/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250401.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, April 1, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 65
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Hartnett Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Keeley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Kerttu Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Knight Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Kracht Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
ACE HARDWARE: Grey Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
AMERICAN HONDA: Parties Seek to Narrow Class Cert Issues
ARCHER AVIATION: Faces Securities Suit over Merger Deal
ARDAGH GLASS: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to June 13
AUDIBLE INC: Sherk Sues Over Unauthorized Subscription Enrollment
AVEPOINT INC: Settlement Deal Reached in Drulias Suit
AVIDYNE CORP: Parties in Marincus Must Confer Class Cert Sched
BANCO SANTANDER: Class Cert Bid Filing Due June 1, 2026
BATON ROUGE, LA: Faces Sanders Class Action Suit in C.D. Calif.
BAUER BUILT: Court Junks Bid to Stay Anderson Proceedings
BAYER CORPORATION: Newman Suit Seeks to Certify Class
BEDFORD CARE: Underpays Certified Nursing Assistants, Wash Says
BRIGHTON CORNERSTONE: Class Certification Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
BURLINGTON CAPITAL: Filing for Conditional Class Cert Due August 28
BUTEN INC: Davis Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
BYTEDANCE INC: Illegally Collects Children's Data, Riley Says
BYTEDANCE INC: Illegally Sells Children's Personal Info, White Says
CALIFORNIA CRYOBANK: Fails to Secure Private Info, Atta Says
CARLE FOUNDATION: Polizzi Suit Transferred to C.D. Illinois
CONTINENTAL SERVICE: Stalker Suit Removed to E.D. Washington
COURTYARD MANAGEMENT: Status Conference Set for May 12
CRAZY MAPLE: Exposes Website Users' Private Data, Porcuna Says
CREDIT UNION: Lucero Class Cert Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice
CUSTOMERS BANCORP: Faces Chang Securities Suit over SEC Disclosures
CVS HEALTH: Los Angeles Pensions Appeals Suit Dismissal to 1st Cir.
DELTA-SONIC CAR WASH: McGee Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
DIGIMARC CORP: Faces Mayer Suit Over Share Price Decline
DIMENSIONS LIVING: Faces Woods Class Suit Over Unpaid Wages
DISA GLOBAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Baldwin Alleges
DISNEY PLATFORM: Scott Balks at Illegal Automatic Renewal Scheme
DREW BOSTOCK: Vazquez Suit Seek to Certify Two Classes
DYSON DIRECT: Fails to Provide Value of Warranties, Tevis Says
EIDP INC: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment v. Caporale
ELON MUSK: Pretrial Deadlines Stayed in Emrit Class Action
EMIRATES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to May 30
ENOVIX CORP: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due May 23
ENTRATA INC: Has Until April 17 to File Complaint Response
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Taylor Must File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 27
EXPAND ENERGY: Santiago Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
EYEBUYDIRECT INC: Ramos Suit Removed to C.D. California
FAIRWAY INDEPENDENT: Filing for Class Cert in Wilson Due Sept. 26
FAT BRANDS: Faces Kates Suit over SEC Disclosures
FILTERS FAST: Class Cert Bid in McGonigle Suit Due July 18
FIRST DACIA: Chitay Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
FIVE BELOW INC: Counts Suit Removed to E.D. California
FLORIDA PREPAID: Lavina Amended Complaint Dismissed
FMC CORPORATION: Faces Mohammed Securities Suit in Pennsylvania
FOLSOM INSURANCE: Bid to Bifurcate Discovery in Bond Suit Tossed
FOODPREP SOLUTIONS: Gawlik Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
FORD MOTOR: Ortega Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
FOX FACTORY: Parties Await Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
FULLBEAUTY BRANDS: Broomes Suit Removed to N.D. California
GABRIEL A. LEVY: Friel Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
GENERAL DYNAMICS: Rodriguez Suit Removed to S.D. California
GERON CORPORATION: Potvin Sues Over Share Price Drop
GIFTED TOUCH: Becraft Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
GIRL SCOUTS: Cookies Contain Heavy Metals, Mayo Says
GLOBAL SECURITY: Ali Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
GMO-Z.COM TRUST All Fact Discovery in Donovan Due Sept. 18
GOBRANDS INC: Guerrero Suit Seeks Class Certification
GOOGLE LLC: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Docs in Rabin Suit
GRAND AMERICA: Descanzo Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
HAWKINS INVESTMENT: Murch Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina
HISENSE USA: Faces Macioce Fraud Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.
HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Albert Seeks to Certify Employee Class
HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Scarborough Seeks Class Certification
HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Tripoli Seeks to Certify Employee Class
HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Whatley Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
HUEL LTD: Sarayli Sues Over Protein Powder False Ads
IDAHO: Rossow Wins Class Certification Bid
INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTH: Sheehy Suit Removed to D. Colorado
INTERMOUNTAIN PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Downey Suit Removed to D. Mont.
IPF CONSULTANTS: Mangione Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
JAMES QUATTRONE: Conference to Discuss Settlement Set for April 2
JAMES QUATTRONE: Credit Union Bid for Class Certification Tossed
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Riccitelli Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin
KAILA & SOLOMON LAW: Newman Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
KANSAS CITY LIFE: Van Zanten Suit Removed to W.D. Mo.
KINGS BAY SHOPPING CENTER: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Hagins Wins Class Certification Bid
KRISTI NOEM: Has Until April 7 to File Class Cert Bid Response
KROGER CO: Morgan Labor Suit Removed to D. Colo.
LAKEVIEW LOAN: Bid to Strike Class Demand Tossed
LANDMARK RECOVERY: Hale Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
LELAND DUDEK: Supplemental Brief Filing on Class Cert Due April 14
LENNAR HOMES: Parties in Schwarz Must Confer Class Cert Sched
LEVI STRAUSS: Orr Suit Removed to C.D. California
LONG BEACH, CA: Filing of Opposition Papers Extended to May 2
MAIN STREET: Undervalues Total Loss Claims, Tucker Alleges
MANAGED CARE: Crowe Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by May 19
MANAGED CARE: More Time to File for Class Cert Bid Sought
MDL 2873: 3M Exposes Firefighters to Toxic Chemicals, Carson Says
MDL 2873: 3M Exposes Firefighters to Toxic Chemicals, Conner Says
MDL 2873: 3M Exposes Firefighters to Toxic Chemicals, Miller Says
MDL 2873: Acquaviva Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure
MDL 2873: AFFF Contains Toxic Chemicals, Downey Suit Says
MDL 2873: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Budnick Class Suit Alleges
MDL 2873: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Senyo Class Suit Alleges
MDL 2873: Andrews Sues Over Toxic Chemicals in Aqueous Foams
MDL 2873: Atkinson Sues Over Toxic Chemicals in Aqueous Foams
MDL 2873: Bratt Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure
MDL 2873: Brooks Sues Over Toxic Chemicals in Drinking Water
MDL 2873: Cook Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure
MDL 2873: Drinking Water Contains Harmful Chemicals, Cioban Says
MDL 2873: Faces Bennett Suit Over Toxic Chemical Exposure
MDL 2873: Faces Boisvert Suit Over Toxic Chemical Exposure
MDL 2873: Faces Driscoll Suit Over Toxic Chemical Exposure
MDL 2873: Faces Gonzalez Suit Over Toxic Chemical Exposure
MDL 2873: Faces Hall Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
MDL 2873: Faces Richardson Suit Over Toxic Chemical Exposure
MDL 2873: Field Sues Over Toxic Chemicals in Drinking Water
MDL 2873: Illness Caused by PFAS Exposure, De la Rosa Says
MDL 2873: Illness Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure, Kinne Says
MDL 2873: Mattox Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure
MDL 2873: PFAS Contain Harmful Chemicals, Banks Says
MDL 2873: PFAS Exposure Caused Illness, Blair Suit Says
MENTAVI INC: Tracking Tools Access Private Info, Martinez Says
MERCHANTS SECURITY: Adams Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MIDTOWN HOME: Prosser TCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
MIDWEST CATALOG: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 26
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Parties' Bid to Seal Class Cert Docs OK'd
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Van Meter Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
MVP GROUP: Faces Cole Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
MWP SUPPLY: Faces Waugh Suit Over Unpaid Wages
MYKITA SHOP: Isakov Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
NATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE: Clough Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing
NATIONAL GRID: Tedzen Dondim Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y.
NAZS HALAL: Wee-Ellis Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
NETWORK INFRA: Calderon Seeks Conditional Status of FLSA Collective
NEW DAY PROPERTIES: Padgett Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Alabama
NEW DIRECTION: Hatten Suit Removed to C.D. California
NEW ERA: Williams Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Exposure
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Varbanovski Balks at Unprotected Personal Info
NEW YORK: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Stokes Suit Says
NEW YORK: Zielinski Files Suit Over Prisoners' Civil Rights Breach
OLDS PRODUCTS: Quiroga Voluntarily Dismisses Suit
ORTHOMINDS LLC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Villasenor Says
OUTSET MEDICAL: Faces PCRA Securities Suit in California
OUTSET MEDICAL: Faces Porcelli Securities Suit in California
OVERDRIVE INC: Faces Cone Class Action Suit in C.D. Calif.
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Luong Suit Transferred to N.D. California
PERRIGO CO: Settlement in Baton Suit Gets Court Nod
PERRIGO COMPANY: Court OK's Settlement in Shareholder Suits
PERRY RUSSELL: Court Junks Thompson's Bid to Stay
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER: Settlement Deal in Class Suit Gets Final OK
PIAXTLA ES MEXICO: Faces Rojas Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
PIE EMPIRE: Wells Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
POST CONSUMER: Krikorian Sues Over False Pet Food Ads
PRODRIVERS WEST: Cortes Suit Removed to C.D. California
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Cole Appeals Suit Dismissal to 3rd Cir.
RARE CARAT: Battle Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
REBUILT BROKERAGE: Chavez TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Continues to Defend Sherman Act-Related Suit
REUZEL INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Espinal Says
RICE DRILLING: Gregor Bid to Certify Class Tossed w/o Prejudice
RICOH USA: Filing for Class Certification Bid Extended to June 9
ROBERT FREDERICK: Smith Sues Over Unlawful Mass Layoff
ROCK EM APPAREL: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Evans Says
SAFEWAY INC: Wilson Suit Removed to D. Oregon
SANDBOX VR: Patel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SANDPIPER PLAZA: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Feltzin Alleges
SERVICES FOR THE AGED: Lutfieva Files Appeal in Labor Suit
SHADE STORE: Seeks More Time to Oppose Fitzgerald Class Cert Bid
SMART ERP SOLUTIONS: Finley Files Suit in C.D. California
SOUTHWEST COLLEGE: Bowers Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SPECIALTY INDUSTRIAL: Vargas Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
SPS TECHNOLOGIES: Cottrell Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
SPS TECHNOLOGIES: Jones Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
SPS TECHNOLOGIES: Lenihan Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
SPS TECHNOLOGIES: Mckelvey Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
STAPLES CONTRACT: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to June 2
SUNFLOWER MEDICAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Mindeman Says
TAKEDA PHARMA: Seeks to File Sur-reply in Opposition to Class Cert
TASTEBUD CONCEPTS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Espinal Says
TERRAZA COURT: Poswal Sues Over Failure to Pay Hours Worked
TMX FINANCE: Kolstedt Seeks Initial OK of Proposed Settlement
TRANSAK USA: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Pearson Suit Says
TRINITY PETROLEUM: Langdon Files Suit in D. Colorado
TWITTER INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Carolina Due April 24
ULTRA CLEAN: Schweiger Sues Over Share Price Drop
UNITED PARCEL: Saechao Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.
