 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) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF 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 and prostate
cancer.
The Wicke 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.
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.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products based
in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
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.
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. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Hochman, Esq.
THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC
5411 McPherson Rd., Ste. 110
Laredo, TX 78041
Telephone: (956) 704-5187
Facsimile: (956) 368-1343
MDL 3040: Zigler's Testimony in Product Liability Suit Excluded
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chrysler Pacifica Fire
Recall Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 3040), Case No.
2:22-cv-03040-DML-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge David Lawson
entered an order granting the Defendant's motions to exclude expert
testimony of Bradley Zigler at the class certification stage.
The Court further entered an order that:
-- The Defendant's motions to exclude the opinions of Edward
Stockton at the class certification phase of the case are
denied.
-- The Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the opinions of Denise
Martin at the class certification phase of the case is granted
in part and denied in part.
-- Dr. Martin's opinion that potential class members suffered "no
damages" if they have not experienced a vehicle fire is
excluded. Her criticism of the methodology of Stockton's loss-
of-use damage computation model is admissible.
-- The Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the opinions of Eldon
Leapheart at the class certification phase of the case is
granted.
The plaintiffs' automotive engineering expert Bradley Zigler is
qualified to render an opinion on common defects, but his opinion
to that effect does not satisfy the requirements of Evidence Rule
702.
The opinions of Edward Stockton on a method of calculating
class-wide damages are admissible.
The opinion of Denise Martin to the effect that the plaintiffs
suffered "no damages" if they have not yet experienced a
catastrophic vehicle fire does not satisfy the requirements of
Evidence Rule 702, but her opinion that Edward Stockton's
loss-of-use damages model is unreliable for various reasons is
admissible. The opinions of Eldon Leapheart on the question of a
common defect in the class vehicles and a remedy of replacing the
battery pack do not satisfy the requirements of Evidence Rule 702.
The plaintiffs bring claims of deceptive practices and warranty
breaches against defendant FCA, which is the manufacturer of the
Chrysler Pacifica Plug-in Hybrid minivan. The plaintiffs say that,
either due to defects in their design or problems during the
manufacturing process, the large battery plant incorporated into
the powertrain of the vehicles has a tendency spontaneously to
enter a "thermal runaway" state resulting in combustion or
explosion of the vehicle.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vUYEn9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
NATIONAL STUDENT: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $9.95MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that National Student Clearinghouse
agreed to a $9.95 million class action lawsuit settlement to
resolve claims that it failed to protect consumers from a 2023
MOVEit data breach.
The National Student Clearinghouse settlement benefits individuals
whose Social Security numbers were included in the files affected
by the MOVEit data breach between May 28 and May 31, 2023.
During the National Student Clearinghouse data breach, hackers
allegedly gained access to the MOVEit file transfer software used
by the company and compromised sensitive information, including
Social Security numbers.
Plaintiffs in the data breach class action lawsuit claim that
National Student Clearinghouse could have prevented the breach
through reasonable cybersecurity measures.
National Student Clearinghouse is a nonprofit organization that
helps students, schools and employers access educational data.
National Student Clearinghouse has not admitted any wrongdoing but
agreed to a $9.95 million class action settlement to resolve the
allegations.
Under the terms of the National Student Clearinghouse settlement,
class members can receive reimbursement for ordinary and
extraordinary losses resulting from the data breach.
Class members can receive up to $2,500 for ordinary losses,
including bank fees, communication charges, credit monitoring costs
and up to four hours of lost time at a rate of $25 per hour. Class
members who experienced extraordinary losses can receive up to
$10,000 for larger losses, including unreimbursed monetary losses,
fraud damages, professional fees and credit repair fees.
Class members who do not wish to claim reimbursement can receive a
$100 alternative cash payment, which may increase or decrease
depending on the number of claims filed.
In addition to monetary benefits, all class members are eligible
for two years of free credit monitoring and identity theft
protection services through the settlement. These services include
three-bureau monitoring, real-time alerts and up to $1 million in
identity theft insurance.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is April 25, 2025.
The final approval hearing for the National Student Clearinghouse
data breach settlement is scheduled for May 12, 2025.
To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by May 26, 2025.
Who's Eligible
Individuals whose Social Security number was included in the files
affected by the MOVEit security incident between May 28 and May 31,
2023.
Potential Award
Up to $12,500 in reimbursement.
Proof of Purchase
Documentation of losses, such as bank statements, invoices,
receipts or phone records.
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
05/26/2025
Case Name
In re: MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No.
1:23-md-03083-ABD-PGL, and Evangelista v. National Student
Clearinghouse, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-12993-ADB, both in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Final Hearing
05/12/2025
Settlement Website
NSCSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
MOVEit National Student Clearinghouse
Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 2878
Portland, OR 97208-2878
(888) 366-9156
Class Counsel
Charles E. Schaffer
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
E. Michelle Drake
BERGER MONTAGUE P.C.
Karen H. Riebel
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
Douglas J. McNamara
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
Gary F. Lynch
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
Defense Counsel
Neil K. Gilman
Leslie Kostyshak
Perie Reiko Koyama
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP [GN]
NETCAP INC: Parties in Baus Must File Status Report
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE BAUS, v. NETCAP,
INC. D/B/A VANGUARD VEHICLE ARMOR, Case No. 2:24-cv-00227-LK (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge Brian Tsuchida entered an order on defense
counsel's motion to withdraw directing counsel to contact primary
defense counsel and directing parties to file a status report:
(1) Defense counsel avers Defendant is represented by "primary
counsel" in Chicago. Defense counsel shall thus contact, as
soon as possible, "primary counsel" in Chicago to advise
primary counsel to either appear or arrange for new counsel
to represent Defendant herein. Primary counsel shall file a
notice of appearance, arrange for new counsel to appear, or
explain why neither can be achieved by Feb. 21, 2025.
(2) Defense counsel shall file a sealed affidavit or
declaration, for the Court's review only, that sets forth
with specificity the factual basis of defense counsel's
withdrawal motion by Feb. 20, 2025.
(3) Counsel for both Plaintiff and Defendant shall jointly file
a status report by Feb. 28, 2025, that addresses Phase I
discovery and discovery as to class members and class
certification because these discovery matters are related
to the withdrawal motion.
Vanguard offers extended automotive warranty plans and services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=z1oVfo at no extra
charge.[CC]
NEW YORK: Bass Appeals Court Order in Civil Rights Suit to 2nd Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHANN ALEXANDER BASS is taking an appeal from a court order in the
lawsuit entitled Johann Alexander Bass, as an un-convicted pretrial
detainee, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Swartwood, Hearing Officer, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 9:25-cv-82, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of
prisoners' civil rights.
On Jan. 17, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis.
On Feb. 10, 2025, Judge Mae A. D'Agostino entered an Order granting
the Plaintiff's motion for leave. The Court ruled that if the
Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, he must file an
amended complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of the
filing of this Decision and Order. If the Plaintiff timely files an
amended complaint, this matter be returned to the Court for further
review. If the Plaintiff fails to timely file an amended complaint
as directed, the Clerk shall enter judgment indicating that the
action is dismissed without prejudice without further order of this
Court for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
and for failure to comply with this Decision and Order. In that
event, the Clerk is directed to close this case.
The appellate case is captioned Bass v. Swartwood, Case No. 25-503,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed
on March 4, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JOHANN ALEXANDER BASS, as an un-convicted
pretrial detainee, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
appears pro se.
NOGIN COMMERCE: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NOGIN COMMERCE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-01816 (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2025) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for the failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.modcloth.com, to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.
On August 22, 2024, the Plaintiff visited Defendant's website to
purchase a top (Timeless Falling Leaves Top). Despite Plaintiff's
efforts, however, she 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 her from
having an unimpeded shopping experience.
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, says the suit.
The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Nogin Commerce, Inc. operates the website that offers clothing,
accessories, and home decor.[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
OB GOLF: Anding Suit Seeks Withheld Tips for Restaurant Servers
---------------------------------------------------------------
KELSEY ANDING and MICHELLE MATHEY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OB GOLF, LLC, D/B/A
X-GOLF and MICHAEL O'SHEA, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01843 (N.D.
Ill., February 21, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants
for keeping a portion of employee tips in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.
Plaintiffs Anding and Mathey worked for the Defendants as servers
from September 2021 until March 2022 and from January 2022 until
June 2024, respectively.
OB Golf, LLC, doing business as X-Golf, is a golf training facility
owner and operator, headquartered in Downers Grove, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Richard J. Miller, Esq.
MILLER LAW FIRM, PC
1051 Perimeter Drive, Suite 400
Schaumburg, IL 60173
Telephone: (847) 995-1205
Email: miller@millerlawfirm.org
ODIN PROPERTIES: Collects Rent Despite Alleged Unsafe Structure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Holden Walter-Warner of The Real Deal, reports that tenants at a
Philadelphia apartment building are banding together to take the
rare step of suing their landlord.
Residents of the 71-unit Bentley Manor in West Oak Lane filed a
class action lawsuit against Odin Properties and ownership entities
tied to the company, WHYY reported. The lawsuit was filed second
week of March in the Common Pleas Court.
The plaintiffs allege Odin collected rent despite the city's
Department of Licenses and Inspections labeling the property as an
"unsafe structure," citing loose and missing bricks, as well as a
"leaning parapet" on the roof. The determination was made in
November, after which Odin had 30 days to make repairs.
In Philadelphia, landlords are not allowed to collect rent if
buildings are not compliant with safety and habitability standards.
Odin is accused of failing to appeal the 30-day notice it received
or make the necessary repairs, therefore forfeiting its right to
collect rent.
But Odin continued collecting for four months, according to the
lawsuit. The complaint demands Odin make the required repairs and
return the unlawful rent paid to the landlord.
"We care deeply about our residents and take tremendous pride in
our relationships with them, so we take any allegations to the
contrary very seriously," Odin chief executive officer Philip
Balderston said in a statement. "We are carefully considering the
allegations of the recent complaint and plan to respond
appropriately."
Odin did receive a commercial building permit two weeks ago,
suggesting it may be about to make structural repairs to the
property.
Odin owns and manages more than 1,500 apartments in Philadelphia.
It also has a history of receiving tenant complaints regarding
living conditions. Last year, Renters United Philadelphia held a
protest demanding the landlord make repairs at affordable
apartments across its portfolio, an action that came after tenants
petitioned for a rent and eviction freeze at all of Odin's
properties until repairs were made. [GN]
OPTOTRAFFIC LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Excessive Traffic Penalties
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit claims Optotraffic has improperly charged traffic
violators a $100 fee, exceeding the maximum civil penalty allowed
by Georgia law.
The 16-page Optotraffic lawsuit alleges that the company, which
operates road safety cameras in many designated school areas
throughout Georgia, has "blatantly" violated the state's School
Zone Electronic Enforcement Statute by collecting unauthorized and
unlawfully excessive fees from residents.
According to the class action suit, the statute sets a $75 cap on
civil penalties charged to consumers after their first time being
photographed driving at excessive speeds in a school zone.
Nevertheless, Optotraffic routinely assesses $100 civil penalties
for school zone traffic violations, directly contravening Georgia
law, the case contends.
The complaint goes on to claim that Optotraffic has used deceptive
tactics to collect unauthorized fees from consumers.