UNITED STATES RAILROAD: Logan Sues Over Unauthorized Tax Charges
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Odom Sports Hits Inadequate Data Security
USA WASTE: Parties Must Confer and File Joint Status Report
WALMART INC: Adams Files Mislabeling Suit Over Biotin Gummies
WALMART INC: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Golikov Suit to 9th Cir.
WATERMARK RETIREMENT: Class Settlement in DeCarlo Gets Initial Nod
WEBSTER FIVE CENTS: Vincent Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
WELCH FOODS: Tate Files Mislabeling Suit Over Grape Juice Product
WELLS FARGO: Sealing Bids in Mortgage Case Provisionally OK'd
WEXFORD HEALTH: Wins Summary Judgment v. Bryant
WICHITA, KS: Clingerman Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
WICHITA, KS: Seeks to Exclude Expert O'Rourke's Testimony
YARDI SYSTEMS: LaFleur Appeals Suit Dismissal to 6th Circuit
YAZAM INC: Pope Suit Seeks to Certify Consumer Class
YSDM INC: Trevino Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
*********
3M COMPANY: Hartnett Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Hartnett, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; 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 CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-00950-RMG
(D.S.C., Feb. 20, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious
medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
Kidney Cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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
Phone: 939-220-2424
Facsimile: 939-220-2477
3M COMPANY: Keeley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Keeley, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; 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 CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-00952-RMG
(D.S.C., Feb. 20, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious
medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
Kidney Cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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
Phone: 939-220-2424
Facsimile: 939-220-2477
3M COMPANY: Kerttu Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
John Michael Kerttu, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; 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 CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:25-cv-00953-RMG (D.S.C., Feb. 20, 2025), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious
medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
Kidney Cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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
Phone: 939-220-2424
Facsimile: 939-220-2477
3M COMPANY: Knight Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Knight, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; 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 CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-00961-RMG
(D.S.C., Feb. 20, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious
medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
Testicular Cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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
Phone: 939-220-2424
Facsimile: 939-220-2477
3M COMPANY: Kracht Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lonny K. Kracht, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:25-cv-00954-RMG (D.S.C., Feb. 20,
2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluoro octane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
thyroid disease, prostate cancer, and high cholesterol as a result
of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Hochman, Esq.
THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC
5411 McPherson Rd Ste. 110
Laredo, TX 78041
Phone: (956) 704-5187
Facsimile: (956) 368-1343
ACE HARDWARE: Grey Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Kevin Grey and William Bennett Jr.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ACE
HARDWARE CORPORATION, Case No. 2025LA000101 was removed from the
Circuit Court for the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, DuPage County,
Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on March 11, 2025, and assigned Case No.
1:25-cv-02564.
The Plaintiffs filed this action in the DuPage County court on
January 28, 2025, seeking to assert claims on behalf of themselves
and a putative class under the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy
Act ("GIPA"). The Plaintiffs allege that Ace, a "marketer and
distributer of hardware products," "requires applicants for
employment to provide their protected familial medical histories
(specifically information about disease or disorders in family
members) as a condition of applying for employment," and that this
alleged conduct "violated Plaintiffs' and the putative Classes
members' GIPA-protected rights to keep their genetic information
private."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
111 W. Jackson St., Ste. 1700
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 984-0000
Email: malmstrom@whafh.com
- and -
Julie Holt, Esq.
HEDIN LLP
1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 610
Miami, FL 33131-3302
Phone: (305) 357-2107
Email: jholt@hedinllp.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Eric M. Roberts, Esq.
Yan Grinblat, Esq.
444 W Lake Street, Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 368-4000
Email: eric.roberts@us.dlapiper.com
yan.grinblat@us.dlapiper.com
AMERICAN HONDA: Parties Seek to Narrow Class Cert Issues
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as QUINTIN SHAMMAM,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION, Case No. 3:24-cv-00648-H-VET
(S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting
joint motion to narrow issues for class certification
The Plaintiff will be seeking class certification based on the
following two class definitions:
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) Subclass 1:
"All persons within the United States who received any call and/or
artificial or prerecorded voice messages from Defendant or its
agent/s and/or employee/s to said person's cellular telephone,
within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint."
Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) Subclass 2
"All persons in California whose inbound or outbound cellular
telephone conversations were recorded without their consent, by
Defendant, and or its agents, within the one year prior to the
filing of the Complaint."
American Honda offers a range of leasing and financing solutions
for automobiles.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 19, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9ZACkb at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino del Rio S STE 308
San Diego, CA 92108
The Defendant is represented by:
Scott J. Hyman, Esq.
Genevieve R. Walser-jolly, Esq.
Stephanie G. Chau, Esq.
Will Wang, Esq.
Arthur A. Ebbs, Esq.
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
400 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1700
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (714) 557-3800
Facsimile: (714) 557-3347
E-mail: Scott.Hyman@wbd-us.com
Genevieve.Walser-Jolly@wbd-us.com
Stephanie.Chau@wbd-us.com
Will.wang@wbd-us.com
Arthur.Ebbs@wbd-us.com
ARCHER AVIATION: Faces Securities Suit over Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------
Archer Aviation Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 28, 2025, that on June 19, 2024, a putative
stockholder of the company filed a class action lawsuit, on behalf
of himself and other similarly-situated stockholders, in the
Delaware Court of Chancery asserting claims against the defendants
for breaches of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breaches of
fiduciary duties, and unjust enrichment, in connection with the
merger between Atlas Crest Investment Corp. and the company.
The Delaware Court of Chancery subsequently consolidated this with
a related class action and appointed a lead plaintiff. The company
along with the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss on
October 3, 2024. The plaintiffs filed an answer on January 13,
2025. The hearing on the motion to dismiss is scheduled for April
17, 2025.
Archer is developing the technologies and aircraft to power the
future of advanced aviation. We plan to provide customers with
advanced aircraft and related technologies and services in the
United States and internationally in both the commercial and
defense sectors.
ARDAGH GLASS: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to June 13
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEX CASTANEDA, v. ARDAGH
GLASS INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-03547-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Haywood Gilliam, Jr. entered an amended scheduling order as
follows:
Event Deadline
Deadline to file motion for class June 13, 2025
Certification:
Deadline to file opposition: July 17, 2025
Deadline to file reply: Aug. 15, 2025
Hearing on motion for class Sept. 18, 2025,
Certification: at 2:00 p.m.
Ardagh Glass manufactures custom glass containers for a variety of
food applications.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wLOuso at no extra
charge.[CC]
AUDIBLE INC: Sherk Sues Over Unauthorized Subscription Enrollment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GRACE SHERK, individually and on behalf of all others similar
situated, Plaintiff v. AUDIBLE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-01797 (D.N.J., March 11, 2025) alleges that the Defendant
unjustly enriched itself at the expense of Plaintiff and other
Nationwide Class Members by retaining monthly charges from
Nonconsensual Enrollees who did not know about, want, or use the
Audible subscription.
When customers, like Plaintiff, deliberately sign up for an Audible
membership, they typically must provide personal and billing
information to Audible at the outset. However, Audible was able to
enroll and charge Amazon's existing customers for an unknown,
unwanted, and unused monthly Audible membership by using personal
information and payment methods already on file with Amazon without
the customers directly providing any information to Audible or even
knowing that Audible had enrolled them in an Audible membership,
referred here as Nonconsensual Enrollment.
The complaint alleges that Audible made it exceedingly difficult to
discover and/or cancel the Nonconsensual Enrollment. Audible also
limited refunds of continuous, monthly charges for Nonconsensual
Enrollment. As a result, Audible obtained monies from existing
Amazon customers who paid monthly fees to Audible for services that
they did not know about, did not want, and never used.
Under these circumstances, Audible's retention of monies from
Nonconsensual Enrollees constitutes unjust enrichment under New
Jersey and New York law, the suit asserts.
Audible Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Amazon.com, Inc.
Audible provides access to digital audiobooks and other spoken
audio content.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carlos F. Ramirez, Esq.
Sue J. Nam, Esq.
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
Kate J. Stoia, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
E-mail: cramirez@reesellp.com
snam@reesellp.com
mreese@reesellp.com
kstoia@reesellp.com
- and -
Charles D. Moore, Esq.
REESE LLP
121 N. Washington Ave., 4th Floor
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
E-mail: cmoore@reesellp.com
AVEPOINT INC: Settlement Deal Reached in Drulias Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
AvePoint, Inc. (formerly Apex Business Combination) disclosed in
its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2025,
that on February 2, 2024, Apex stockholders filed a class action
complaint in Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned "Dean William
Drulias, et.al. v. Apex Technology Sponsor LLC, et.al.," C.A. No.
2024-0094-LWW.
The parties participated in a mediation in October 2024 and agreed
to settlement terms. Pursuant to a signed letter of intent and a
forthcoming settlement agreement, releasing the company and the
defendants and settling the class action.
Plaintiffs asserted breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment
claims against the Defendants. The complaint alleged that
defendants made false and misleading disclosures in the June 2,
2021 proxy statement of Apex impacting its stockholders' vote to
approve a merger between Apex and AvePoint and also affecting
stockholders' redemption rights prior to the merger. Plaintiffs
sought unspecified damages, rescission or rescissory damages, and
disgorgement of unjust enrichment.
AvePoint operates a cloud-native data management software platform
that unifies data security, governance, and business continuity
service. AvePoint, Inc. changed its name to "AvePoint Operations,
Inc." in June 2021. On July 1, 2021, Legacy AvePoint and certain
members of Apex Technology Acquisition Corporation consummated the
transactions contemplated by a merger.
AVIDYNE CORP: Parties in Marincus Must Confer Class Cert Sched
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marincus, et al., v.
Avidyne Corporation, Case No. 6:25-cv-00472 (M.D. Fla., Filed March
18, 2025), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing
the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for
class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in
their case management report.
The deadlines should include a deadline for:
(1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and
defendant;
(2) discovery - class action;
(3) motion for class certification;
(4) response to motion for class certification; and
(5) reply to motion for class certification.
The nature of suit states Real Property -- Tort Product Liability.
Avidyne is an avionics company based in Melbourne, Florida. Avidyne
is developer of Integrated Avionics Systems, multi-function
displays, and traffic advisory systems for light general aviation
aircraft.[CC]
BANCO SANTANDER: Class Cert Bid Filing Due June 1, 2026
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT BONDS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-02830-JPO (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
J. Paul Oetken entered a civil case management plan and scheduling
order:
-- All fact discovery shall be completed no later than July 18,
2026.
-- The Plaintiffs shall file a motion for class certification
and any expert reports in support of their motion by June 1,
2026.
-- Depositions of the Plaintiffs' experts or other affiants in
support of the motion shall be completed by July 13, 2026.
-- The Defendants shall file any opposition to the motion for
class certification, any expert reports in support thereof,
and any challenges to the Plaintiffs' experts by Aug. 10,
2026.
-- Depositions of the Defendants' experts or other affiants
shall be completed by Sept. 18, 2026.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QhL6op at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Vincent Briganti, Esq.
Margaret MacLean, Esq.
Roland R. St. Louis, III, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com
mmaclean@lowey.com
rstlouis@lowey.com
- and -
Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq.
Todd Seaver, Esq.
Carl N. Hammarskjold, Esq.
Patrick T. Egan, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 433-3200
Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
E-mail: jtabacco@bermantabacco.com
tseaver@bermantabacco.com
chammarskjold@bermantabacco.com
pegan@bermantabacco.com
- and -
Scott Martin, Esq.
Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
Hilary K. Scherrer, Esq.
Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street
14th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 357-1100
Facsimile: (212) 202-4322
E-mail: smartin@hausfeld.com
mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
hscherrer@hausfeld.com
mlehmann@hausfeld.com
- and -
Kristen Anderson, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 519-0523
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
E-mail: kanderson@scott-scott.com
- and -
John Radice, Esq.
Daniel Rubenstein, Esq.
RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C.
34 Sunset Blvd.
Long Beach, NJ 08008
Telephone: (646) 245-8502
Facsimile: (609) 385-0745
E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com
drubenstein@radicelawfirm.com
- and -
Eric L. Young, Esq.
SHEPHERD FINKELMAN
MILLER & SHAH, LLP
35 East State Street
Media, PA 19063
Telephone: (610) 891-9880
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: eyoung@sfmslaw.com
- and -
Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
Anne K. Davis, Esq.
Javier Bleichmar, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
555 12th Street, Suite 1600
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (415) 445-4003
Facsimile: (415) 445-4020
E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com
adavis@bfalaw.com
jbleichmar@bfalaw.com
- and -
William J. Ban, Esq.
Michael A. Toomey, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Barrack, Esq.
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
11 Times Square
640 8th Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 688-0782
Facsimile: (212) 688-0783
E-mail: wban@barrack.com
mtoomey@barrack.com
jbarrack@barrack.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Sheila R. Adams James, Esq.
DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
450 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 450-4000
Facsimile: (212) 450-4800
E-mail: arthur.burke@davispolk.com
sheila.adams@davispolk.com
- and -
Alan Schoenfeld, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
250 Greenwich Street, 45 Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 937-7294
Facsimile: (212) 230-8888
E-mail: alan.schoenfeld@wilmerhale.com
- and -
Adam S. Hakki, Esq.
Mallory Tosch Hoggatt, Esq.
Jeffrey Resetarits, Esq.
ALLEN OVERY SHEARMAN STERLING US
LLP
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 848-4000
Facsimile: (212) 848-7179
E-mail: adam.hakki@aoshearman.com
mallory.toschhoggatt@aoshearman.com
jeffrey.resetarits@aoshearman.com
- and -
Lev L. Dassin, Esq.
Roger A. Cooper, Esq.
Leah Brannon, Esq.
CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN &
HAMILTON LLP
One Liberty Plaza
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 225-2000
Facsimile: (212) 225-3999
E-mail: ldassin@cgsh.com
racooper@cgsh.com
lbrannon@cgsh.com
- and -
John Terzaken, Esq.
Karen M. Porter, Esq.
Jonathan K. Youngwood
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
900 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 636-5500
Facsimile: (202) 636-5502
E-mail: john.terzaken@stblaw.com
karen.porter@stblaw.com
jyoungwood@stblaw.com
- and -
Boris Bershteyn, Esq.
Susan Saltzstein, Esq.
Kamali P. Willett, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
One Manhattan West
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 735-3000
Facsimile: (212) 735-2000
E-mail: boris.bershteyn@skadden.com
susan.saltzstein@skadden.com
kamali.willett@skadden.com
BATON ROUGE, LA: Faces Sanders Class Action Suit in C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against STEVEN E. SANDERS.
The case is captioned as LATORIA GEORGE, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. STEVEN E. SANDERS, in his official
capacity as East Baton Rouge Parish Ward 3 District 2 Justice of
the Peace, Case No. 3:25-cv-00168-JWD-EWD (M.D. La., Feb. 25,
2025).
The suit is brought over alleged civil rights' violation.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John W. deGravelles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anjana Ravindra Joshi, Esq.
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
201 St. Charles Ave., Ste. 2000
New Orleans, LA 70170
Telephone: (504) 239-8685
E-mail: anjana.joshi@splcenter.org
- and -
Hannah Draper Adams, Esq.
NATIONAL HOUSING LAW PROJECT
90 New Montgomery St., Suite 1015
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (781) 801-0072
E-mail: hadams@nhlp.org
- and -
William Patrick Quigley, Esq.
7500 Dominican Street
New Orleans, LA 70118
Telephone: (504) 710-3074
E-mail: quigley@loyno.edu
Defendant Steven E. Sanders is represented by:
Carey T. Jones, Esq.
Tanika Starks, Esq.
David Jeddie Smith , Jr., Esq.
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1885 North Third Street
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Telephone: (225) 326-6017
Facsimile: (225) 326-6096
E-mail: JonesCar@ag.louisiana.gov
starkst@ag.louisiana.gov
smithda@ag.state.la.us
BAUER BUILT: Court Junks Bid to Stay Anderson Proceedings
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Anderson, Jordan v. Bauer
Built Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00200 (W.D. Wisc., Filed March 27,
2024), the Hon. Judge James D. Peterson entered an order denying
joint motion to stay proceedings for 21 days and resetting the
following deadlines:
-- Proponent class certification expert April 24, 2025
disclosures due:
-- Respondent class certification expert May 26, 2025
disclosures due:
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property Damage.
Bauer manufactures tire products. The Company offers tires, rims,
and tubes for commercial truck, agricultural, and industrial
vehicles.[CC]
BAYER CORPORATION: Newman Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TANYSHA NEWMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BAYER CORPORATION, and BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, Case No.
7:22-cv-07087-KMK-AEK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth Karas
entered an order certifying a class only on her GBL section 349
claim and defines the class as:
"All persons who, within the applicable statute of
limitations period, purchased in the State of New York any of
Defendants' One A Day Vita[C]raves Products for personal,
family, or household purposes (the 'Class')."
The Plaintiff brings this putative class action against the
Defendants, alleging that the labeling on Defendants' "gummy" or
"chewable" line of One A Day supplements is deceptive and
misleading.
On Sept. 28, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss; specifically, the Court granted the
motion with respect to Plaintiff's claim of common law fraud but
denied the motion with respect to all other claims.
On July 19, 2024, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion for class
certification.
The Court says that the Plaintiff has satisfied all of the
necessary Rule 23 requirements.
Bayer is a German chemical and pharmaceutical company.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1ha860 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
Caroline C. Donovan, Esq.
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: mroberts@bursor.com
cdonovan@bursor.com
ltfisher@bursor.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jonathan F. Cohn, Esq.
Shannon Grammel, Esq.
Jacob B. Richards, Esq.
Katherine Yarger, Esq.
Alexis Swartz, Esq.
LEHOTSKY KELLER COHN LLP
200 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20001
E-mail: jon@lkcfirm.com
BEDFORD CARE: Underpays Certified Nursing Assistants, Wash Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA WASH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BEDFORD CARE CENTER OF NEWTON, LLC; BEDFORD
CARE CENTER OF MENDENHALL, LLC; BEDFORD CARE CENTER OF HATTIESBURG,
LLC; BEDFORD CARE CENTER OF PETAL, LLC; BEDFORD CARE CENTER OF
MARION, LLC; BEDFORD CARE CENTER-MONROE HALL, LLC; BEDFORD CARE
CENTER-WARREN HALL, LLC; BEDFORD ALZHEIMER'S CARE CENTER, LLC; and
BEDFORD HEALTH PROPERTIES, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
3:25-cv-00173-TSL-RPM (S.D. Miss., March 13, 2025) challenges
Defendants' alleged unlawful labor policy in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
By failing to include certain amounts in the calculation of each
employee's weekly regular rate of pay, the Bedford Defendants
failed to pay Plaintiff and the Nursing Personnel one and-one-half
times their regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
week. By neglecting to do so, the Bedford Defendants systematically
deprived Plaintiff and the Nursing Personnel of the overtime they
are due pursuant to FLSA, says the suit.
Plaintiff Wash worked at the Bedford Defendants' facility in Newton
as a certified nursing assistant.
Bedford Newton, Bedford Mendenhall, Bedford Hattiesburg, Bedford
Petal, Bedford Marion, Bedford Monroe, Bedford Warren, Bedford
Alzheimer’s, and Bedford Health jointly operate eight skilled
nursing facilities in Mississippi.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William "Jack" Simpson, Esq.
SIMPSON, PLLC
100 South Main Street
Booneville, MS 38829-0382
Telephone: (662) 913-7811
Facsimile: (662) 728-1992
E-mail: jack@simpson-pllc.com
BRIGHTON CORNERSTONE: Class Certification Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAULETTE WEDDING, v.
BRIGHTON CORNERSTONE GROUP, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00028-DJH-HBB
(W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge David Hale entered an order as follows:
(1) The joint motion for preliminary settlement approval, class
certification, and authorization of notice is denied
without prejudice. The parties shall file a revised motion
and proposed Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) notice within
45 days of entry of this Order.
(2) The joint motion for status conference is denied as moot.
Accordingly, the parties' proposed settlement and hybrid
FLSA–Rule 23 notice are not consistent with the FLSA or the
applicable caselaw.
The Plaintiff Paulette Wedding and Defendant Brighton Cornerstone
Group, LLC jointly move for preliminary approval of a class
settlement, certification of a class under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3), and authorization of notice of a collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The proposed settlement
agreement and notice state that class members will opt into the
FLSA collective action by cashing settlement checks.
Courts within the Sixth Circuit and elsewhere have repeatedly found
that the act of cashing a check does not satisfy the statutory
requirement of written consent filed in the record.
Moreover, the proposed settlement agreement "has the opt-in process
'entirely backwards,'": it would have the Court approve the
settlement and dismiss the claims of potential plaintiffs who have
not yet opted in. And because no other plaintiffs have opted in,
the collective action would become moot upon approval of the
settlement.
Brighton is a nursing home in Madisonville, KY.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0fnfbj at no extra
charge.[CC]
BURLINGTON CAPITAL: Filing for Conditional Class Cert Due August 28
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSIAH GIBSON, on behalf
of himself and on all others similarly situated; v. BURLINGTON
CAPITAL PM GROUP, INC, and BURLINGTON CAPITAL PROPERTIES, LLC, Case
No. 8:24-cv-00299-RFR-MDN (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Michael Nelson
entered an order granting the joint motion to modify case
progression order as follows:
1) The status conference set for March 26, 2025, is cancelled.
A status conference to discuss case progression and the
Parties' interest in settlement will be held with the
undersigned magistrate judge on July 23, 2025, at 11:00 a.m.
by telephone.
2) The deadline for completing the First Phase of written
discovery under Rules 33, 34, 36, and 45 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure is July 29, 2025. Motions to compel
written discovery under Rules 33, 34, 36, and 45 must be
filed by Aug. 12, 2025.
3) The deadline for the Plaintiff to file a motion for
conditional certification is Aug. 28, 2025.
4) Deadlines for identification and disclosure of experts, for
filing motions to exclude testimony on Daubert related
grounds, and for filing motions to dismiss and/or for
summary judgment will be determined after ruling on the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification.
Burlington provides investment management company.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SdTkLP at no extra
charge.[CC]
BUTEN INC: Davis Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Davis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. BUTEN, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00151-DRC (S.D. Ohio, March 11,
2025), is brought challenging wage-and-hour practices of Defendant
of failing to pay overtime compensation by which it willfully
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Ohio's common
law.
The Defendant misclassified all mechanics, including the Plaintiff,
as salaried exempt, meaning that mechanics were paid the same wage
every pay period regardless of the number of hours worked. The
Defendant did not pay an overtime premium to mechanics of
one-and-one half their regular rate of pay for hours worked over
forty in a workweek. As a result, the FLSA and Ohio law required
Defendant to pay Plaintiff, the Potential Opt-Ins, and the Ohio
Class Members overtime compensation of at least one and one half
times their "regular rate" for all hours worked in excess of forty
hours in a workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Buten at Car-X Tire & Auto as a mechanic
from January 20, 2024 through May 12, 2024.