On top of the $75 maximum fee, state law allows companies to charge
violators up to $25 for the "electronic processing" of a citation
payment, the filing says. Optotraffic assesses the full $25 allowed
by law as part of its uniform $100 civil penalty for traffic
violations, the lawsuit shares.
However, the suit asserts that the company has misrepresented the
$25 electronic payment processing fee because the amount "in no
way" reflects Optotraffic's actual processing costs, which are
"already covered through other revenue streams" the defendant
receives from clients and through other fees. Indeed, the case
alleges the company has "conducted no due diligence to quantify or
identify" its actual electronic payment processing costs.
In addition, the complaint argues that Optotraffic collects an
added $4.95 fee from consumers who pay their ticket online, which
the filing claims is not authorized by law or properly disclosed to
consumers on the citation.
The plaintiff, a Georgia resident, says she received a citation in
the mail from the Bibb County Sheriff's Office, which alleged that
she had been speeding in a school zone and demanded payment of a
"civil penalty in the amount of $100." As the complaint tells it,
the citation led the woman to believe the payment would be made to
the sheriff's office, as there was no mention of Optotraffic's
involvement. Likewise, the citation "said nothing" about an
additional online payment fee, the filing claims.
According to the suit, the plaintiff paid the $100 penalty as well
as the undisclosed $4.95 online payment charge for a total of
$104.95.
The case asserts that Optotraffic has unlawfully appropriated
millions of dollars from Georgia residents under the "guise of a
governmental entity."
The lawsuit looks to represent all individuals issued a citation by
Optotraffic in Georgia who paid $100 or more in civil penalties and
fees for the citation. [GN]
OPW FUELING: Canales Must Supplement Responses
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ovis Matamoros Canales, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. OPW Fueling
Components LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00459-BO-RJ (E.D.N.C.), the Hon.
Judge Robert Numbers, II entered an order granting in part OPW's
motion to compel the Plaintiff Canales to answer supplement his
discovery responses.
Canales must supplement his responses as required by this order no
later than 14 days after entry of this order.
Canales maintains that his objections to the discovery requests are
meritorious. The court finds OPW's argument persuasive and thus
will grant its motion to compel.
OPW designs and manufactures fueling equipment.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tfBmw0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
OPW FUELING: Class Cert Scheduling Deadlines Extended
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ovis Matamoros Canales, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. OPW Fueling
Components, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00459-BO-RJ (E.D.N.C.), the Hon.
Judge Robert Numbers, II entered an order that the following class
certification scheduling deadlines are extended until 60 days after
the court resolves the motions at D.E. 141, 147, 157, and 159:
1. The completion of Phase I discovery related to Canales's
individual claims under the North Carolina Retaliatory
Employment Discrimination Act and under North Carolina
public policy, which are not brought on behalf of others
similarly situated.
2. The completion of a mediated settlement conference.
The remainder of the motion is denied. All other deadlines remain
unchanged.
Having considered the parties' filings, the court concludes that
they have diligently attempted to meet the deadlines in the
Scheduling Order. But the court also concludes that the requested
relief related to Canales's motion for class certification are
moot.
By filing that motion, Canales has obviated the need for an
extension of time to do so or an extension of time to conduct
additional discovery related to it. So the court grants the Joint
Motion in part.
The court previously entered a Scheduling Order that explained the
scope of discovery and set deadlines for various pretrial aspects
of this case. D.E 111. The scheduling order bifurcated discovery
Shortly before the close of discovery, the parties jointly moved to
hold various deadlines in the Scheduling Order in abeyance pending
the outcome of several motions.
Yet while the Joint Motion was pending, Canales asked the court to
conditionally certify a class under the Federal Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. That
filing caused Defendant OPW Fueling Components, LLC to withdraw
their consent to the request to extend the motion to file for class
certification and the request to extend the portion of Phase I
discovery dealing with a potential class certification motion. It
argues that those portions of the Joint Motion are now moot given
that Canales moved for class certification. OPW, however, continued
to seek an extension of the Phase I period to conduct discovery
related to Canales’s individual claims.
OPW designs and manufactures fueling equipment.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YiaRCo at no extra
charge.[CC]
ORIGIN MATERIALS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC announces that a shareholder class action lawsuit
has been filed against Origin Materials, Inc. (NASDAQ: ORGN)
("Origin") on behalf of certain investors who purchased shares of
the company's stock between February 23, 2023 and August 9, 2023
(the "Class Period").
Click link to receive additional information:
https://kaskelalaw.com/case/origin-materials/
According to the complaint, on February 17, 2021, Origin announced
that it was undertaking a capital project to build the company's
largest and first commercial-scale plant, called Origin 2, which
would produce paraxylene (PX). The defendants then represented that
Origin 2's construction would begin by mid-2023 and would be
operational in mid-2025, and that the plant was expected to supply
most of the Company's products from 2025-2027.
However, the complaint charges defendants with actively misleading
investors during the Class Period by failing to disclose that (i)
Origin would not be able to meet its previously announced timeline
for the construction of the Origin 2 plant; (ii) demand for PX had
dropped such that it would not be the production focus of Origin 2;
(iii) Origin could not construct Origin 2 at its previously
disclosed cost; (iv) Origin could not construct Origin 2 at the
scale it had previously identified; and (v) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and
lacked a reasonable basis.
As detailed in the complaint, on August 9, 2023, Origin shocked the
market when it reported its financial results for second quarter of
2023 and disclosed that Origin 2 was not progressing towards a
mid-2025 start-up as previously represented, and that the plant
would be smaller in scale than represented, cost more, and no
longer produce its target product, PX. Following this disclosure,
shares of the company's stock fell $2.88 per share, or over 66% in
value, to close at $1.45 per share on August 10, 2023.
The investigation seeks to determine -- on behalf of Origin's
current shareholders -- whether the members of Origin's board of
directors violated the securities laws and/or breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the above alleged misconduct
and misstatements.
Current Origin stockholders who purchased or acquired shares of the
company's stock prior to February 23, 2023 are encouraged to
contact Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne Bell,
Esq.) to receive additional information about their legal rights
and options at (484) 229 -- 0750, or by clicking on the link or by
copying and pasting the link into your browser:
https://kaskelalaw.com/case/origin-materials/
Kaskela Law LLC exclusively represents investors in securities
fraud, corporate governance, and merger & acquisition litigation on
a contingent basis. For additional information about Kaskela Law
LLC please visit www.kaskelalaw.com. This notice may constitute
attorney advertising in certain jurisdictions.
CONTACT:
D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
KASKELA LAW LLC
18 Campus Blvd., Suite 100
Newtown Square, PA 19073
(484) 229-0750
www.kaskelalaw.com [GN]
PACS GROUP: 1199SEIU Appointed as Lead Plaintiff in Manchin
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER MANCHIN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PACS GROUP, INC., JASON MURRAY, DERICK APT, MARK HANCOCK,
JACQUELINE MILLARD, TAYLOR LEAVITT, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.,
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, TRUIST SECURITIES, INC., RBC CAPITAL
MARKETS, LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, STEPHENS INC., KEYBANC
CAPITAL MARKETS INC., OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC., and REGIONS
SECURITIES LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-08636-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Lewis Liman entered an order appointing 1199SEIU Health Care
Employees Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and appointing its
counsel, Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP, as class counsel.
The Court denies the motions of Christopher Manchin and Yongfen
Min. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Dkt. Nos.
20, 23, and 26.
The case alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Pension Fund is the party with the largest financial interest
that also satisfies all other requirements for appointment as lead
plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995 (the "PSLRA"). The Court therefore appoints the Pension Fund
as lead plaintiff and appoints its counsel, Labaton Keller Sucharow
LLP, as class counsel.
On Nov. 13, 2024, Manchin filed suit against PACS Group, certain of
its officers and directors, and certain of its underwriters.
On Nov. 21, 2024, the New Orleans Employees’ Retirement System
filed suit against PACS Group, certain of its officers and
directors, and certain of its underwriters.
PACS Group operates senior care facilities, skilled nursing
facilities, and assisted living facilities in the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UEKqd3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
PERPAY INC: Dominguez Balks at Unlawful Telemarketing Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARK DOMINGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PERPAY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:25-cv-00467-WQH-MMP (S.D. Cal., February 28, 2025) is a class
action against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant engages in telemarketing
text messages to promote its goods and services at unlawful times.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into
the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to
Plaintiff and the Class members. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies.
Perpay, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
1515 NE 26th Street
Wilton Manors, FL 33305
Telephone: (754) 444-7539
E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com
PREMIUM LOUNGE: Wee-Ellis Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
------------------------------------------------------------------
MELCHION WEE-ELLIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Premium Lounge, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-01229 (E.D.N.Y., March 4, 2025) is a civil rights action
against Premium Lounge for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, https://www.premiumloungeny.com,
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the
New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights
Law.
On February 26, 2025, while searching online for a local store that
sells original footwear from popular brands, the Plaintiff
discovered the Defendant's website. As he navigated the site, he
encountered several significant accessibility issues, including
unlabeled links and buttons, as well as images lacking appropriate
descriptive alternative texts. He decided to purchase the UGG
Tasman Slippers and added the item to his cart. However, when a
dialog box opened, the focus did not shift from the trigger button
to the dialog items, making it impossible for him to complete the
purchase. These access barriers have caused Premiumloungeny.com to
be inaccessible to, and not independently usable by blind and
visually-impaired persons.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Premium Lounge's policies, practices, and procedures so that its
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.
Premium Lounge, Inc. operates the website that offers an array of
apparel and footwear.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael H. Cohen, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
68-29 Main Street,
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (917) 437-3737
E-mail: mcohen@ealg.law
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Pinto Due May 5
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pinto v. The Procter &
Gamble Company, Case No. 2:24-cv-07700 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Nov. 4,
2024), the Hon. Judge Joanna Seybert entered an order setting a
date for a motion for class certification by May 4, 2026.
The nature of suit states Contract Product Liability.
Procter & Gamble is an American multinational consumer goods
corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, founded in 1837 by
William Procter and James Gamble.[CC]
PROGRESSIVE CORP: Pryce Wins Bid Partial Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CECELIA PRYCE suing
individually on her own behalf and representatively on behalf of a
class of plaintiffs similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION;
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; and PROGRESSIVE DIRECT
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-01467-FB-JAM (E.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Frederic Block entered an order granting Pryce's motion
for partial summary judgment on liability only with respect to the
breach-of-contract class claim.
Pryce's individual claim is consolidated with this class claim.
Progressive's motions for summary judgment are denied as academic.
Progressive's motion to exclude expert testimony is denied. The
remaining issues of breach-of-contract damages to the Class and
claims administration are referred to Magistrate Judge Marutollo.
Because there is no suggestion that Progressive willfully violated
the No-Fault Statute, the damages to the Class are congruent.
Accordingly, Pryce’s motion for partial summary judgment on
Progressive's liability to the Class for breach-of-contract is
granted, but the GBL section 349 claim is dismissed. It necessarily
follows that both Progressive's motion for summary judgment on the
breach-of-contract claim and Pryce's motion for partial summary
judgment on the GBL section349 claim are denied.