Buten provided mechanical car services at multiple locations across
the state branded Car-X Tire & Auto stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq.
Katie R. Harris, Esq.
4106 Bridge Ave.
Cleveland, OH 44113
Phone: 216-308-1522
Fax: 888-604-9299
Email: scott@tittlelawfirm.com
katie@tittlelawfirm.com
BYTEDANCE INC: Illegally Collects Children's Data, Riley Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN RILEY on behalf of W.C.R., T.S.R.R, N.A.R., T.A.R., and
N.J.R.; 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. 5:25-cv-00060-MW-MJF (N.D. Fla., March
10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for their
failure disclose that they collect and sell personally identifiable
information of millions of minor children, without the consent of
the minors or their parents in violation of the Children's Online
Privacy Protection Act of 1998 and Children's Online Privacy
Protection Rule.
According to the complaint, TikTok collects and uses young
children's personal information without providing direct notice to
their parents or gaining their parents' verifiable consent. The
Defendants have unjustly received and retained monetary benefits
from Plaintiff's minor children and Class Members by profiting off
the use of their personal information under unjust circumstances
such that inequity has resulted.
The Defendants also violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act as they each engaged in consumer-oriented acts
through the offer, promotion, and/or distribution of the TikTok
app, which significantly impacted the public because TikTok is used
nationwide, including in Florida, and there are millions of users,
including Plaintiff and members of the Florida Subclass, says the
suit.
Plaintiff Riley is the father of minor children W.C.R., T.S.R.R,
N.A.R., T.A.R., and N.J.R.
ByteDance Ltd. is a Chinese Internet technology company
headquartered in Haidian, Beijing and incorporated in the Cayman
Islands.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clayton M. Connors, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF CLAYTON M. CONNORS, PLLC
4300 Bayou Blvd., Suite 37
Pensacola, FL 32503
Telephone: (850) 473-0401
E-mail: mindy@westconlaw.com
BYTEDANCE INC: Illegally Sells Children's Personal Info, White Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL WHITE on behalf of K.L.W. and K.L.W.; 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.
4:25-cv-00310 (D. Mo., March 12, 2025) is a class action against
the Defendants for their failure to disclose that they collect and
sell the sensitive, personal information of millions of minor
children, without the consent of the minors or their parents, in
violation of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998
and Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule.
By permitting the unauthorized collection and disclosure, the
Defendants acted with reckless disregard for the Plaintiff's and
Class Members' privacy, and with knowledge that such disclosure
would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Furthermore, the
Defendants acted with such reckless disregard as to the safety of
Plaintiff's and Class Members' personal information to rise to the
level of intentionally allowing the intrusion upon the seclusion,
private affairs, or concerns of Plaintiff and Class Members, says
the suit.
Plaintiff White is the father of K.L.W. and K.L.W. who are 13 years
old and 11 years old, respectively. Both children are minors who
used the TikTok mobile application.
Bytedance, Inc. operates as a multinational Internet technology
holding company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
N. Ryan Mayfield, Esq.
THE GORI LAW FIRM, P.C.
156 N. Main Street
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Telephone: (618) 659-9833
Facsimile: (618) 659-9834
E-mail: rmayfield@gorilaw.com
CALIFORNIA CRYOBANK: Fails to Secure Private Info, Atta Says
------------------------------------------------------------
RHONDA ATTA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CALIFORNIA CRYOBANK, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:25-cv-02549 (C.D. Cal., March 24, 2025) is a class action
arising from Defendant's failure to properly secure, safeguard,
encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and other
patients' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had
acquired and stored for its business purposes.
According to a "Notice of Data Security Incident" posted on
Maine.gov's website, a data breach occurred on Defendant's network
between April 20, 2024 and April 22, 2024.
Due to Defendant's data security failures which resulted in the
Data Breach, cybercriminals were able to target Defendant's
computer systems and exfiltrate highly sensitive and personally
identifiable information and protected health information belonging
to Plaintiff and Class members. As a result of this data breach,
the private information of Plaintiff and Class members remains in
the hands of those cybercriminals, says the suit.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant
seeking redress for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for:
(i) negligence, (ii) negligence per se, (iii) breach of contract,
(iv) breach of implied contract, (v) breach of fiduciary duty; (vi)
unjust enrichment; (vii) invasion of privacy; and (viii)
declaratory and injunctive relief.
California Cryobank, LLC provides healthcare services. The Company
offers frozen donor sperm, donor matching, private semen
cryopreservation, egg and embryo storage, artificial insemination
guidance, semen analysis, cultures and specimen preparation,
genetic testing, and family planning consulting services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
Liberato P. Verderame, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street, Suite N-300
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (215) 867-2399
Facsimile: (267) 685-0676
E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com
medelson@edelson-law.com
lverderame@edelson-law.com
CARLE FOUNDATION: Polizzi Suit Transferred to C.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Dominick Polizzi, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. The Carle Foundation, Case No.
1:24-cv-12230 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of Illinois on March 20, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02082-CSB-EIL to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.
The Carle Foundation -- https://www.carle.org/ -- is the leading
healthcare system in east central Illinois serving a patient base
of more than 1.5 million.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Glenn A. Danas, Esq.
Christina M. Le, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Phone: (213) 788-4050
Email: gdanas@clarksonlawfirm.com
cle@clarksonlawfirm.com
- and -
Jamie K. Serb, Esq.
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, PC
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Phone: (866) 276-7637
Email: jamie@crosnerlegal.com
zach@crosnerlegal.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Scott M. Gilbert, Esq.
POLSINELLI PC
150 N Riverside Plaza, Suite 3000
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 819-1900
Email: sgilbert@polsinelli.com
CONTINENTAL SERVICE: Stalker Suit Removed to E.D. Washington
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Anthony Stalker, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. CONTINENTAL SERVICE PLAN, INC., and
THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 25-2-00675-32 was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the
County of Spokane, to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Washington on March 20, 2025, and assigned Case
No. 2:25-cv-00089.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the Preferred Tire Care
coverage plan--which was issued by defendant CSP and insured by
defendant CIC--that Plaintiff purchased from an automotive
dealership in Spokane, WA does not contain certain disclosures
required under RCW 48.110.075(2). Plaintiff alleges claims under
the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"), RCW 19.86.010, and
for common-law unjust enrichment, and seeks to represent a putative
class of Washington residents who purchased Preferred Tire Care
coverage plans issued by CSP within the past four years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Meredith L. Thielbahr, Esq.
Connor Gordon, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
421 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 1555
Spokane, WA 99201
Phone: (509) 252-5608
Facsimile: (509) 590-4344
Email: mthielbahr@grsm.com
cgordon@grsm.com
COURTYARD MANAGEMENT: Status Conference Set for May 12
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Baldino-Miller v.
Courtyard Management Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01613
(E.D. Cal., Filed Nov. 15, 2023), the Hon. Judge Kirk E. Sherriff
entered an order directing the parties to meet and confer to
propose new class certification briefing deadlines.
To allow the parties time to produce and review class discovery,
the Court vacates the class certification briefing deadlines,
including the class certification written discovery cutoff, motion
filing deadline, opposition deadline, reply deadline, and motion
hearing.
The Court further sets a status conference to discuss resetting
class certification briefing deadlines for May 12, 2025, at 9:00 AM
in Courtroom 8 (BAM) before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe .
The parties shall appear at the conference remotely either via Zoom
video conference or Zoom telephone number.
The parties will be provided with the Zoom ID and password by the
Courtroom Deputy prior to the conference. The Zoom ID number and
password are confidential and are not to be shared. Appropriate
court attire required.
Courtyard Management operates as a chain of hotels.[CC]
CRAZY MAPLE: Exposes Website Users' Private Data, Porcuna Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARISSA PORCUNA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CRAZY MAPLE STUDIO, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 4:25-cv-02428 (N.D. Cal., March 10, 2025) is a class action
suit brought against the Defendant for violating the Video Privacy
Protection Act and the California Civil Code.
The Defendant owns and operates its website reelshort.com, a video
streaming website featuring short-form video episodes of serialized
dramas. Consumers access the site through their browsers at
reelshort.com.
Allegedly, the Defendant violated the VPPA by knowingly disclosing
the personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and the class
members to Meta without their consent. To do so, behind the scenes
of its videos, the Defendant installed computer code on its website
called the "Meta Pixel," which -- unbeknownst to Plaintiff and the
members of the Class -- tracks and records Plaintiff's and the
Class Members' private video consumption and discloses it to Meta
without their consent. Meta, in turn, uses Plaintiff's and the
Class Members' video consumption habits to build profiles on
consumers and deliver targeted advertisements to them, among other
activities, says the suit.
The Plaintiff created a ReelShort account and has accessed her
account to watch ReelShort videos as recently as February 2024. She
accesses ReelShort on the same browser she uses to access her
Facebook account, which she created using her real name.
Crazy Maple Studio, Inc. owns and operates reelshort.com, which is
used throughout California and the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq.
Ines Diaz Villafana, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
sbogdanovich@bursor.com
idiaz@bursor.com
CREDIT UNION: Lucero Class Cert Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDA L. LUCERO, HEATHER
BARTON, ILONA KOMPANIIETS, and CYNTHIA HURTADO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CREDIT UNION RETIREMENT
PLAN ASSOCIATION, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CREDIT UNION
RETIREMENT PLAN ASSOCIATION, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF RETIREMENT
PLANS, THE PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case
No. 3:22-cv-00208-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge James Peterson
entered an order denying without prejudice the parties' motion for
class certification and preliminary approval.
The parties may have until May 15, 2025, to file a renewed motion.
The parties will need to address several concerns before the court
can grant preliminary approval of the settlement. First, the
parties did not directly address any of the factors for approval
listed in Rule 30(e)(2).
They instead relied on an outdated common–law standard. Second,
the parties provided almost no information about how they arrived
at $570,000 as an appropriate settlement amount.
They say that plaintiffs' expert determined that the maximum
damages for the class through 2021 was $562,940.18. But the
proposed class does not stop at 2021; it continues through the date
of the preliminary approval order. The parties did not submit the
expert’s opinion or explain why it did not include damages after
2021. Without some support for the settlement amount, the court
cannot grant preliminary approval.
The Plaintiffs are former participants of the Credit Union
Retirement Plan Association 401(k) Plan, a multiple-employer plan
that has more than 100 employer members.
The Plaintiffs contend that several entities involved in
administering the plan failed to control recordkeeping costs and
thus breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA).
The parties proposed the following class:
"All Persons, except Defendants and their immediate family
members, who have been participants or beneficiaries of the
Class Plan from April 12, 2016 through the date of the
Preliminary Approval Order, and any Alternate Payee of a
Person subject to a QDRO who participated in the Class Plan at
any time from April 12, 2016 through the date of the
Preliminary Approval Order."
A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qYDCyF at no extra
charge.[CC]
CUSTOMERS BANCORP: Faces Chang Securities Suit over SEC Disclosures
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Customers Bancorp, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 28, 2025, that on December 2, 2024,
a federal securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, captioned
"Chang v. Customers Bancorp, Inc. et al.," Case No.
2:24-cv-06416-JS, by Chun Yao Chang against Customers Bancorp, Jay
Sidhu, its Chief Executive Officer and Executive Chairman of the
company's board of directors, and Carla Leibold, its former Chief
Financial Officer.
The action alleges that Customers Bancorp and the individual
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or omissions during the class period of March 1, 2024 through
August 8, 2024, and that such statements violated Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The action
also alleges that the individual defendants are liable pursuant to
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as controlling persons of
Customers Bancorp.