Judge Dearie then defined the Class in the following fashion,
designed to capture all class members who had faced this injury:
All "Eligible Injured Persons," as that term is defined by 11 NYCRR
sections 65-1.1–65-1.3, covered under a policy of insurance
issued or administered by Progressive Casualty Insurance Company,
and subject to the provisions of Insurance Law section 5102 who
earned gross monthly wages in excess of two thousand dollars per
month at any point during the period in which they were covered,
who have submitted First Party Benefit claims to, and received
payment from, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company for First
Party Benefits that included claims for lost wages, and which,
after paying at least one month of First Party wage benefits,
Progressive Casualty Insurance Company claimed full exhaustion of
mandatory $50,000 coverage, whether defined as Personal Injury
Protection(PIP), no-fault coverage, or Economic Loss Benefits, on
or after March 13, 2013.
Excluded from the Class are the defendant company; any entity that
has a controlling interest in the defendant company; and any
current or former directors, officers and counsel of the defendant
company.
On March 3, 2019, Pryce initiated this litigation, alleging that
Progressive's use of wage calculation formula wrongly deprived her
of benefit payments by prematurely exhausting her $50,000 coverage
limit. Pryce contends that Progressive's use of this formula (1)
violates the No-Fault Statute's requirements for automobile
insurers to provide certain prescribed benefits, (2) constitutes a
breach of Progressive's contract to provide $50,000 in coverage,
and (3) violates GBL section349 by mispresenting the company's
compliance with New York law and the benefits provided by its
insurance policy.
Progressive provides personal and commercial automobile insurance,
and other specialty property-casualty insurance products and
related services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1v8Ikc at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin P. Fitzpatrick, Esq.
MARSCHHAUSEN & FITZPATRICK, P.C.
73 Heitz Place
Hicksville, NY 11801
The Defendants are represented by:
Kymberly Kochis, Esq.
EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND
1114 Sixth Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10036
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bid for Settlement Deal Prelim. Approval Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pamela STEWART, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees of
Defendants in the State of California, v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS
CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-02043-AGS-DDL
(S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andrew Schopler entered an order
denying the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of
settlement agreement.
Tthe Court is left guessing as to whether the proposed agreement
seeks approval for the previously certified class or one of two new
class definitions that plaintiff offers.
Stewart acknowledges that this Court previously certified the
following class:
"All of Defendant's non-exempt California Patient Service
Representatives who were not compensated with one hour of pay
for all instances where they did not receive a duty-free and
uninterrupted 10-minute rest period consistent with California
law, any time between Sept. 13, 2015, and the date of
judgment."
But elsewhere Stewart defines the class as
"All current and former non-exempt Patient Service
Representatives of Defendant during the Class Settlement
Period."
And the more recent definitions include
"All non-exempt patient service representatives, while the
initially certified version included only those who were not
compensated with one hour of pay for all instances where they
did not receive a duty-free and uninterrupted 10-minute rest
period."
Quest Diagnostics offers diagnostic testing services for
physicians, hospitals, managed-care organizations.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vfsSdC at no extra
charge.[CC]
REFY BEAUTY: Herrera Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
---------------------------------------------------------------
EDERY HERRERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REFY BEAUTY INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-02204 (S.D.N.Y., March 18, 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://refybeauty.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.
Refy 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, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
REVISION SKINCARE: Girtley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
KALARI JACKSON GIRTLEY, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REVISION SKINCARE, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-02269 (N.D. Ill., March 4, 2025) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, www.revisionskincare.com, to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
On June 12, 2024, the Plaintiff visited Defendant's website to
purchase skin care products. Despite her efforts, however,
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 her from
having an unimpeded shopping experience.
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, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Revision Skincare, LLC operates the website that offers skincare
solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
RIP N DIP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Isakov Says
---------------------------------------------------------
SIMON ISAKOV, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Rip N Dip, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-01810 (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2025) is a civil rights action
against Rip N Dip for its failure to design, construct, maintain,
and operate its website, https://www.ripndipclothing.com, to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the
New York City Human Rights Law.
The complaint alleges that the website contains access barriers
that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using
keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive
and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy,
hidden elements on the web page, incorrectly formatted lists,
inaccessible contact information, changing of content without
advance warning, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible
drop-down menus, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive
elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely
with a mouse.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Rip
N Dip's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to
compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful
discrimination.
Rip N Dip, Inc. operates the website that offers products including
jackets, hoodies, shirts, pants, shorts, slippers, slides,
sneakers, boxers, beanies, backpacks, totes, skate decks and
wheels.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael H. Cohen, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
68-29 Main Street,
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (917) 437-3737
E-mail: mcohen@ealg.law
SAFELITE GROUP: Faces Key Suit Over Illegal Tobacco Surcharge
-------------------------------------------------------------
KELLY KEY, individually, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the Plan v. SAFELITE GROUP, INC. and the
SAFELITE GROUP, INC. BENEFITS ADMINISTRATOR, Case No.
2:25-cv-00279-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, March 19, 2024) challenges
Defendants' unlawful practice of charging a "tobacco surcharge"
without complying with the regulatory requirements under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
Tobacco surcharges have become more prevalent in recent years but,
to be lawful, plans can impose these surcharges only in connection
with compliant "wellness programs," meaning they must adhere to
strict rules set forth by Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 (ERISA) and the implementing regulations established by the
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury
over ten years ago in 2014.
Accordingly, the Defendants' Plan fails to clearly establish a
reasonable alternative standard, does not notify employees that
such an alternative is available, does not ensure that employees
who complete the alternative receive the "full reward," and
unlawfully shifts costs onto employees in violation of ERISA's
wellness program regulations.
The Plaintiff proposes the following Class definition, subject to
amendment as appropriate:
Tobacco Surcharge Class All individuals residing in the U.S.
who, from 2014 to the time of judgment, paid a tobacco
surcharge in connection with their participation in a health or
welfare plan offered by Defendant.
Excluded from the Class are Safelite's officers, directors,
judicial officers and their immediate family members, and
associated court staff assigned to this case.
The Plaintiff was an employee of Safelite who paid a tobacco
surcharge, of roughly $25-$35 per paycheck in connection with the
health insurance offered through Safelite during her employment.
The Plaintiff was required to pay this tobacco surcharge to
maintain health insurance under the Plan. 13. Plaintiff is a
participant in the Plan pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 1002(7). 14.
Safelite is a leading provider of vehicle glass repair,
replacement, and claims management services.
Safelite operates across all 50 states, serves millions of
customers, and specializes in mobile and in-shop auto glass
services as well as wholesale distribution of auto glass
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Derrek W. Cummings, Esq.
Larry A. Weisberg, Esq.
WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C.
2704 Commerce Dr., Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 238-5707
Facsimile: (717) 233-8133
E-mail: dcummings@weisbergcummings.com
lweisberg@weisbergcummings.com
- and -
George A. Hanson, Esq.
Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
Caleb J. Wagner, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
ricke@stuevesiegel.com
wagner@steuvesiegel.com
- and -
Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
McCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
The Flagship Building
200 Westwoods Drive
Liberty, MO 64068-1170
Telephone: (816) 781-0002
Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Case Management Deadlines in Norris Vacated
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELLYN NORRIS and A.J.
STONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Case No.
5:23-cv-01496-JWH-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Holcomb
entered an order vacating case management deadlines pending ruling
on motion to dismiss:
1. The current deadlines for the Plaintiffs to move for class
certification and for the Defendant to oppose class
certification, are vacated.
2. In the event that the Court denies Samsung's pending motion
to dismiss and allows any claims to proceed, the Parties are
directed to meet and confer within 14 days of the Court's
forthcoming order on that motion to discuss the status of
the matter.
3. The Parties are further directed to submit a joint status
report to the Court within 14 days after their conference.
Samsung manufactures electronic products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=R6e86y at no extra
charge.[CC]
SAZERAC COMPANY: Koonce Must File Class Cert Exhibits Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Koonce v. Sazerac Company,
Inc., Case No. 7:23-cv-4323-KMK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth
Karas entered an order granting the Plaintiff Koonce's request that
certain Exhibits ancillary to her motion for Class Certification be
filed under seal.
In light of Circana's or Sazerac's designation of the documents as
"Confidential" under the Protective Order, good cause exists to
permit Plaintiff to file these documents under seal. In ruling on a
motion to seal, the Court must balance the competing interests at
stake, which include the public's interest in access to judicial
documents, and the privacy interest of the party resisting
disclosure.
Sazerac is a privately held American alcoholic beverage company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wZV7s9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles D. Moore, Esq.
REESE LLP
121 N. Washington Ave., 2nd Floor
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
E-mail: cmoore@reesellp.com
SCHWEIGER DERMATOLOGY: Williams Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MILTON WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCHWEIGER DERMATOLOGY, PLLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01831 (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2025) is a
civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://www.schweigerderm.com/, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York
City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business
Law.
During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on
February 22, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Vitamin C Complexion
Serum from Defendant and to view the information on the Website,
the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him
a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full
and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public
and made available to the public. He was unable to locate pricing
and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links,
pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on
Defendant's website, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Schweiger Dermatology, PLLC operates the website that offers
skincare products.[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, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
SCOTT SEMPLE: Arpin's Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Arpin, et al., v. Scott
Semple, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01033 (D. Conn., Filed June 12,
2024), the Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill entered an order denying
without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel.
The court is aware that pro bono counsel may soon appear in one or
more of the many cases currently pending in this District related
to the conditions of confinement at Osborn CI.
If that happens, the court anticipates a motion to certify a class
action. If counsel is not appointed, or if a motion for class
certification is denied, plaintiff may file a second motion to
appoint counsel.
The nature of suit states prisoner civil rights.[CC]
SCOTT SEMPLE: Barker's Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barker v. Scott Semple, et
al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00597 (D. Conn., Filed April 3, 2024), the
Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill entered an order denying without
prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel.
The court is aware that pro bono counsel may soon appear in one or
more of the many cases currently pending in this District related
to the conditions of confinement at Osborn CI.
If that happens, the court anticipates a motion to certify a class
action. If counsel is not appointed, or if a motion for class
certification is denied, plaintiff may file a second motion to
appoint counsel.
The nature of suit states prisoner civil rights.[CC]
SCOTT SEMPLE: Batiz's Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Batiz v. Scott Semple, et
al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00343 (D. Conn., Filed March 12, 2024), the
Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill entered an order denying without
prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel.
The court is aware that pro bono counsel may soon appear in one or
more of the many cases currently pending in this District related
to the conditions of confinement at Osborn CI.
If that happens, the court anticipates a motion to certify a class
action. If counsel is not appointed, or if a motion for class
certification is denied, plaintiff may file a second motion to
appoint counsel.
The nature of suit states prisoner civil rights.[CC]
SCOTT SEMPLE: Rodriguez Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rodriguez v. Scott Semple
et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00566 (D. Conn., Filed April 2, 2024), the
Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill entered an order denying without
prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel.
The court is aware that pro bono counsel may soon appear in one or
more of the many cases currently pending in this District related
to the conditions of confinement at Osborn CI.
If that happens, the court anticipates a motion to certify a class
action. If counsel is not appointed, or if a motion for class
certification is denied, plaintiff may file a second motion to
appoint counsel.