The suit seeks to recover damages caused by the alleged violations
of federal securities laws, along with the plaintiffs' costs
incurred in the lawsuit, including their reasonable attorneys' and
experts' witness fees and other costs.
On January 31, 2025, Chun Yao Chang filed the only application for
appointment as lead plaintiff with The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as
counsel. Customers Bancorp intends to defend itself against this
action.
Customers Bancorp is a bank holding company engaged in banking
activities through its wholly owned subsidiary, Customers Bank.
CVS HEALTH: Los Angeles Pensions Appeals Suit Dismissal to 1st Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The LOS ANGELES FIRE AND POLICE PENSIONS has filed an appeal from a
court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled In Re: CVS Health Corp.
Securities Act Litigation, Case No. 1:19-cv-00434-MSM, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Rhode Island.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
a securities class action on behalf of all former Aetna
shareholders who acquired CVS shares in exchange for their Aetna
shares in connection with the CVS's acquisition of Aetna on
November 28, 2018.
On Nov. 23, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
On Jan. 11, 2023, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint for failure to state a claim, which Judge Mary S.
McElroy granted on Feb. 5, 2025.
In her 15-page ruling, Judge McElroy wrote, "This is the second of
two securities cases challenging practices of the CVS Health
Corporation ("CVS") and its officers and agents to come before this
Court. In 2019, this case was filed as a putative class action by
the Waterford (Connecticut) Township Police & Fire Retirement
System ("Waterford") seeking to impose liability on CVS for what it
claimed were false and misleading statements surrounding CVS's 2018
acquisition of Aetna Insurance Corporation. Waterford, like other
retirement funds joining in the action, was an investor in Aetna
whose stock was exchanged for CVS shares as part of the merger. The
same year this lawsuit was filed, a group of pension funds that had
been investors in Omnicare Corporation, a company acquired by CVS
in 2015, also sued CVS for what it similarly claimed were false and
misleading statements CVS had made in connection with the Omnicare
acquisition. The lead plaintiff in that case was the City of Miami
(Florida) Firefighters' and Police Officers' Retirement Trust."
"The two lawsuits shared common themes," Judge McElroy continued.
"Each contended that the documents CVS was required by law to file
in connection with the acquisitions contained false statements and
omitted facts that were so material that their omission made other
statements misleading."
According to the Judge McElroy, "The relationship between the two
acquisitions, and the two lawsuits, was summarized by the First
Circuit in upholding the Court's dismissal of the Omnicare (City of
Miami) lawsuit."
"The First Circuit's opinion in City of Miami provides an obvious
and instructive guide for the review of the instant Complaint, one
against which the assessment of the Complaint both begins and ends.
Because of City of Miami's likely impact, this Waterford litigation
was stayed while City of Miami was pending on appeal. After it was
decided, these plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which is the
operative Complaint. For the same reason that prompted the First
Circuit to affirm the dismissal of City of Miami, and in the
context of pleadings that are similar in relevant respect, the
Court finds the Amended Complaint wanting under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6) and GRANTS the Motions to Dismiss," Judge McElroy opined.
The appellate case is captioned In Re: CVS Health Corp. Securities
Act Litigation, Case No. 25-1230, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on March 11, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants LOS ANGELES FIRE AND POLICE PENSIONS, et al.,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Lauren Michelle Cruz, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 2575
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 819-3480
- and –
Timothy Fleming, Esq.
Adam Hollander, Esq.
Jesse L. Jensen, Esq.
John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq.
Hannah G. Ross, Esq.
Matthew W. Traylor, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
44th Fl.
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1941
(212) 554-1414
(212) 554-1505
- and –
K. Joseph Shekarchi, Esq.
SHEKARCHI LAW
51 Jefferson Blvd., Ste. 400
Warwick, RI 02888
Telephone: (401) 827-0100
- and –
Barry Jay Kusinitz, Esq.
21 Caraway Dr.
Cranston, RI 02921
Defendants-Appellees CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, et al. are represented
by:
Melissa Collins, Esq.
Steven M. Farina, Esq.
Amanda Margaret MacDonald, Esq.
Michael J. Mestitz, Esq.
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
680 Maine Ave SW
Washington, DC 20024
Telephone: (202) 434-5000
(202) 434-5526
(202) 434-5416
(202) 434-5085
- and –
Robert Clark Corrente, Esq.
Christopher N. Dawson, Esq.
WHELAN CORRENTE & FLANDERS LLP
100 Westminster St., Ste. 710
Providence, RI 02903
Telephone: (401) 270-4500
- and –
Geoffrey R. Chepiga, Esq.
Daniel J. Kramer, Esq.
Emily M. Miller, Esq.
PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 373-3000
- and –
Rachelle R. Green, Esq.
CERVENKA GREEN & DUCHARME LLC
225 Dyer St., 2nd Fl.
Providence, RI 02903
Telephone: (401) 214-1023
DELTA-SONIC CAR WASH: McGee Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Eshe McGee, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated v. DELTA-SONIC CAR WASH SYSTEMS, INC.,
Case No. 2025 L 001401 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, Law Division, to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on March 20, 2025, and
assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-02986.
This Notice of Removal is based on diversity jurisdiction. On
January 31, 2025, Plaintiff Eshe McGee, individually and on behalf
of all those similarly situated, filed a class action Complaint in
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Law Division.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
James R. Branit, Esq.
Sarah V. Bourdet, Esq.
LITCHFIELD CAVO LLP
303 West Madison, Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60606-3300
Phone: (312) 781-6552
Facsimile (312) 781-6630
Email: branit@litchfieldcavo.com
bourdet@litchfieldcavo.com
DIGIMARC CORP: Faces Mayer Suit Over Share Price Decline
--------------------------------------------------------
KAREN MAYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DIGIMARC CORPORATION, RILEY MCCORMACK, and
CHARLES BECK, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01963 (S.D.N.Y., March
10, 2025) is a class action on behalf of Plaintiff and other
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Digimarc
securities between May 2, 2024 and February 26, 2025, inclusive,
pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
On February 26, 2025, after the market closed, Digimarc released
its fourth quarter and full year 2024 financial results, revealing
the Company's quarterly subscription revenue decreased 10% to $5.0
million (compared to $5.6 million in the previous year) and annual
recurring revenue had decreased to $20.0 million (compared to
$22.23 million in the previous year). These declines "primarily
reflected a $5.8 million decrease in ARR due to the expiration of a
commercial contract in June 2024."
On this news, Digimarc's stock price fell $11.65, or 43.1%, to
close at $15.39 per share on February 27, 2025, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
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, the
Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that a large
commercial partner would not renew a large contract on the same
terms; (2) that, as a result, Digimarc would renegotiate the large
commercial contract; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's subscription revenue and annual recurring revenue would
be adversely affected; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the suit.
Digimarc is a digital watermarking technology company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rebecca Dawson, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave, Suite 358
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (213) 521-8007
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
Email: RDawson@glancylaw.com
- and -
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
- and -
Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800
Century City, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 914-5007
DIMENSIONS LIVING: Faces Woods Class Suit Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kanasha Woods, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Dimensions Living Cudahy, LLC and Health
Dimensions Consulting, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 25-cv-378 (E.D.
Wis., March 12, 2025) is a proposed collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act as well as a proposed class action under
the Wisconsin statues by Plaintiff to seek redress for overtime
wages that Defendants owe to her.
The Plaintiff worked as an hourly non-exempt lead employee at
Dimension Living Cudahy.
Dimension Living Cudahy, LLC is an assisted living community.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yingtao Ho, Esq.
THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C.
310 W. Wisconsin Ave., Suite 100MW
Milwaukee, WI 53212
Telephone: (414) 271-4500
Facsimile: (414) 271-6308
E-mail: yh@previant.com
DISA GLOBAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Baldwin Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
DAWN BALDWIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DISA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00836
(S.D. Tex., Feb. 25, 2025) alleges that DISA failed to properly
secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected
personally identifiable information stored within the Defendant's
information network including, without limitation, names, Social
Security numbers.
The Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory
relief from DISA. The Plaintiff further seeks to hold Defendant
responsible for not ensuring that the PII was maintained in a
manner consistent with industry standards.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff and Members of the Class have suffered
significant injury and damages due to the Data Breach permitted to
occur by DISA, and the resulting misuse of their Personal
Information and fraudulent activity, including monetary damages
including out-of-pocket expenses, including those associated with
the reasonable mitigation measures they were forced to employ, and
other damages.
The Plaintiff and the Class also now forever face an amplified risk
of further misuse, fraud, and identity theft due to their sensitive
Personal Information falling into the hands of cybercriminals
because of the tortious conduct of Defendant.
On behalf of themselves and the Class preliminarily defined below,
Plaintiff brings causes of action for: (I) Negligence and
Negligence Per Se; (ii) Implied Breach of Contract; (iii) Breach of
Fiduciary Duty; (iv) Intrusion Upon Seclusion/Invasion of Privacy;
(v) Unjust Enrichment and (vi) Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive
Relief.
The Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive and declaratory relief
arising from DISA's failure to adequately protect their highly
sensitive Personal Information.
According to the DISA's own website, DISA is a leading provider of
background screening, drug and alcohol testing, and compliance
solutions, with industry-leading expertise. The Plaintiff and Class
Members' sensitive personal information -- which they entrusted to
Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect
against disclosure was targeted, compromised, and unlawfully
accessed due to the Data Breach.
The Defendant states on its website that: On April 22, 2024, DISA
discovered that it was the victim of a cyber incident that impacted
a limited portion of its network.
On Feb. 21, 2025, the Defendant's Data Breach was reported in the
news media: "Reported on February 21st, nearly a year after the
"cyber incident" took place, DISA filed a breach notification with
the Maine Attorney General's office, revealing that the personal
information of 3,332,750 individuals was compromised in the hack --
including social security numbers, credit card account numbers and
more."
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to
implement and to follow basic security procedures, Plaintiff's and
Class Members' Private Information now appears to be in the hands
of cybercriminals, the Plaintiff contends.
DISA provides background screening, drug and alcohol testing, and
compliance solutions, with industry-leading expertise. As part of
its business, the Defendant collects a treasure-trove of data from
their clients, including highly sensitive Private Information.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS GENTILE
14 NE 1 Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
cardoso@kolawyers.com
DISNEY PLATFORM: Scott Balks at Illegal Automatic Renewal Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
JEREMY SCOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DISNEY PLATFORM DISTRIBUTION, INC., and DOES
1 10, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-00638 (C.D. Cal., March 11,
2025) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendants
pursuant to the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and the California
Automatic Purchase Renewal Statute.
The Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, bring this complaint for damages, injunctive relief, and
any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the
illegal actions of Defendant debiting Plaintiff's and also the
putative Class members' bank accounts on a recurring basis after
such consumers request to cancel their subscriptions, thereby
violating EFTA. Additionally, the Defendant fails to provide a
reasonable and accessible method for consumers to cancel their
subscriptions, says the suit.
Disney Platform Distribution, Inc. is a business unit within Disney
Media and Entertainment Distribution that manages all third-party
media sales efforts for distribution, affiliate marketing and
affiliate-related business operations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Matthew R. Snyder, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
msnyder@toddflaw.com
DREW BOSTOCK: Vazquez Suit Seek to Certify Two Classes
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ramon RODRIGUEZ VAZQUEZ,
on behalf of himself as an individual and on behalf of others
similarly situated, v. Drew BOSTOCK, et al., Case No.
3:25-cv-05240-TMC (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying the proposed classes, appointing Mr.
Rodriguez as the class representative for both classes, and
appointing the undersigned attorneys as class counsel.
The Plaintiff seeks certification of the following classes:
Bond Denial Class:
"All noncitizens detained at the Northwest ICE Processing
Center who (1) have entered or will enter the United States
without inspection, (2) are not apprehended upon arrival, and
(3) are not or will not be subject to detention under 8 U.S.C.
section 1226(c), section 1225(b)(1), or section 1231 at the
time the noncitizen is scheduled for or requests a bond
hearing."
Bond Appeal Class:
"All detained noncitizens who have a pending appeal, or will
file an appeal, of an immigration judge's bond hearing ruling
to the Board of Immigration Appeals."
Each proposed class satisfies the requirements set forth in Rules
23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
The Plaintiff challenges Defendants' failure to provide bond
hearings before an immigration judge (IJ) as required by the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as well as their failure to
provide a timely and thus meaningful avenue to appeal IJ bond
decisions.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 20, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=n5t9qi at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron Korthuis, Esq.
Leila Kang, Esq.
Matt Adams, Esq.
Glenda M. Aldana Madrid, Esq.
NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT
615 Second Ave., Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 816-3872
E-mail: aaron@nwirp.org
leila@nwirp.org
matt@nwirp.org
glenda@nwirp.org
DYSON DIRECT: Fails to Provide Value of Warranties, Tevis Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
NANCY ELLEN TEVIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DYSON DIRECT, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:25-cv-00821-DJC-AC (E.D. Cal., March 13, 2025) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of California's
Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and California's Unfair
Competition Law.
The Defendant manufactures consumer goods which are advertised and
accompanied by express warranties. The SBA explicitly requires that
"a manufacturer, distributor, or retail seller shall not make an
express warranty with respect to a consumer good that commences
earlier than the date of delivery of the good." However, the
Defendant commences their express warranties on the date of
purchase, not on the date of delivery, as required by the SBA.
As a result of this alleged unlawful and deceitful business
practice, Plaintiff and other consumers who receive their goods
after the date of purchase, such as online shoppers, do not receive
the full benefit of their warranty. These consumers are
short-changed the full value of their warranties. Furthermore, the
Defendant unfairly benefit by saving themselves the added time and
expense that would be required to properly track and administer
their warranties were they to commence on the date of delivery, the
suit alleges.
Dyson Direct, Inc. manufactures vacuum cleaners, air purifiers,
hair care and hand dryers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan McBride, Esq.
Jonathan Gil, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino Del Rio S, Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com
jonathan@kazlg.com
- and -
Adib Assassi, Esq.
Veronica Cruz, Esq.
ASSASSI & CRUZ LAW FIRM PC
1100 W. Town & Country Road, Suite 1250
Orange, CA 92868
Telephone: (800) 500-0301
Facsimile: (800) 500-0301
E-mail: adib@aclegalteam.com
veronica@aclegalteam.com
EIDP INC: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment v. Caporale
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CANDY CAPORALE, BRUCE
DAVIS, GENE SULLENBERGER, and CHRISTINE WOOTTEN, for themselves and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EIDP, INC., THE 3M
COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.), ATOTECH
USA, LLC, MACDERMID, INC., PROCINO PLATING, INC., a/k/a PROCINO
ENTERPRISES, a/k/a PROCINO, and BLADES DEVELOPMENT LLC, Case No.
1:19-cv-01672-JLH-SRF (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer Hall
entered an order that:
1. The Plaintiffs' objections to the Report are overruled;
2. The Report is adopted;
3. The Defendant EIDP's motion for summary judgment is granted;
4. The Defendant MacDermid's motion for summary judgment is
granted; and
5. The Defendant 3M's motion for summary judgment is granted.
The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action in May 2019, after
federal and local authorities determined that the groundwater in
Blades, Delaware, was contaminated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS").
The operative pleading alleges that PFAS were released into the
environment because of the activities at two electroplating
facilities in Blades: Defendant Procino Plating, Inc. and the
now-defunct Peninsula Plating.
EIDP operates as a agricultural chemical company.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gcVSVa at no extra
charge.[CC]
ELON MUSK: Pretrial Deadlines Stayed in Emrit Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONALD SATISH EMRIT, v.
ELON MUSK, ET AL. Case No. 2:25-cv-00096-JCZ-KWR (E.D. La.), the
Hon. Judge Jay Zainey entered an order that the plaintiff must show
cause in writing within 14 days why the case should not be
dismissed or transferred to the United States District Court for
the Western District of Louisiana—Shreveport Division.
The Court further entered an order that:
-- All pretrial deadlines in this matter are stayed pending
further orders of the Court.
-- The motion in limine, motion for joinder, motion for
preliminary injunction, motion for appearance, motion for
summary judgment, motion to certify class, motion to subpoena
witnesses, and motion to compel filed by the plaintiff are
denied as premature.
Elon Musk is a businessman known for his key roles in Tesla,
SpaceX, and Twitter.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xOqva4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
EMIRATES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to May 30
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FARAH et al., v. Emirates
et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-05786-LTS-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants
ask the Court to enter an order granting 60 days extensions of the
discovery and filing deadlines as follows:
(i) the deadline to complete fact discovery from March 24,
2025, to May 23, 2025; and
(ii) the deadline for the Plaintiffs to move for class
certification from March 31, 2025, to May 30, 2025.
The Plaintiffs have deposed corporate representatives designated
for eight of the ten topics identified in their Amended Notice of
Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of Defendant Emirates, and Defendants have
identified the designee for the two remaining topics, who is based
in Dubai.
Given those topics, and Plaintiff's Second RFP, the parties
anticipate that Defendants' Responses and Objections to the Second
RFP will bear on the scheduling of that final corporate
representative deposition. The parties also expect that a
Plaintiff's medical condition will prevent their deposition from
occurring until May 2025.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 19, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TevPCj at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Evan B. Citron, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
666 Third Avenue
New York NY 10017-4030
Telephone: (212) 545-4069
Facsimile: (212) 972-3213
E-mail: evan.citron@jacksonlewis.com
ENOVIX CORP: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due May 23
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE ENOVIX CORPORATION SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-00071-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Susan Illston entered a pretrial preparation order:
-- Deadline for amendment of the pleadings: June 24, 2025
-- Further Case Management: Aug. 15, 2025
-- Class Certification Motion: May 23, 2025
Opposition Due: July 23, 2025
Reply Due: Aug. 29, 2025
-- Hearing no later than: Sept. 19, 2025
Enovix provides electronic components. The Company focuses on
development and production of advanced silicon-anode lithium-ion
batteries.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NwUwEk at no extra
charge.[CC]
ENTRATA INC: Has Until April 17 to File Complaint Response
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BONNIE MANASKIE, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ENTRATA, INC.
d/b/a RESIDENT VERIFY and RESIDENT VERIFY, LLC, Case No.
1:25-cv-00704-MHC-CCB (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Christopher Bly
entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion for extension
of time for the Defendants to respond to the complaint and to stay
the Local Rule 23.1(B) Class Certification deadline.
The Defendants shall have until April 7, 2025 to file their Answer
or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint. The Local Rule
23.1(B) class certification deadline is stayed, and the Parties are
ordered to propose a class certification briefing schedule in their
Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan.
Entrata operates as a software development company.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qDdjGg at no extra
charge.[CC]
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Taylor Must File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 27
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MALCOLM TAYLOR, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. EQUIFAX
INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-04033-TRJ-JKL (N.D.
Ga.), the Hon. Judge John Larkins III entered a scheduling order
and instructions regarding management of civil cases:
-- Fact discovery to close on: Jan. 27, 2026
-- The parties will then have until April 27, 2026, to complete
expert discovery.
-- The parties shall file any motions May 27, 2026
For summary judgment no later than:
-- The Plaintiff will have until Oct. 27, 2025, to move for class
certification, the Defendant will have until Dec. 10 to oppose
that motion, and the Plaintiff will have until Jan. 7, 2026 to
reply.
Equifax offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and
analytical solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j46Wyt at no extra
charge.[CC]
EXPAND ENERGY: Santiago Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Robert Santiago, individually and on §
Behalf of others similarly situated v. EXPAND ENERGY CORPORATION
f/k/a CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION, Case No. GD-25-000843 was
removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on March 20, 2025, and assigned Case No.
2:25-cv-00394.
The Plaintiff's Original Class Action Complaint alleges that Expand
paid the Plaintiff and others similarly situated on a day rate, and
did not pay the Plaintiff or others similarly situated overtime and
other wages allegedly owed under the law. The Plaintiff
specifically brings claims for failure to pay overtime and other
wages under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania
Wage Payment and Collection Act.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
GOODRICH & GEIST PC
3634 California Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Phone: 412-766-1455
Facsimile: 412-766-0300
Email: josh@goodrichandgeist.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: 713-877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael A. Comber, Esq.
Devin M. Misour, Esq.
COMBER MILLER LLC
300 Koppers Building
436 Seventh Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: 412-894-1380
Fax: 412-291-2109
Email: mcomber@combermiller.com
dmisour@combermiller.com
- and -
Rachel P. Steely, Esq.
Michael F. Ryan, Esq.
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 2000
Houston, TX 77002-5007
Phone: (713) 276-5500
Email: rsteely@foley.com
mryan@foley.com
EYEBUYDIRECT INC: Ramos Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Erika Ramos, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. EYEBUYDIRECT, INC., Case No.
30-2025-01459811-CU-NP-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of
California for the County of Orange, to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on March 20, 2025, and
assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-00539.
The Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law; California's False Advertising Law; and
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act on behalf of Plaintiff and
the Subclass.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Ana Tagvoryan, Esq.
Harrison Brown, Esq.
Victor Sandoval, Esq.
BLANK ROME LLP
2029 Century Park East | 6th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 424.239.3400
Facsimile: 424.239.3434
Email: ana.tagvoryan@blankrome.com
harrison.brown@blankrome.com
victor.sandoval@blankrome.com
FAIRWAY INDEPENDENT: Filing for Class Cert in Wilson Due Sept. 26
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHET MICHAEL WILSON, v.
FAIRWAY INDEPENDENT MORTGAGE CORP., Case No. 3:24-cv-00924-wmc
(W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Anita Marie Boor entered a preliminary
pretrial conference order:
1. Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures: March 25, 2025
2. Amendments to the pleadings: By leave of court Amendments to
the pleadings may be filed and served only with leave of
court. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 applies, and the
later a party seeks leave of the court to amend, the less
likely it is that justice will require the amendment.
3. Motions for class certification and plaintiff's disclosure
of class certification expert reports/summaries: Sept. 26,
2025
4. Opposition to class certification and defendant's disclosure
of class certification expert reports/summaries: Nov. 14,
2025.
5. Reply brief in support of motion for class certification and
Daubert motions for class certification experts: Jan. 2,
2026
6. Opposition to Daubert motions: Jan. 30, 2026
7. Replies in support of Daubert motions: Feb. 13, 2026
8. Disclosure of liability and damages experts:
Proponents: May 15, 2026
Respondents: Aug. 14, 2026
9. Trial: Jan. 25, 2027 at 9:00 a.m.
Fairway Independent offers a wide range of residential loan
programs.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9BcV32 at no extra
charge.[CC]
FAT BRANDS: Faces Kates Suit over SEC Disclosures
-------------------------------------------------
FAT Brands Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 29, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 28, 2025, that on June 7, 2024, plaintiff
Mitchell Kates, a putative investor in the Company, filed a
putative class action lawsuit captioned "Mitchell Kates v. FAT
Brands, Inc., Andrew Wiederhorn, Kenneth J. Kuick and Robert G.