The nature of suit states prisoner civil rights.[CC]
SDWC FINANCIAL: Faces Hauger Suit Over Ponzi Scheme
---------------------------------------------------
BRIAN HAUGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SDWC FINANCIAL, LLC, a Florida limited
liability corporation, and MEREDITH BRUCE, a Georgia individual,
Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01058-VMC (N.D. Ga., February 28,
2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of
similarly situated investors, seeking to recover funds misused,
commingled, and stolen by Drive Planning, LLC and its founder,
Russell Todd Burkhalter on the direct recommendations of Defendants
SDWC and Bruce.
According to the complaint, the Ponzi scheme was orchestrated and
carried out by Drive Planning and Burkhalter, both of whom have
recently been charged by the Securities and Exchange Commission
with originating and engaging in a $300 million Ponzi scheme that
defrauded over 2,000 investors.
The Defendants, SDWC and Ms. Bruce, a senior financial analysis
employed by SDWC, recommended that the Plaintiff and countless
others invest in Drive Planning, ignoring their risk-tolerance and
causing them to lose large sums of money. As alleged in the SEC
complaint, Burkhalter actually used the unsuspecting investors'
funds to pay earlier investors and to finance his own extravagant
lifestyle, including purchasing a multimillion-dollar yacht, luxury
cars, and private jets. The Defendants were aware, or should have
been aware, that their investors' money was unsecured and that the
investment vehicle was nothing more than a massive scheme to
defraud, says the suit.
However, Burkhalter and Drive Planning are not named in this action
because of a pending injunction that prohibits actions against them
by investors in the pending SEC Action.
SDWC FINANCIAL, LLC is a financial advisor/wealth management
firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian B. Pastor, Esq.
SONN LAW GROUP PA
3455 Peachtree Rd NE, Ste. 500
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone: (305) 912-3000 Ext. 538
Facsimile: (404) 738-1505
E-mail: BPastor@SonnLaw.com
- and -
Ross M. Good, Esq.
Shawn M. Good Esq.
The GOOD LAW GROUP
800 E. Northwest Hwy, Ste 814
Palatine, IL 60074
Telephone: (847) 577-4476
Facsimile: (800) 709-1179
E-mail: Ross@thegoodlawgroup.com
Shawn@thegoodlawgroup.com
- and -
Jeffrey Sonn, Esq.
SONN LAW GROUP PA
19495 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 607
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 912-3000
Facsimile: (786) 485-1501
E-mail: Jsonn@Sonnlaw.com
SECURITAS SECURITY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Ulloa Due Oct. 15
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL ANGEL ULLOA II, v.
SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-01752-DMR
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Donna Ryu entered a second amended case
management and pretrial order for jury trial:
-- Jury trial will begin on June 28, 2027.
-- All non-expert discovery shall be completed by Jan. 11, 2027.
-- Experts shall be disclosed and reports provided by Jan. 11,
2027.
-- Rebuttal experts shall be disclosed and reports provided by
Jan. 28, 2027.
-- All discovery from experts shall be completed by Feb. 10,
2027.
-- Motion for Class Certification Deadline is Oct. 15, 2025.
-- Motion for Class Certification Opposition is due by Dec. 23,
2025.
-- Motion for Class Certification Reply is due by Feb. 26, 2026.
-- A pretrial conference shall be held on June 16, 2027.
Securitas is a provider of custom security & guarding solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NsiOdY at no extra
charge.[CC]
SHERRY BURT: Gordon Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jimmie Leon Gordon and all
others similarly situated, v. Sherry Burt, et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-00415-JMB-SJB (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting Rule 23 class certification.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OGGR1x at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Joshua S. Smith, Esq.
Correctional Division
P.O. Box 30217
Lansing, MI 48909
SPRECKELS SUGAR: Seeks to File Brief in Opposition to Class Cert
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARNOLD SAMUEL CASTRO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SPRECKELS SUGAR COMPANY, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-00747-TWR-LR (S.D. Cal.),
the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting
supplemental brief in opposition of the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.
The Court should dismiss the Plaintiff's meal period premium and
sick pay claims (to the extent Plaintiff ever asserted such claims)
and deny Plaintiff’s motion for class certification as a whole.
The Court ordered supplemental briefing to address the following
two questions: (1) whether Plaintiff has standing to assert claims
on behalf of the putative class based on purported miscalculations
of meal period premium or sick pay; and, if not, (2) whether any
defects related to the Plaintiff's standing and the Court's subject
matter jurisdiction can be remedied through amendment. The
Plaintiff does not have standing to assert either claim, and that
lack of standing cannot be remedied through amendment of the
Complaint. As such, the putative class should not be certified.
The Court is correct to question whether Plaintiff has standing to
assert (individually or on behalf of a putative class) claims based
on purported miscalculations of meal period premiums and sick pay.
Plaintiff does not have standing to assert either claim because (1)
he failed to plead a claim for improperly calculated sick pay, and
(2) he never suffered any purportedly miscalculated meal period
premium or sick pay.
Consequently, the more prudent course is to rule the Plaintiff
lacks standing on his meal period and sick pay claims, deny class
certification,3 and let any potential plaintiff file a separate
lawsuit so this one can proceed in the ordinary course.
Spreckels operates one beet sugar factory located in Brawley,
California, and a beet seed processor located in Sheridan,
Wyoming.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 17, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CDpGA8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Carrie M. Francis, Esq.
STINSON LLP
1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 2100
Phoenix, AZ 85004-4584
Telephone: (602) 279-1600
Facsimile: (602) 240-6925
E-mail: carrie.francis@stinson.com
STIFEL FINANCIAL: Faces Class Suit Over Unfair Cash Sweep Program
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Waddell, writing for Think Advisor, reports that the filing
seeks to recover alleged damages related to Stifel's Automatic Cash
Investment Service.
-- In 2023, the firm's banking unit earned an average of 6.08% on
deposits and paid clients as little as 0.01%, the complaint
states.
-- Stifel reported in its 2024 Form 10-K that bank deposits
represent its "largest funding source."
Stifel Financial Corp. was hit with a class-action lawsuit to
recover alleged damages related to its Automatic Cash Investment
Service, which offers two automatic cash sweep programs -- the
Stifel Insured Bank Deposit Program and Stifel Insured Bank Deposit
Program for Retirement Accounts.
The class-action suit, brought by Briarwood Investments Inc. on
March 14 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, claims that the cash sweep accounts are highly lucrative
for Stifel and Stifel's banks "but pay unreasonably low interest
rates to customers." The suit was brought against Stifel Financial;
Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc.; and Stifel Bank & Trust.
In 2023, for example, "Stifel reported that its banking unit earned
an average of 6.08% interest on bank deposits, of which customer
cash swept under Stifel's cash sweep programs represented an
average of over $9 billion," the suit states.
"In exchange for its access to customer cash, however, Stifel's
banks paid rates of interest as low as 0.01%. As a result, Stifel
reported record net interest income of over $1 billion for the
year," according to the suit.
The Stifel Insured Bank Deposit, or IBD, Program sweeps cash from
non-retirement accounts, while the RIBD Program sweeps cash from
retirement accounts.
Under these programs, Stifel sweeps uninvested cash from customers'
securities accounts into interest-bearing deposit accounts at banks
affiliated with or otherwise selected by Stifel.
The sweep programs "provide several highly lucrative financial
benefits" to Stifel and its affiliated banks, the suit contends.
The affiliated banks receive substantial deposits "at a price that
may be less than other alternative funding sources available to
them," the suit states. These deposits "provide a stable source of
funds" for the affiliated banks, which they use "to support a
variety of activities, including, but not limited to, each of their
lending activities, if any."
In fact, "as Stifel reported in its 2024 Form 10-K, bank deposits
represent its 'largest funding source,' and those deposits 'are
primarily sourced by [its] multi-bank sweep program in which
clients' cash deposits in their brokerage accounts are swept into
FDIC-insured interest bearing accounts at [its] bank subsidiaries
and various third-party banks,'" the suit states.
Stifel's wholly owned subsidiaries, SN&C and SB&T, earn fees from
the sweep programs, the suit states, with SN&C receiving "an
aggregate, annual fee of up to $100 from the Affiliated Banks" for
each participating securities account.
In addition, under the IBD Program, unaffiliated banks pay SB&T "as
much as 7.00 percent annually on balances in the Deposit Accounts,"
with the account agreement giving SB&T discretion to set or reduce
the fee paid by each unaffiliated bank.
Stifel had a bank priority list in which Stifel ensures that its
affiliated banks pay as low as 0.01% and not greater than 0.25%
interest, the suit states. "Meanwhile, because of their position on
the Bank Priority Lists, the unaffiliated banks generally pay rates
of interest of 1.00% or greater." [GN]
T-MOBILE US: Class Cert Bid Filing in Zajong Modified to Oct. 9
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAULA ZAJONC, an
individual; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. T-MOBILE US, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 4:24-cv-07590-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S.
Gilliam, Jr. entered an order for class certification briefing
schedule (as modified):
1. The Plaintiff shall file any motion for class certification
on or before Oct. 9, 2025;
2. The Defendant shall file any opposition to motion for class
certification on or before Nov. 6, 2025;
3. The Plaintiff shall file any reply in support of motion for
class certification on or before Nov. 20, 2025;
4. The hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification shall take place on Dec. 11, 2025 at 2:00 p.m.
T-Mobile is an American wireless network operator.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xYjOGq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chad Greeson, Esq.
Daniel Xuli, Esq.
Matthew J. Ruza, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
Treat Towers, Suite 600
1255 Treat Boulevard
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Telephone: (925) 932-2468
E-mail: cgreeson@littler.com
dxuli@littler.com
mruza@littler.com
- and -
Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
Trevor Weinberg, Esq.
HAFFNER LAW PC
15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1520
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (213) 514-5681
E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
tw@haffnerlawyers.com
TARGET CORPORATION: Bid to Decertify Class in Davis Suit Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY DAVIS, v. TARGET
CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-00089-JFM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Murphy entered an order denying Target's motion to decertify the
class.
-- Target's motion to exclude expert testimony and opinions from
Robert Radwin and Liesl Fox is denied.
-- Mr. Davis's deposition testimony did not alter his legal
claims. Mr. Davis's lawsuit seeks overtime damages for unpaid
walking time under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA).
-- Dr. Radwin's analysis quantifies the walking time at issue.
Dr. Fox's analysis calculates the overtime damages owed to
class members for this walking time. The Court agree with Mr.
Davis that both Dr. Radwin's and Dr. Fox's opinions directly
bear on facts at issue in this litigation. Both opinions
easily meet the standard of Rule 702. Accordingly, Target's
motion is denied.
-- Mr. Davis's motion for partial summary judgment is granted.
Target's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and
denied in part. The time during which class members walk from
the warehouse entrance to their assigned home departments
before their scheduled shifts, and from their home-department
time clocks to the warehouse exit after clocking out at the
end of their shifts, is compensable as "hours worked" under
the PMWA. Target cannot assert a de minimis defense to
overtime liability under the PMWA. The damages case will
proceed.
-- Target's motion for summary judgment as to the 2,195 class
members without overtime damages is granted in that the 2,195
class members identified as having no overtime damages through
Dec. 30, 2023, are dismissed without prejudice.
On Dec. 1, 2023, the Court certified the following class pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3):
"All Progression Team Members who have been employed by Target
at its Chambersburg Distribution Center at any time since
November 29, 2019."
The Court cannot agree that Mr. Davis's prior retail theft
convictions create a conflict between him and the class in a
lawsuit for overtime compensation under the PMWA. Mr. Davis remains
an adequate class representative. Decertification is not justified
on adequacy grounds.
Mr. Davis seeks overtime compensation under the PMWA for unpaid
walking time.
Target is an American retail corporation operating a chain of
discount department stores and hypermarkets.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gUe4WK at no extra
charge.[CC]
TD BANK: Fails to Protect Customers' Personal Info, Crumpe Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
EARL CRUMPE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TD BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-01566 (D.N.J., February 28, 2025) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiff seeking damages for the injuries that Defendant's
negligence have and will cause, as well as injunctive relief to
ensure that the data Defendant continues to store will be protected
by reasonable data security practices.
According to the complaint, a TD Bank employee obtained
unauthorized access to TD's network beginning on August 2022, and
absconded with personally identifying information, including highly
sensitive financial information. Criminals can now sell the
victims' data on the black market for the purpose of stealing their
identities. None of this would have occurred if TD Bank had
implemented reasonable data security measures, alleges the suit.
As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class members
have been and must continue to be vigilant and review their credit
reports for incidents of identity theft, and educate themselves
about security freezes, fraud alerts, and other steps to protect
themselves against identity theft.
TD Bank, N.A. is an American national bank with its principal place
of business in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq.
Neil Grossman, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 578-5582
E-mail: mboyle@bgandg.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
TFI INTERNATIONAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 13
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of
TFI International Inc. (NYSE: TFII).
Shareholders who purchased shares of TFII during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead
plaintiff appointment. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.
CONTACT US HERE:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/tfi-international-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=137131&from=3
CLASS PERIOD: April 26, 2024 to February 19, 2025
ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was losing small
and medium business customers; (2) as a result, the Company's
TForce revenue was declining; (3) TFI was experiencing difficulties
managing its costs; (4) as a result of the foregoing, the
profitability of its largest business segment was declining; and
(5) 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.
DEADLINE: May 13, 2025 Shareholders should not delay in registering
for this class action. Register your information here:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/tfi-international-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=137131&from=3
NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who
purchased shares of TFII during the timeframe listed above, you
will be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you
with status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The
deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is May 13, 2025. There is
no cost or obligation to you to participate in this case.
WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is a nationally recognized
class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of
all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and
illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to
ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices
and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery
on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or
misleading statements or the omission of material information by a
company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (646) 453-8903 [GN]
TUFT & NEEDLE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Chebul Due July 8
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMILY CHEBUL, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TUFT & NEEDLE,
LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02707-JLS-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Josephine Staton entered an order granting joint stipulation
regarding motion for class certification and to modify case
schedule:
Event Date
Last Day to File Motion for Class July 8, 2025
Certification:
Last Day to File Opposition to Motion Aug. 11, 2025
for Class Certification:
Last Day to File Reply in Support of Sept. 8, 2025
Motion for Class Certification:
Fact Discovery Cutoff: Jan. 9, 2026
Last Day to File Motions (Excluding Jan. 23, 2026
Daubert Motions and all other Motions
in Limine):
Last Day to Serve Initial Expert Reports: Jan. 23, 2026
Last Day to Conduct Settlement March 11, 2026
Proceedings:
Final Pretrial Conference: June 18, 2026
Tuft & Needle is a manufacturer of mattresses and craft beds.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 23, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1kFkOY at no extra
charge.[CC]
TUYA INC: Court Grants Motion for Judgment in Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A&O Shearman, in an article for JDSupra, reports that On March 7,
2025, Judge John P. Cronan of the Southern District of New York
granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings in a putative class
action asserting claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") against a Chinese software
company (the "Company") and certain of its directors, officers, and
underwriters. Lian v. Tuya Inc., et al., 22-cv-6792 (JPC) (S.D.N.Y.
Mar. 7, 2025). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made material
misstatements and omissions regarding third-party marketplace
activities of customers licensing the Company's software service.
The Court granted defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings,
holding that plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege any false or
misleading statements.
Plaintiffs, shareholders who allegedly invested in the Company
pursuant to its 2021 IPO, alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act based on purported misleading statements that
allegedly overstated the success of the Company's software
services. Specifically, plaintiffs relied on an independent
cybersecurity firm's report -- which purportedly exposed misconduct
by numerous of the Company's customers -- to allege that defendants
failed to disclose that a material percentage of the Company's
customers participated in a widespread "fake review scheme" on a
certain third-party e-commerce platform to improve sales metrics of
smart devices developed under the Company's license. Plaintiffs
alleged that this fake review scheme led the third-party e-commerce
platform to ban several of the Company's major customers and their
products, causing the Company's share price to decline
significantly. The Court previously granted in part and denied in
part defendants' motion to dismiss, declining at that time to
consider defendants' argument that none of the alleged
misrepresentations were false or misleading because defendants "did
not properly present those arguments in their opening brief."
Defendants then moved for judgment on the pleadings raising, among
other things, this same argument.
The Court granted defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings,
holding that plaintiffs failed to allege any false or misleading
statements. In particular, the Court held that plaintiffs failed to
identify any language in the Company's Registration Statement that
could have plausibly suggested to a reasonable investor that the
fake review scheme did not exist. The Court determined that the
alleged misstatements suffered from a "mismatch" in subject matter
and specificity vis-à-vis the alleged fake review scheme, and that
alleged statements about the Company's marketing activities and
business with its customers were not implicit assurances that the
Company's customers themselves were not engaging in independent
violations of the third-party e-commerce platform's policies.
In so holding, the Court emphasized that the alleged misconduct was
committed solely by third parties, and that reasonable investors
likely understand that issuers lack special insight into the
alleged misconduct of third parties with whom they have arms-length
business relationships. The Court, while noting that it respects
that Section 11's "strict-liability operation represents an
intentional policy choice by Congress," emphasized that adopting
plaintiffs' "sweeping theory of falsity" would encourage less
transparency by issuers, not more, which is at odds with the
purposes of the Securities Act. The Court further observed that
"[i]f there is no realistic way to avoid liability for speaking on
a topic, issuers might simply choose not to speak on that topic at
all. That result would risk denying to investors valuable
information about an issuer's business that otherwise would have
been disclosed."
Accordingly, the Court held that plaintiffs failed to identify any
false or misleading statements in the Company's Registration
Statement and determined that it was unnecessary to address
defendants' alternate argument that the alleged fake review scheme
was unknowable as a general matter. The Court did, however, grant
plaintiffs leave to file a further amended complaint, but only if
they could in good faith correct the identified deficiencies in the
complaint. [GN]
UAB QBIT: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Cryptocurrency Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit claims thousands of individuals have been defrauded
in a cryptocurrency scheme orchestrated by UAB Qbit Financial
Service, Bytechip LLC and their CEO, Yujun Wu.
The 54-page lawsuit accuses the defendants of running a "pig
butchering" scam -- an elaborate, long-term scheme in which
scammers contact potential victims through social media, dating
apps or direct messaging platforms, gain their trust and lure them
into making investments into fake cryptocurrency projects. Targets
are instructed to transfer their assets into crypto wallets
controlled by the scammers, who then steal the funds, the complaint
explains.
The plaintiff, an Alabama resident, claims he contacted data firm
Inca Digital after he fell victim to an alleged pig butchering scam
last year. Although Qbit purports to be a legitimate
banking-as-a-service company, Inca traced a significant portion of
the man's stolen funds to a wallet owned and operated by the
defendants, the filing asserts.
Inca's forensic analysis further revealed that the plaintiff's
transactions were part of a broader scheme orchestrated by Qbit,
Bytechip and Wu that laundered an estimated $28 million from
thousands of victims between March and at least June 4, 2024, the
suit alleges.
"The scammers first solicit victims by sending boilerplate
inquiries about investment opportunities or part-time work," the
complaint explains. "After a person responds to a message, one or
more scammers contact that person and describe the opportunities,
all of which have the purported potential of earning the victim
significant income by completing seemingly legitimate work tasks
for well-known companies or by making seemingly legitimate
investments."
The lawsuit shares that victims are led to believe they have earned
money and can withdraw these funds from their accounts. Over time,
scammers coerce targets into making progressively larger deposits
for various reasons, such as promises of increased earnings,
supposed taxes or hidden fees, or claims of a negative account
balance, the suit says.
"At some point, the [fake cryptocurrency trading] platform itself
will disappear, or the scammer will block the victim," the case
states. "The victims then realize they have been scammed, but their
cryptocurrency is gone."
Per the filing, the defendants followed their "standardized
playbook" to ensnare the plaintiff, who says he was first contacted
on WhatsApp in March 2024 about part-time online work for software
company Grayphite. The man sent an initial deposit of $110 in
crypto from his Coinbase account to an account that the scammers
represented was part of the work platform, the case shares. The
lawsuit says the plaintiff performed tasks on the fake work
platform and received "payments" he could initially withdraw in
small amounts.
In less than a month, the man was manipulated into transferring
approximately $90,000 to wallets controlled by the defendants until
the scammers completely blocked him from accessing his "accounts"
or withdrawing his funds, the case contends.
The Qbit lawsuit looks to represent all individuals and entities
who, at the suggestion of the scammers or individuals acting under
the scammers' instruction or control, transferred cryptocurrency
into one or more of the cryptocurrency wallets identified on this
page and other scam wallet addresses controlled by the defendants
as may be identified during discovery. [GN]
UNITED PLASTICS: Zhang Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Production Staff
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RUIJUAN ZHANG and DONGSUO XUE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED PLASTICS GROUP
INC., CHIH MING WONG A/K/A ZHIMING HUANG, "JOHN" ZHENG (first name
unknown), and "JOHN" HUANG (first name unknown), Defendants, Case
No. 3:25-cv-01926-MAS-JTQ (D.N.J., March 18, 2025) is a class
action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages and
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.
Plaintiffs Zhang and Xue were employed as a production worker and a
forklift operator at the Defendants' business located at 30
Commerce Drive, Somerset, New Jersey from May 2, 2023, to September
1, 2024, and from May 2, 2023, to February 10, 2024, respectively.
United Plastics Group Inc. is a manufacturing company based in
Somerset, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Yubo Li, Esq.
HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003
Flushing, NY 11354
Telephone: (718) 353-8588
Email: yli@hanglaw.com
UNITED STATES: Faces Doe Suit Over Termination of Parole Processes
------------------------------------------------------------------
SVITLANA DOE; MAKSYM DOE; MARIA DOE; ALEJANDRO DOE; ARMANDO DOE;
ANA DOE; CARLOS DOE; OMAR DOE; SANDRA MCANANY; KYLE VARNER; WILHEN
PIERRE VICTOR; and HAITIAN BRIDGE ALLIANCE, Plaintiffs v. KRISTI
NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security;
CALEB VITELLO, in his official capacity as the Acting Director of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; PETE R. FLORES, in his
official capacity as Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection; KIKA SCOTT, in her official capacity as the Senior
Official Performing the Duties of the Director of U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services; and DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official
capacity as President of the United States, Defendants, Case No.
1:25-cv-10495 (D. Mass., February 28, 2025) is a class action
challenging President Donald Trump administration's attempts to
block individuals paroled from seeking alternate legal statuses
created and authorized by Congress.