Rosen (United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Case No. 2:24-cv-04775-MWF-MAA), asserting claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging that the
defendants made false and misleading statements and omitted
material facts necessary to make statements not misleading in the
company's reports filed with the SEC under the 1934 Act related to
the subject matter of the government investigations and
litigation.
Kates alleges that the company's public statements wrongfully
inflated the trading price of the company's common stock, preferred
stock and warrants. He is seeking to certify the complaint as a
class action and is seeking compensatory damages in an amount to be
determined at trial. His motion for appointment as lead plaintiff,
filed on August 6, 2024, remains sub judice.
FAT Brands Inc. is a multi-brand restaurant company that develops,
markets, acquires and manages quick service, fast casual, casual
dining and polished casual dining restaurant concepts around the
world, operating primarily as a franchisor of restaurants.
FILTERS FAST: Class Cert Bid in McGonigle Suit Due July 18
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW JAMES MCGONIGLE, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. FILTERS
FAST LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-02063-RDA-WEF (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge
William Fitzpatrick entered a scheduling order as follows:
1. All discovery shall be concluded by July 11, 2025.
2. The Joint Discovery Plan filed by the parties is approved,
as amended herein, and shall control discovery to the extent
of its application unless further modified by the court.
3. All Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) disclosures, if not already
completed, shall be completed by March 20, 2025.
4. The Court adopts the deadline for amendment of pleadings
proposed in section 8 of the Joint Discovery Plan. The
parties have up to and including March 28, 2025 to amend the
pleadings in accordance with Rule 15.
5. The Court adopts the timeline for class certification
proposed in section 8 of the Joint Discovery Plan. Any class
certification motion shall be filed on or before July 18,
2025. Defendant's opposition to class certification shall be
filed on or before Aug. 15, 2025. Plaintiff's reply in
support of class certification shall be filed on or before
Aug. 29, 2025. The District Judge will schedule the final
pretrial conference and deadlines for trial-related filings
at a later date.
6. Expert disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)
shall be made in accordance with section 8 of the Joint
Discovery Plan. Specifically, the Plaintiff's expert
disclosures are due by May 26, 2025. The Defendant's expert
disclosures are due by June 27, 2025.
Filters Fast offers refrigerator water filters, air filters, and
other related equipment.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EXRof3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
FIRST DACIA: Chitay Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------
Luis Chitay and Rodrigo Hernandez, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. FIRST DACIA CORPORATION d/b/a ROMANIAN
GARDEN, and GABRIELA BANCESCU, Case No. 1:25-cv-01507 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 18, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), alleging that
they are entitled to recover from Defendants: unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid "gap time" wages, unpaid "spread of hours"
premium for each day that Plaintiffs' work shifts exceeded 10
hours, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
and attorneys' fees and costs.
The Defendants knowingly and willfully operate their business with
a policy of not paying Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
employees either the FLSA overtime rate (of time and one-half), or
the New York State overtime rate (of time and one-half), in direct
violation of the FLSA and New York Labor Law and the supporting
federal and New Yark State Department of Labor Regulations.
The Defendants knowingly and willfully operate their business with
a policy of not paying "gap-time" wages to Plaintiffs, in direct
contravention of the New Yark State Labor Law and Regulations. The
Defendants knowingly and willfully operate their business with a
policy of not paying a "spread of hours" premium to Plaintiffs and
other similarly situated employees, in direct contravention of the
New York State Labor Law and Regulations, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs work as non-exempt dishwashers and food
preparers/kitchen workers at the Restaurant.
FIRST DACIA CORPORATION, owns and operates a Romanian restaurant
doing business as "Romanian Garden."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Cilenti, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
60 East 42nd Street - 40th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 209-3933
Fax: (212) 209-7102
FIVE BELOW INC: Counts Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Kimberly Counts and Stephen Counts,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FIVE
BELOW INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. 25CV002743 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Sacramento, to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California on March 17,
2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-at-00360.
The Complaint seeks damages, penalties, and restitution on behalf
of a putative class for: failure to provide meal periods; failure
to provide meal periods; failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements; and a derivative claim for unfair or unlawful business
practices.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Carrie A. Gonell, Esq.
Alexander L. Grodan, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
Phone: +1.714.830.0600
Fax: +1.714.830.0700
Email: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com
alexander.grodan@morganlewis.com
- and -
Sarah A. Davidson, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market
Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
Phone: +1.415.442.1000
Fax: +1.415.442.1001
Email: sarah.davidson@morganlewis.com
FLORIDA PREPAID: Lavina Amended Complaint Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERICA LAVINA, ANDREA
DARLOW, et al., v. FLORIDA PREPAID COLLEGE BOARD, et al., Case No.
0:24-cv-60001-BB (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Beth Bloom entered an
order as follows:
1. The Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.
2. The Plaintiffs' amended complaint is dismissed with
prejudice.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
4. To the extent not otherwise disposed of, any scheduled
hearings are canceled, all pending motions are denied AS
moot, and all deadlines are terminated.
Thus, Plaintiffs' claims do not stem from continuous violations,
but rather, the continued effects of a past violation, i.e., the
adoption of the TDF exemption.
The present case is comparable to a separate provision challenged
in Doe, which required the plaintiffs to register as sex offenders
in the first instance. The Eleventh Circuit ultimately determined
that the claim accrued when the plaintiffs were first designated as
sex offenders and required to register.
The continuing violation doctrine did not save the plaintiffs'
claims because the claims were "based on nothing more than the
lingering effects of the plaintiffs' initial designation as sex
offenders, which occurred over twenty years prior to this
lawsuit."
The Plaintiffs' opportunity to challenge the adoption of the TDF
has expired, as all of Plaintiffs' alleged injuries stem from that
adoption of the TDF definition and exemption in 2007. Accordingly,
the Court sustains Defendants' Objections and rejects the R&R on
this point. Because Plaintiffs' claims are precluded by the
Eleventh Amendment, and are nevertheless time-barred, the Court
finds that any amendment would be futile.
The Defendant provides college savings plans.[CC]
A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QVAuOV at no extra
charge.[CC]
FMC CORPORATION: Faces Mohammed Securities Suit in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 28, 2025, that it is facing a putative class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania filed on February 13, 2025 against FMC and
certain of its former and current executives captioned "Mohammed v.
FMC Corporation, et al."
The complaint generally alleges that FMC made misrepresentations
regarding its business, operations, and prospects, including
allegations that the defendants failed to disclose: that channel
inventory management initiatives were not progressing as
anticipated; challenges arising from product pricing; and/or the
financial impact of cost-plus pricing arrangements with
distributors.
The complaints allege violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, and seek unspecified damages and other relief
on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired FMC stock during the period from November 16, 2023 to
February 4, 2025.
FMC Corporation is a global agricultural sciences company into
insecticides, herbicides and fungicide active ingredients and
product formulations for the agrochemicals/crop protection market.
FOLSOM INSURANCE: Bid to Bifurcate Discovery in Bond Suit Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH BOND, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated , V. FOLSOM INSURANCE
AGENCY LLC and CODY FOLSOM, Case No. 3:24-cv-02551-L-BN (N.D.
Tex.), the Hon. Judge David Horan entered an order denying Folsom's
motion to bifurcate discovery.
The Court will separately enter a scheduling order under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) in accordance with this Memorandum
Opinion and Order.
The Court agrees with Mr. Bond that bifurcation would not promote
efficiency because there is considerable overlap between discovery
relevant to the merits of his individual claims and issues of class
certification.
And, in light of the bulk of authority discussing the lack of a
"bright line" distinction between merits and class discovery,
bifurcation could lead to avoidable, future disputes over whether a
particular discovery request relates to the merits or to class
certification.
And, so, considering the binding law from Dukes and persuasive
authority from other district courts, the Court declines to
bifurcate discovery in this case.
The case concerns a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”),
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants placed at least one
prerecorded telemarketing call to his cellular phone without his
prior express written consent in violation of the TCPA. Mr. Bond
alleges the following putative class:
Robocall Class:
"All persons within the United States: (1) to whose cellular
telephone number or other number for which they are charged
for the call (2) Defendants (or an agent acting on behalf of
Defendants) placed a telemarketing call (3) within the four
years prior to the filing of the Complaint (4) using an
identical or substantially similar pre-recorded message used
to place telephone calls to Plaintiff (5) from four years
prior to the filing of the Complaint through trial."
Folsom offers home, auto, motorcycle, boat, RV, and life insurance
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0LcKTI at no extra
charge.[CC]
FOODPREP SOLUTIONS: Gawlik Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Edward Gawlik, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. FOODPREP SOLUTIONS LLC, Case No.
2581CV00276 was removed from the Superior Court of Middlesex County
Massachusetts, to the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts on March 17, 2025, and assigned Case No.
1:25-cv-10615.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims on his individual behalf
and on behalf of those allegedly similarly situated, under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Massachusetts state laws and
associated regulations.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Adam J. Shafran, Esq.
Eric J. Walz, Esq.
RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP
92 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: 617-723-7700
Fax: 617-227-0313
Email: ashafran@rflawyers.com
ewalz@rflawyers.com
FORD MOTOR: Ortega Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ford Motor Company,
et al. The case is styled as Erika Ortega, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ford Motor Company,
Camel Group (USA) Battery, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-02920 (N.D. Ill.,
March 19, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Ford Motor Company -- http://www.ford.com/-- is an American
multinational automobile manufacturer headquartered in Dearborn,
Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW FIRM LLC
954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518
San Juan, PR 00907
Phone: (215) 789-4462
Email: klaukaitis@ecf.courtdrive.com
FOX FACTORY: Parties Await Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Fox Factory Holding Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended January 3, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 28, 2025, that on February 20, 2024, a
complaint alleging violations of federal securities laws and
seeking certification as a class action was filed against the
company and certain of its current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
in Atlanta.
On October 15, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. Plaintiff filed his opposition on December 13,
2024, and defendants filed their reply on January 13, 2025. The
motion is fully briefed, and the parties await the court's ruling.
Last August 16, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that
purports to seek damages on behalf of a putative class of persons
who purchased the company's common stock between May 6, 2021 and
November 2, 2023. The amended complaint asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act and alleges
that the company and certain current and former officers made
material misstatements and omissions to investors regarding demand
for its products and its inventory levels. The amended complaint
generally seeks money damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other
costs.
Fox Factory Holding Corp. is a manufacturing company based in
Georgia.
FULLBEAUTY BRANDS: Broomes Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Amanda Broomes, Mary Uht, Barbara Fitch, and
Jessica Hillis, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons v. FULLBEAUTY BRANDS OPERATIONS, LLC, an Indiana
limited liability company, Case No. 25CV110676 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on March 20, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02697.
The Plaintiffs allege that they each purchased products from the
following websites they allege are operated by FullBeauty:
eloquii.com, womanwithin.com, and roamans.com (the Websites). Each
Plaintiff contends that, despite her beliefs that she was
purchasing products that were on sale and "being sold at a
substantial discount for a limited time," the products were not
substantially marked down or discounted. Plaintiffs claim that they
would not have purchased the items, or would not have paid as much
as they did, had they known that the products were valued at a
false reference price. Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs
contend that FullBeauty has engaged in false, misleading, and
deceptive practices. The Plaintiffs bring claims on behalf of a
putative class of California consumers for violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law
(FAL), as well as a claim for unjust enrichment and quasi
contract.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jacob M. Harper, Esq.
Heather F. Canner, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, 27th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 633-6800
Fax: (213) 633-6899
Email: jacobharper@dwt.com
heathercanner@dwt.com
GABRIEL A. LEVY: Friel Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gabriel A. Levy, P.C.