On January 20, 2025 -- Inauguration Day -- President Trump issued
Executive Order 14165, entitled "Securing Our Borders," which
directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to terminate all
"categorical parole programs," explicitly referencing the nationals
of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela (CHNV) parole processes.
Also on that day, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Benjamine
C. Huffman issued a memorandum entitled "Exercising Appropriate
Discretion Under Parole Authority" to the heads of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, and U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, in which he authorized
pausing and terminating "categorical parole programs" because, in
his view, they are "blatantly inconsistent with the statute."
Acting Secretary Huffman directed all DHS staff to implement the
new agency policy under which this historically common use of the
parole authority is unlawful.
The Plaintiffs assert that such actions are not only illegal, but
shockingly callous. Each of the Plaintiffs and other individuals
trusted that the U.S. government would help protect them from harm.
Each of them waited -- even amid active war and persecution -- to
enter the United States until they had a legal avenue to enter the
country. And each of them has now been cut off from the immigration
relief Congress made available to them, say the Plaintiffs.
Individual Plaintiffs, including Putative Class Representatives on
behalf of themselves and similarly situated persons, and
Organizational Plaintiff Haitian Bridge Alliance, seek a
declaration that the Uniting for Ukraine, CHNV, and Operation
Allies Welcome parole processes are lawful; an injunction
prohibiting DHS from continuing to apply its unlawful construction
of the parole statute; and vacatur of agency actions taken pursuant
to the agency's erroneous understanding of the law.
Kristi Noem is sued in her official capacity as Secretary of
Homeland Security, the U.S. federal executive department
responsible for public security, roughly comparable to the interior
or home ministries of other countries.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John A. Freedman, Esq.
Laura Shores, Esq.
Katie Weng, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
601 Massachusetts Ave, NW
Washington, D.C. 20001-3743
Telephone: (202) 942-5316
E-mail: john.freedman@arnoldporter.com
laura.shores@arnoldporter.com
katie.weng@arnoldporter.com
- and -
H. Tiffany Jang, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
200 Clarendon Street, Fl. 53
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 351-8053
E-mail: tiffany.jang@arnoldporter.com
- and -
Daniel B. Asimow, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
Three Embarcadero Center 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4024
Telephone: (415) 471-3142
E-mail: daniel.asimow@arnoldporter.com
- and -
Robert Stout, Esq.
Sarah Elnahal, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
250 West 55th Street
New York, NY 10019-9710
Telephone: (212) 836-8000
E-mail: rob.stout@arnoldporter.com
sarah.elnahal@arnoldporter.com
- and -
Esther H. Sung, Esq.
Karen C. Tumlin, Esq.
Hillary Li, Esq.
Laura Flores-Perilla, Esq.
Brandon Galli-Graves, Esq.
JUSTICE ACTION CENTER
P.O. Box 27280
Los Angeles, CA 90027
Telephone: (323) 450-7272
E-mail: esther.sung@justiceactioncenter.org
karen.tumlin@justiceactioncenter.org
hillary.li@justiceactioncenter.org
laura.flores-perilla@justiceactioncenter.org
brandon.galli-graves@justiceactioncenter.org
- and -
Anwen Hughes, Esq.
HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST
75 Broad St., 31st Fl.
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 845-5244
E-mail: HughesA@humanrightsfirst.org
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: Settles COVID Tuition Refund Suit for $4M
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that University of
Washington (UW) has agreed to pay a $4 million settlement to
resolve a proposed class action lawsuit that claimed the college
owes partial refunds of tuition and fees to students whose Winter
and Spring 2020 academic quarters were affected by the March 2020
transition to remote learning amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
The court-approved website for the University of Washington class
action settlement can be found at
UniversityOfWashingtonCOVIDLitigation.com.
The UW settlement covers a class of roughly 56,000 students who
were enrolled in and paid for the university's in-person
educational programs, services and courses for the Winter Quarter
2020 or Spring Quarter 2020 academic term.
According to the University of Washington settlement website,
eligible class members are entitled to receive equal shares of what
remains of the $4,000,000 settlement fund after payment of
attorneys' fees, service awards and administration costs.
Eligible students do not need to do anything to receive their UW
settlement cash payment, the website says.
Per the site, University of Washington settlement rebates will be
mailed by check to each class member's last known mailing address.
Those who prefer to receive their UW cash payout by Venmo or
PayPal, or who want to update their mailing address, must submit a
payment election form by May 30, 2025, the site shares.
Class members can file a payment election form online on this page
or download a PDF copy to return by mail.
The settlement agreement, which will resolve the University of
Washington class action lawsuit, was preliminarily approved by the
court on March 4, 2025. Next, the court must determine whether to
grant final approval to the terms of the deal at a hearing
scheduled for July 11, 2025.
If the settlement receives ultimate approval, and after any appeals
are resolved, payments will be issued to eligible class members
within 60 days following the date the deal goes into effect, the
website relays. University of Washington (UW) has agreed to pay a
$4 million settlement to resolve a proposed class action lawsuit
that claimed the college owes partial refunds of tuition and fees
to students whose Winter and Spring 2020 academic quarters were
affected by the March 2020 transition to remote learning amid the
COVID-19 pandemic. [GN]
VALSOFT CORP: Ortiz Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
GINO ORTIZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VALSOFT CORPORATION, INC. d/b/a ALLTRUST
NETWORKS and ASPIRE USA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00402
(E.D. Va., March 4, 2025) seeks monetary damages and injunctive and
declaratory relief arising from Defendants' failure to safeguard
the personally identifiable information of consumers in its
possession and care, which resulted in unauthorized access to its
information systems on or around February 12, 2024 and February 15,
2024.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class members now
face a lifetime risk of identity theft due to the nature of the
information lost, which they cannot change, and which cannot be
made private again. The Defendants' failure to protect consumers'
private information has also harmed and will continue to harm
Defendants' consumers, causing Plaintiff to seek relief on a class
wide basis.
On behalf of himself and the Class, the Plaintiff brings causes of
action against Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach
of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy,
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, violation of the
California Consumer Privacy Act, violation of the California
Consumer Records Act and declaratory judgment seeking damages and
injunctive relief, including improvements to Defendants' data
security systems and integrated services, future annual audits, and
adequate credit monitoring.
Valsoft Corporation, Inc., d/b/a AllTrust Networks, is a Virginia
corporation providing financial services.[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 -
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Leanna A. Loginov, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com
ashamis@shamisgentile.com
VANGUARD GROUP: Quinn Balks at Unfair Account Closure Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
SEAN ERROL QUINN, individually and on Behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff v. THE VANGUARD GROUP, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01153-KNS (E.D. Pa., March 4, 2025) is
an action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a proposed class of
similarly situated consumers against Vanguard arising from its
unlawful, fraudulent, and unfair assessment of a $100 Account
Closure and Full Transfer Out fee on brokerage accounts when
accountholders choose to close their accounts at Vanguard and
transfer their funds out to another investment firm.
According to the complaint, Vanguard lured consumers, including
Plaintiff, into a brokerage contract with the promise of low fees,
causing consumers to choose Vanguard over a myriad of other
financial investment companies. If consumers no longer wished to
use Vanguard, they could close their account, free or charge.
In July 2024, however, Vanguard unilaterally modified its account
agreement with its customers to impose a new, mandatory $100 fee
for those customers who wished to close their account at Vanguard.
The fee applies to all accounts with less than $5 million in
assets.
The Plaintiff and Class members have been injured by Vanguard's
unlawful and fraudulent practices, and allege claims for breach of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of
state consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment. The
Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and the putative
Class and seeks damages, restitution and disgorgement, and
declaratory and injunctive relief.
The Vanguard Group, Inc. is one of the world's largest financial
investment firms and holds over $9.1 trillion assets under
management as of August 2024.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
65 Overhill Road
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (954) 332-4200
E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com
- and -
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
- and -
Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
490 43rd Street, No. 122
Oakland, CA 94609
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com
VF OUTDOOR: PAGA Settlement Approval Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIANA VALENCIA, an
individual, v. VF OUTDOOR, a California limited liability
corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-01795-KES-SKO (E.D. Cal.), the Court
entered an order denying motion for approval of Private Attorneys
General Act (PAGA) settlement without prejudice.
In seeking approval of a PAGA settlement, a plaintiff "should
ensure that all relevant figures, assumptions, and calculations are
included, so that the Court can follow those same steps with its
own calculator and arrive at the same amounts set forth in the
moving papers." Valencia did not do so. Accordingly, the motion is
DENIED without prejudice ,the Court says.
In sum, Valencia does not provide enough information to support her
calculation of VF Outdoor's total potential liability, and she does
not provide sufficient detail on, or support for, the assumptions
on which the settlement amount is based. Valencia’s motion also
appears to be inconsistent with the assertions in the settlement
agreement regarding the applicable number of pay periods.
The parties' settlement agreement provides for a non-reversionary
settlement fund of $175,000, which Valencia asserts would cover
72,088 pay periods and affect 2,213 employees.
From this settlement fund, Valencia requests $57,750 for attorneys'
fees, $7,500 for litigation expenses, $10,000 for a plaintiff
enhancement payment to Valencia, and $15,000 for the settlement
administrator. This leaves remaining PAGA penalties of $84,750. Id.
The settlement allocates seventy-five percent of those penalties,
$63,562.50, to the LWDA and twenty-five percent of those penalties,
$21,187.50, to the aggrieved employees.
On Dec. 11, 2024, the plaintiff Briana Valencia filed an unopposed
motion for judicial approval of her settlement with defendant VF
Outdoor, LLC, of her California Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA"), claims in the action.
VF Outdoor is an apparel and footwear company that owns numerous
clothing brands such as Vans, North Face, Dickies, and Jansport.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TwbrA9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
VIRGIN GALACTIC: Parties Must Address Proposed Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lavin v. Virgin Galactic
Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-03070 (E.D.N.Y., Filed May
28, 2021), the Hon. Judge Allyne R. Ross entered an order directing
the parties to address what, if any, impact the proposed amendments
would have on the pending motion for class certification.
The parties' requests to file the proposed amended complaint, and
letter in opposition, under seal are granted.
The Plaintiffs need not refile the premotion letter, as a separate
entity at this time, the Court says.
The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act.
Virgin Galactic is a British-American spaceflight company founded
by Richard Branson and the Virgin Group conglomerate which retains
an 11.9% stake through Virgin Investments Limited. It is
headquartered in California and operates from New Mexico.[CC]
WAKE COUNTY, NC: Court Rejects Appeal in 2021 Pepping Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Carolina Journal reports that the North Carolina Court of
Appeals has rejected an appeal against Wake County in a
class-action lawsuit stemming from 2021 peeping incidents at two
county-owned prenatal clinics.
Appellate judges agreed plaintiffs failed to follow the proper
procedure for challenging a trial judge's decision dismissing the
county government from the complaint.
The suit stemmed from the discovery that a certified nurse
assistant was secretly recording women using bathrooms at the
Millbrook and Sunnybrook prenatal clinics in Raleigh.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals has dismissed an appeal against
Wake County in a class-action lawsuit based on 2021 peeping
incidents involving two county-owned prenatal clinics.
Appellate judges agreed the plaintiffs failed to follow the proper
procedure when pursuing their case against the county government.
The case arose from the discovery in September 2021 that certified
nurse assistant James Otis Perry was secretly recording women using
bathrooms at the Millbrook and Sunnybrook prenatal clinics in
Raleigh, according to the Appeals Court opinion released Wednesday,
March 19.
A Wake County grand jury indicted Perry on 40 counts of felony
secret peeping, along with additional counts of sexual exploitation
of a minor. In January 2023, he pleaded guilty to "one count of
installing or using a photo device, eighteen counts of felony
secret peeping, and three counts of second-degree exploitation of a
minor," the Appeals Court opinion explained.
Nine days after the guilty plea, eight women and three spouses
filed suit against Perry and the county. In September 2023, a trial
judge dismissed the case against the county. Wake's lawyers had
argued that the county was protected by governmental immunity.
"Here, Plaintiffs sought relief against two Defendants --
Defendant-Perry and Defendant-County -- based on claims arising
from a common set of facts," Appeals Court Judge Jeff Carpenter
wrote. "The trial court dismissed the claims against
Defendant-County without dismissing the claims against
Defendant-Perry. Therefore, the trial court's grant of
Defendant-County's motion to dismiss was a final judgment as to
Defendant-County but not as to all parties. As a result, the Order
is interlocutory."
An "interlocutory" order differs from a final judgment that would
have ended the case. Most appeals arise from final court
judgments.
"Because Plaintiffs appeal from an interlocutory order, it is their
burden to sufficiently brief the issue of jurisdiction," Carpenter
wrote. "Given the trial court did not certify the Order for
immediate review, Plaintiffs' only route to immediate review is to
assert that the Order affects a substantial right."
"Accordingly, it is Plaintiffs' burden to categorically assert that
the challenged order affects a substantial right, supported by
citation to applicable precedent," Carpenter added. "Plaintiffs,
however, do not meet their burden."
"Although this appeal arguably involves issues of sovereign
immunity and personal jurisdiction -- issues that may affect a
substantial right as a matter of law -- Plaintiffs have incorrectly
stated the Order from which they appeal is a 'final judgment' and
that this Court has jurisdiction," the Appeals Court opinion
explained. "Additionally, Plaintiffs fail to cite to any precedent
demonstrating that the challenged Order affected a substantial
right."
"In short, Plaintiffs not only fail to assert a substantial right,
they do not even mention the interlocutory nature of their appeal,"
Carpenter wrote. "Without at least a 'categorical assertion that
the issue is immediately appealable,' Plaintiffs fail to meet their
burden of properly requesting review from an interlocutory order."
Judges Julee Flood and Michael Stading joined Carpenter's opinion.
Stading added a concurring opinion "to further emphasize that
Plaintiffs could provide our Court with appellate jurisdiction upon
sufficiently asserting governmental or sovereign immunity as a
substantial right in their brief."
A 2018 precedent, Ballard v. Shelley, determined "that granting a
government defendant's motion to dismiss on sovereign immunity
grounds affects a substantial right, just as denial does, and thus
warrants immediate appellate review," Stading wrote.
"Had Plaintiffs carried their burden in demonstrating appellate
jurisdiction, as in Ballard, precedent would similarly bind us to
hold that their interlocutory appeal impacted a substantial right
for immediate appellate review," he added. [GN]
WEBMD LLC: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Jancik Suit to 11th Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WebMD, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order granting the
Plaintiff's motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Linda
M. Jancik, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. WebMD, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-0644-TWT, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendant violated the Video Privacy Protection
Act ("VPPA") by improperly disclosing her and other putative class
members' personally identifiable information ("PII") to Facebook.
On June 27, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class,
which Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. granted on Feb. 20, 2025. The
Court agreed with the Plaintiff that certification under Rule
23(b)(2) is appropriate. The Court does not find her request for
declaratory or injunctive relief overly vague. The Court appointed
the Plaintiff as Class Representative and the Plaintiff's counsel
as Class Counsel.
The appellate case is captioned Linda M. Jancik, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. WebMD, LLC, Case No.
25-90005, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit, filed on March 6, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent LINDA M. JANCIK, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Email: jarisohn@bursor.com
pfraietta@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
- and –
H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
Overlook II
2839 Paces Ferry Road SE, Suite 400
Atlanta, GA 30339
Email: Clay.Barnett@Beasleyallen.com
- and –
W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
J. Mitch Williams, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
272 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Email: Dee.Miles@beasleyallen.com
Mitch.Williams@beasleyallen.com
Defendant-Petitioner WEBMD, LLC is represented by:
Paul A. Rosenthal, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
600 Campus Drive
Florham Park, NJ 07932
Telephone: (973) 549-7000
Email: paul.rosenthal@faegredrinker.com
- and –
Jefferson M. Starr, Esq.
COLEMAN TALLEY LLP
3344 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 1950
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone: (770) 698-9556
Email: jeff.starr@colemantalley.com
WEISER SECURITY: Faces Tunstall Wage-and-Hour Suit in W.D. Tenn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
STARKEISHA TUNSTALL, individually, and on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated Plaintiff v. WEISER SECURITY SERVICES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02245 (W.D. Tenn., March 4, 2025)
is brought against the Defendant as a multi-Plaintiff action under
Fair Labor Standards Act to recover the applicable minimum wage and
overtime compensation rates of pay owed to Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's common practice of
willfully failing to pay Plaintiff and potential Plaintiffs at the
applicable FLSA minimum wage and overtime compensation rates of pay
for all hours worked within weekly pay periods has resulted in
their unpaid wage claims being unified through common theories of
Defendant's FLSA violations.
The Plaintiff was employed as a security guard for Defendant in
Cordova, Tennessee.
Weiser Security Services, Inc. provides security services to
customers in Tennessee, Texas, Florida, Louisiana, Alabama, North
Carolina, California, Georgia, Arizona and South Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq.
Cooper Mays, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
jleatherwood@jsyc.com
cmays@jsyc.com
WELLS FARGO: Echard Appeals Denied Bid to Enforce Mediation Right
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN ECHARD, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
denying their renewed motion to enforce the mediation privilege in
the lawsuit styled In re: Wells Fargo COVID Forbearance Settlement,
Case No. 2:24-cv-01026, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, is brought against the Defendants by Plaintiff
Echard on behalf of customers of Wells Fargo whose mortgages were
placed into Wells Fargo's Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security (CARES) Act Forbearance program without adequate informed
consent.
On Nov. 12, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion to enforce
the mediation privilege, which Judge Michael H. Watson denied on
Feb. 3, 2025.
The appellate case is captioned In re: Wells Fargo COVID
Forbearance Settlement, Case No. 25-3139, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on March 6, 2025.
[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants BRIAN ECHARD, et al., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Nathan Andrew Hunter, Esq.
HUNTER & HUNTER
1985 W. Henderson Road, PMB 63416
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (234) 738-4648
- and –
Alyssa Lee Koepfgen, Esq.
SMITH & LOWNEY
2317 E. John Street
Seattle, WA 98112
Telephone: (206) 860-2883
Defendants-Appellees WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al. are represented
by:
Elizabeth Holt Andrews, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE
3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 477-5762
- and –
Amy Pritchard Williams, Esq.
TROUTMAN SANDERS
301 S. College Street, Suite 3400
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone: (704) 998-4102
WORKDAY INC: Class Cert Hearing in Mobley Suit Reset to April 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mobley v. WORKDAY, INC.,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00770 (N.D. Cal., Filed Feb. 21, 2023), the Hon.
Judge Rita F. Lin entered an order granting unopposed motion for
extension of time to file reply.
-- The Plaintiff's Reply is due by: March 27, 2025
-- Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to April 29, 2025
Certify Class is reset for:
The nature of suit states Employment Discrimination.
Workday is an American on‑demand (cloud-based) financial
management, human capital management, and student information
system software vendor.[CC]
XPLR INFRASTRUCTURE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 9
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of
XPLR Infrastructure, LP (NYSE: XIFR).
Shareholders who purchased shares of XIFR during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead
plaintiff appointment. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.
Visit link for more information:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/xplr-infrastructure-lp-loss-submission-form/?id=137116&from=3
CLASS PERIOD: January 26, 2021 to January 27, 2025
ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) XPLR was struggling to maintain
its operations as a yieldco; (ii) defendants temporarily relieved
this issue by entering into CEPF, convertible equity portfolio
financing arrangements while downplaying the attendant risks; (iii)
XPLR could not buy out CEPFs before their maturity date without
risking significant unitholder dilution; (iv) as a result,
defendants planned to halt cash distributions to investors and
instead redirect those funds to, inter alia, buy out the Company's
CEPFs; (v) as a result of all the foregoing, XPLR's yieldco
business model and distribution growth rate was unsustainable; and
(vi) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
DEADLINE: May 9, 2025 Shareholders should not delay in registering
for this class action. Register your information here:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/xplr-infrastructure-lp-loss-submission-form/?id=137116&from=3
NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who
purchased shares of XIFR during the timeframe listed above, you
will be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you
with status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The
deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is May 9, 2025. There is no
cost or obligation to you to participate in this case.
WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is a nationally recognized
class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of
all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and
illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to
ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices
and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery
on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or
misleading statements or the omission of material information by a
company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (646) 453-8903 [GN]
XTO ENERGY: Court Strikes Class Allegations
-------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hystad Ceynar Mineral,
LLC, on behalf of itself and a class of similarly situated persons,
v. XTO Energy, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00030-DLH-CRH (D.N.D.), the
Hon. Judge Daniel Hovland entered an order granting the Defendant's
motion to strike class allegations.
The individualized issues in this case predominate over the common
claim for relief by the proposed class. Accordingly, the Court
grants the Defendant’s motion to strike the class allegations.
The Plaintiff defines the class as:
"All persons and entities owning mineral interests in North
Dakota wells operated by XTO who, at any time since Nov. 8,
2016, have: (1) received one or more royalty payments or other
mineral interest payments from XTO on a date which was more
than one hundred fifty days after the oil or gas produced by
XTO from a North Dakota well subject to the mineral owner's
interest was marketed; and (2) as to any such payment, XTO did
not pay the eighteen percent per annum interest required under
N.D.C.C. section 47-16-39.1."
Excluded from the Class are: (1) XTO; (2) the United States of
America; (3) persons who own mineral interests only in wells
operated by XTO in North Dakota which are managed by the board
of university and school lands; (4) persons who have been
members of the board of university and school lands at any
time since Nov. 8, 2016; (5) mineral owners who elected to
take their proportionate share of production from an XTO
operated well in kind; (6) mineral owners who did not receive
royalties from XTO because such mineral owners could not be
located after reasonable inquiry; (7) mineral owners to whom
XTO furnished with written notice of a title dispute pursuant
to N.D.C.C. section 47-16-39.4, and whose payments were
suspended as a result of such title dispute; and (8)
overriding royalty interests and working interests.
XTO operates numerous oil and gas wells in North Dakota.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1Vds2Y at no extra
charge.[CC]
YES COMMUNITIES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, O'Leary Says
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE O'LEARY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. YES COMMUNITIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00692-NRN (D. Colo., March 4, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated Yes Communities
residents' name, address, Social Security number, and driver's
license number from hackers.
On or about February 25, 2025, Yes Communities filed official
notice of a hacking incident with the Office of the Texas Attorney
General. Yes Communities and its employees failed to properly
monitor and implement security practices with regard to the
computer network and systems that housed the private information.
Had Yes Communities properly monitored its networks, it would have
discovered the breach sooner, says the suit.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk
because of Yes Communities' negligent conduct as the Private
Information that Yes Communities collected and maintained is now in
the hands of data thieves and other unauthorized third parties.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class,
asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of express
contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and
declaratory judgment.
Yes Communities, based in Denver, Colorado, is a real estate
company that offers ownership and management of residential
communities services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
10800 Financial Center Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
- and -
Jarrett Ellzey, Esq.
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
EKSM, LLP
4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (888) 350-3931
E-mail: jellzey@eksm.com
lmontgomery@eksm.com
ZYNEX INC: Faces Securities Fraud 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
District of Colorado, captioned Tuncel v. Zynex, Inc., et al., Case
No. 25-cv-00913, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased
or otherwise acquired Zynex, Inc. ("Zynex" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: ZYXI) securities between March 13, 2023 and March 11,
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 June 4, 2024, medical journal STAT published a report on Zynex
entitled "How a device maker inundated pain patients with unwanted
batteries and surprise bills." The report claimed Zynex engaged in
an "oversupplying scheme" by sending inordinate amounts of monthly
supplies like electrode pads and batteries in order to "bill
insurers for thousands of dollars more than it otherwise could."
The report further revealed that, as a result of this practice,
insurers were "kicking the company out of network."
On this news, Zynex's stock price fell $0.50 per share, or 5%, to
close at $9.35 per share on June 4, 2024, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
On March 11, 2025, after the market closed, Zynex reported its
fourth quarter and full year 2024 financial results, revealing a
significant revenue "shortfall" in the quarter "due to slower than
normal payments from certain payers." Zynex further revealed
"Tricare has temporarily suspended payments as they review prior
claims." Tricare is the health insurance program for the U.S.
military.
On this news, Zynex's stock price fell $3.59 per share, or 51.3%,
to close at $3.41 per share on March 12, 2025, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
What Is The Lawsuit About?
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Zynex shipped products, including electrodes,
in excess of need; (2) that, as a result of this practice, the
Company inflated its revenue; (3) that the Company's practice of
filing false claims drew scrutiny from insurers, including Tricare;
(4) that, as a result, it was reasonably likely that Zynex would
face adverse consequences, including removal from insurer networks
and penalties from the federal government; and (5) 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 Zynex 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.
If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.
To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this
time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and
remain an absent member of the Class.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
[] Nebraska Governor Signs Data Breach Safe Harbor Laws
-------------------------------------------------------
Steve Alder of The HIPAA Journal reports that on March 17, 2025,
Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen signed Legislative Bill 241 into law,
which limits class action liability for private entities for
cybersecurity events. The new law will take effect three months
from the adjournment of the Nebraska Legislature's 2025 session.
Several states have now passed laws that give companies a degree of
protection against class action data breach lawsuits. Tennessee
implemented a very similar law in 2024, and a handful of states
have implemented data breach safe harbor laws to limit the costs
arising from data breaches.
The aim of the Nebraska shield law is to protect companies from
excessive liability while also encouraging them to implement robust
cybersecurity. The Nebraska liability shield law prohibits class
action lawsuits against private companies related to adverse cyber
events unless those events are premised on the company's willful,
wanton, or grossly negligent conduct. If companies implement and
maintain reasonable and appropriate cybersecurity measures, they
will be protected against class action lawsuits. The shield law
does not offer protection against regulatory lawsuits, such as
those seeking penalties for HIPAA violations.
Private companies are defined as any corporation, religious or
charitable organization, association, partnership, limited
liability company, liability partnership, or other private business
entities, irrespective of whether it is a nonprofit or for-profit
enterprise. Adverse cyber events are classed as any event that
results in unauthorized access to, disruption of, or misuse of
information systems or nonpublic information stored in an
information system. The definition therefore covers malware,
ransomware, hacking, and incidents involving malicious insiders.
An information system is any system used for the collection,
maintenance, processing, sharing, or use of electronic nonpublic
information or any specialized system. Non-public information is
defined as information that is not publicly available that concerns
a person and can be used to identify a person in combination with
any of the following: Social Security number; driver's license
number; other state identification number; financial account,
debit, or credit card number; security or access code or password
that would permit access to such person's financial accounts; or
any biometric record. [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNS Sub Has 58 Toxic-Tort Claims as of Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Partners Holdings L.P.'s majority owned subsidiary, BNS Sub,
has been named as a defendant in multiple alleged asbestos-related
toxic-tort claims filed over a period beginning in 1994 through
December 31, 2024, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "In many cases these claims involved more than
100 defendants. There remained approximately 58 pending asbestos
claims as of December 31, 2024. BNS Sub believes it has significant
defenses to any liability for toxic-tort claims on the merits. None
of these toxic-tort claims has gone to trial and, therefore, there
can be no assurance that these defenses will prevail. BNS Sub has
insurance policies covering asbestos-related claims for years
beginning 1974 through 1988. BNS Sub annually receives retroactive
billings or credits from its insurance carriers for any increase or
decrease in claims accruals as claims are filed, settled or
dismissed, or as estimates of the ultimate settlement costs for the
then-existing claims are revised. As of December 31, 2024 and 2023,
BNS Sub has accrued $1,339 and $1,357, respectively, relating to
the open and active claims against BNS Sub. This accrual includes
the amount of unpaid retroactive billings submitted to the Company
by the insurance carriers and also the Company's best estimate of
the likely costs for BNS Sub to settle these claims outside the
amounts funded by insurance. There can be no assurance that the
number of future claims and the related costs of defense,
settlements or judgments will be consistent with the experience
to-date of existing claims and that BNS Sub will not need to
significantly increase its estimated liability for the costs to
settle these claims to an amount that could have a material effect
on the consolidated financial statements."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OYBLdq
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Indemnity Defends A&E Claims
----------------------------------------------------
Global Indemnity Group, LLC, has exposure to asbestos and
environmental ("A&E") claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "The asbestos exposure primarily arises from
the sale of product liability insurance, and the environmental
exposure arises from the sale of general liability and commercial
multi-peril insurance. In establishing the liability for unpaid
losses and loss adjustment expenses related to A&E exposures,
management considers facts currently known and the current state of
the law and coverage litigation. Liabilities are recognized for
known claims (including the cost of related litigation) when
sufficient information has been developed to indicate the
involvement of a specific insurance policy, and management can
reasonably estimate its liability. In addition, liabilities have
been established to cover additional exposures on both known and
unasserted claims. Estimates of the liabilities are reviewed and
updated regularly. Case law continues to evolve for such claims,
and uncertainty exists about the outcome of coverage litigation and
whether past claim experience will be representative of future
claim experience. Included in net unpaid losses and loss adjustment
expenses as of December 31, 2024, 2023, and 2022 were IBNR reserves
of $15.2 million, $17.3 million, and $18.9 million, respectively,
and case reserves of approximately $5.5 million, $3.8 million, and
$2.8 million, respectively, for known A&E-related claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6GU056
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Electric Has 3,591 Pending Exposure Cases
------------------------------------------------------------------
Graybar Electric Company, Inc., more specifically with respect to
asbestos litigation, as of December 31, 2024, 3,591 individual
cases and 54 multiple-plaintiff cases are pending that allege
actual or potential asbestos-related injuries resulting from the
use of or exposure to products allegedly sold by us, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Additional claims will likely be filed against
us in the future. Our insurance carriers have historically borne
virtually all costs and liability with respect to this litigation
and are continuing to do so. Accordingly, our future liability
with respect to pending and unasserted claims is dependent on the
continued solvency of our insurance carriers. Other factors that
could impact this liability are: the number of future claims filed
against us; the defense and settlement costs associated with these
claims; changes in the litigation environment, including changes in
federal or state law governing the compensation of asbestos
claimants; adverse jury verdicts in excess of historic settlement
amounts; and bankruptcies of other asbestos defendants. Moreover,
any predictions with respect to these variables are subject to even
greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. In light
of these uncertainties, we believe that our asbestos reserves
represent the best estimate within a range of possible outcomes,
over an extended period of time, less than or equal to recorded
corresponding anticipated recoverable insurance proceeds. As part
of the process to develop these off-setting estimates of future
asbestos costs and insurance proceeds, a range of long-term cost
and recovery models of future asbestos costs was developed. These
models are based on national studies that predict the number of
people likely to develop asbestos related diseases and are
influenced by assumptions regarding long-term inflation rates for
indemnity payments and defense costs, as well as other variables
previously mentioned. Because any of these factors may change, our
future exposure is unpredictable, and it is possible that we may
incur costs that would have a material adverse impact on our
liquidity, financial position, or results of operations in future
periods."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CS4Gge
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Defends 57,760 PI Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has reported 57,760 asbestos
personal injury claims at year ended December 31, 2024, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These suits principally allege that the
plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from
exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has never engaged in the
business of manufacturing or selling asbestos-containing products,
nor has Metropolitan Life Insurance Company 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
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's employees during the period
from the 1920s through approximately the 1950s and allege that
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company 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.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company 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 Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.
"The number of asbestos cases that may be brought, the aggregate
amount of any liability that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
may incur, and the total amount paid in settlements in any given
year are uncertain and may vary significantly from year to year."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nF4JVz
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Has 115 Pending Exposure Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc., has been named as a defendant in various
lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a
result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured
by its former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed
dust, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "There are 115 of these types of cases pending,
involving a total of approximately 589 plaintiffs. In addition, the
claims of approximately 8,715 plaintiffs have been administratively
dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in Ohio state courts. We
do not expect these claims will be re-opened unless the plaintiffs
meet the courts' medical criteria for asbestos-related claims. We
have not accrued any amounts for this litigation because of the
uncertainty of liability and inability to reasonably estimate the
liability, if any.
"We believe the range of reasonably possible outcomes of these
matters will be consistent with our historical costs (which are not
material). Furthermore, we do not expect any reasonably possible
outcome would involve amounts material to our consolidated
financial position, results of operations or liquidity. We have
sought and will continue to vigorously seek, dismissal and/or a
finding of no liability from each claim. In addition, from time to
time, we have received notices regarding asbestos or silica claims
purporting to be brought against former subsidiaries, including
notices provided to insurers with which we have entered into
settlements extinguishing certain insurance policies. These
insurers may seek indemnification from us."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jz3c7U
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Faces 108 Personal Injury Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. is a co-defendant in approximately 108
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 152 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These asbestos cases generally relate to
production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege
various theories of liability, including negligence, gross
negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some
cases, punitive damages.
"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
$25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought.
To the extent that any specific amount of damages is sought, the
amount applies to claims against all named defendants.
"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing
product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries. We intend
to vigorously defend these asbestos cases and believe we will
continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases.
However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this
uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period could be adversely affected by
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management
believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
liquidity or results of operations. Among the factors management
considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical
success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the
bases mentioned above; (b) many cases have been improperly filed
against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs
have been unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our
products or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been
unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable
injury or compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they
have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos;
and (e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants
and, in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to
individual defendants. Additionally, we do not believe that the
amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful
indicators of our potential exposure because the amounts claimed
typically bear no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury,
if any."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=32mixt
*********
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 ***