The case is styled as Joseph Friel, individually and on behalf of a
class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Gabriel A.
Levy, P.C. doing business as: My Debt Lawyers, Case No.
3:25-cv-00502-JFS (M.D. Pa., March 18, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Gabriel A. Levy, P.C. doing business as My Debt Lawyers --
https://mydebtlawyers.com/ -- handles all correspondence with
creditors and independent debt collectors, manages mail, and
ensures financial stability is safeguarded by a professional legal
team.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Phone: (508) 221-1510
Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com
- and -
Jeremy C. Jackson, Esq.
BOWER LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC
403 South Allen Street, Suite 210
State College, PA 16801
Phone: (814) 234-2626
Fax: (814) 237-8700
Email: jjackson@bower-law.com
GENERAL DYNAMICS: Rodriguez Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Carlos Rodriguez, an individual and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Virginia Corporation; DAVID AIMILIOS, an
individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25CU006321C
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California on March 17, 2025, and assigned
Case No. 3:25-cv-00626-AJB-SBC.
The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that "Plaintiff and Class Members
are entitled to recover the full amount of their unpaid additional
pay for unprovided compliant meal periods." The Complaint also
alleges that "for 4 years prior to the filing of the Complaint in
this Action through the present, Plaintiff and Class Members were,
at times, not provided complete, timely 30-minute, duty-free
uninterrupted meal periods every five hours of work." The Complaint
further alleges that Defendants "failed, at times, to provide
compensation for such unprovided meal periods.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Carrie A. Gonell, Esq.
David J. Rashe, Esq.
Hailey A. Phelan, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
Phone: +1.714.830.0600
Fax: +1.714.830.0700
Email: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com
david.rashe@morganlewis.com
hailey.phelan@morganlewis.com
GERON CORPORATION: Potvin Sues Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------
ISAAC POTVIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GERON CORPORATION, JOHN A. SCARLETT, ANDREW
J. GRETHLEIN, MICHELLE J. ROBERTSON, FAYE FELLER, ANIL KAPUR, and
JIM ZIEGLER, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-02563-RFL (N.D. Cal.,
March 14, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants
that purchased or otherwise acquired Geron securities between
February 28, 2024 and February 25, 2025, both dates inclusive,
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.
In June 2024, Geron commercially launched RYTELO following its
approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment
of adult patients with lower risk MDS with transfusion-dependent
anemia requiring four or more red blood cell units over eight weeks
who have not responded to or have lost response to or are
ineligible for erythropoiesis-stimulating agents.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
despite contrary representations to investors, a lack of awareness
of RYTELO among health care providers, the weekly monitoring
requirement, and seasonality and existing competition would impair
Geron's ability to capitalize on the purportedly significant unmet
need for the drug; (ii) accordingly, the RYTELO launch was unlikely
to be as profitable as the Company had led investors to believe;
(iii) as a result, Geron's business and/or financial prospects were
overstated; and (iv) as a result, the Company’s public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
Market analysts were quick to comment on Geron's disappointing Q4
2024 results and emphasize the Company's failure to effectively
market and commercialize RYTELO. On this news, Geron's stock price
fell $0.76 per share, or 32.06%, to close at $1.61 per share on
February 26, 2025.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the suit.
Geron Corporation is a late-stage clinical biopharmaceutical
company, focusing on the development and commercialization of
therapeutics for the treatment of cancer and chronic degenerative
diseases.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
GIFTED TOUCH: Becraft Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Misty Becraft, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. GIFTED TOUCH, LLC and PATRICE PADRON, Case No.
1:25-cv-00515-RLY-MJD (S.D. Ind., March 18, 2025), is brought
against Defendants as a result of unpaid overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
The Plaintiff was paid $15.00 per hour. The Plaintiff was not paid
time and a half her regular rate for any time worked over 40 hours
in a given workweek. The Plaintiff routinely worked over 40 hours
in a workweek. The Defendants did not have a good faith reason for
failing to pay the Plaintiff these overtime premiums. The
Defendants willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff these overtime
premiums. The Defendants did not have a good faith reason for
deducting monies from the wages of the Plaintiff, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was an employee of Gifted Touch and began working in
August 2023.
Gifted Touch, is a limited liability company that is headquartered
in Indianapolis, Indiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald E. Weldy, Esq.
WELDY LAW
11268 Governors Lane
Fishers, IN 46037
Phone: (317) 289-0483
Fax (317) 288-4013
Email: rweldy@weldylegal.com
GIRL SCOUTS: Cookies Contain Heavy Metals, Mayo Says
----------------------------------------------------
AMY MAYO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. GIRL SCOUTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FERRERO
U.S.A., INC.; and INTERBAKE FOODS, LLC d/b/a ABC BAKERS,
Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01367 (E.D.N.Y., March 10, 2025) is a
class action arising from the Defendants' violations of the New
York General Business Law due to alleged inclusion of toxins in
Girl Scout Cookies.
Girl Scouts distributes a ubiquitous brand of boxed,
ultra-processed cookies, the Girl Scout Cookies, which are sold by
Girl Scouts (who are primarily children) and are marketed to
children and young adults. Girl Scout's Girl Scout Cookies are sold
around the United States and are baked, manufactured, and produced
by Ferrero and ABC Bakers.
Despite the representations that Girl Scout Cookies are sold as
being fit for consumption, are marketed to children, and are sold
as part of a sophisticated operation that has the resources to
ensure than the Girl Scout Cookies are safe, the Defendants instead
produce and distribute products which are contaminated with
dangerous heavy metals, including aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, lead,
and mercury, says the suit.
As a result of the alleged conduct, Plaintiff Mayo and Class
members were harmed by paying a price premium for the products
which they otherwise would not have paid due to the presence of
toxins -- or would not have purchased the products at all, the suit
alleges.
Girl Scouts of the United States of America is a non-profit
organization headquartered in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
byagman@leedsbrownlaw.com
GLOBAL SECURITY: Ali Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global Security
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Ayiaz Ali, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Global Security
Corporation, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CGC25623475
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., March 20, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Global Security Corporation --
https://www.globalsecuritycorporation.com/ -- offers security and
private investigation services in various states across the
US.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
725 South Figueroa St., 31st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: 213-232-3128
Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
GMO-Z.COM TRUST All Fact Discovery in Donovan Due Sept. 18
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH DONOVAN, HUSSIEN
KASSFY, and JOHN BRAMBL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. GMO-Z.COM TRUST COMPANY, INC., Case No.
1:23-cv-08431-AT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Analisa Torres entered
a case management plan and scheduling order:
All parties do not consent to conducting all further proceedings
before a magistrate judge, including motions and trial. The parties
are free to withhold consent without adverse substantive
consequences.
Amended pleadings may not be filed and additional parties may not
be joined except with leave of the Court. The Court granted the
Plaintiffs until March 10, 2025, to request leave to file a third
amended complaint. That deadline has now passed.
Initial disclosures, pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P.,
shall be completed not later than 14 days from the date of this
Order.
All fact discovery shall be completed no later than Sept. 18, 2025.
GMO-Z.com is a New York state limited purpose trust company.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SS3A0a at no extra
charge.[CC]
GOBRANDS INC: Guerrero Suit Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Joel Guerrero, Omar
Jerome, Jose Diaz, Mike Moise, Muhammed Sesay, and Junior Janvier,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. GoPuff,
Gobrands, Inc., Gola Yakir, Rafael Ilishayev, and GB Logistics LLC,
Case No. 1:24-cv-06727-JHR (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order granting motion for conditional certification.
Through the Plaintiffs' declarations and the well-pled allegations
in the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs sufficiently demonstrate
that Defendants engaged in unlawful conduct pursuant to a corporate
policy of minimizing labor costs and denying minimum wage and
overtime compensation to delivery drivers in New York State by
misclassifying them as independent contractors, and that similarly
situated employees will benefit from Court-authorized notice of
this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).
GoPuff is a provider of online retail and delivery services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 17, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rUDRCO at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Evan Richardson, Esq.
HARMAN GREEN PC
824 Exposition Ave., Suite 8
Dallas, TX 75226
Telephone: (646) 248-2288
E-mail: erichardson@theharmanfirm.com
GOOGLE LLC: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Docs in Rabin Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE RABIN, CPA and IAN
GRAVES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-04547-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its interim
administrative motion to seal and to consider whether another
Party's material should be sealed.
Accordingly, the reasons for sealing will be discussed in the
parties' forthcoming Joint Omnibus Sealing Motion.
Google specializes in internet related services and products.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 20, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KOIXIN at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Whitty Somvichian, Esq.
Kristine Forderer, Esq.
Christopher M. Andrews, Esq.
Alexandra Cubaleski, Esq.
Robert E. Earles, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4004
Telephone: (415) 693-2000
Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
E-mail: wsomvichian@cooley.com
kforderer@cooley.com
candrews@cooley.com
acubaleski@cooley.com
rearles@cooley.com
GRAND AMERICA: Descanzo Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANN DESCANZO, VERONICA
BONDOC, GLEN SEGUNDINO, and MARIANNE PONIO, and those similarly
situated, v. GRAND AMERICA HOTELS & RESORTS, INC. and SINCLAIR
SERVICES COMPANY Case No. 2:19-cv-00443-HCN-DBP (D. Utah), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an orde
-- certifying class and subclass;
-- appoint Jann Descanzo, Veronica Bondoc, Glen Segundino, and
Marianne Ponio as representatives of the Class and Subclass;
and
-- appointing undersigned counsel as Class Counsel.
The Plaintiffs request that the Court certify their RICO and TVPA
claims on behalf of the following Class:
"All persons who worked for the Grand America Hotel as J-1
visa interns from June 25, 2015 to present."
The Plaintiffs further request that the Court certify their
discrimination claim on behalf of the following Subclass:
"All persons with Filipino race, ethnicity, or ancestry who
worked at the Grand America Hotel as J-1 intern visas from
June 25, 2015 to present."
The Plaintiffs allege that Grand America violated RICO, 18 U.S.C.
section 1962(c), by engaging in an enterprise that:
(1) committed visa fraud by "falsely making" and submitting to
the State Department internship training plans and other
documents "for entry into or as evidence of authorized stay
or employment in the United States";
(2) "knowingly and with intend to defraud recruited, solicited,
or hired a person outside the United States or caused
another person to recruit, solicit, or hire a person
outside the United States … for purposes of employment in
the United States by means of materially false or
fraudulent pretenses"; and
(3) utilized mail and wire to engage in the fraudulent scheme.
Grand America is a chain of eight hotels and resorts in the Western
United States.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 19, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vgnlxJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
P. Alex McBean, Esq.
ALEX McBEAN LAW OFFICE, PLLC
505 South Main Street
Bountiful, UT 84010
Telephone (358) 319-1137
E-mail: alex@alexmcbeanlaw.com
- and -
Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
Elizabeth A. Adams, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103-8869
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
eadams@terrellmarshall.com
- and -
Alexander Hood, Esq.
TOWARDS JUSTICE
1410 High Street, Suite 300
Denver, Colorado 80218
Telephone: (720) 441-2236
E-mail: alex@towardsjustice.org
HAWKINS INVESTMENT: Murch Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hawkins Investment
Strategy LLC. The case is styled as Jessica Murch, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hawkins Investment
Strategy LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01976-DCN (D.S.C., March 18, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Hawkins Investment Strategy LLC --
https://hawkinsinvestmentstrategy.com/ -- stands as a premier
provider of off-market properties, positioning itself as your
paramount resource for lucrative real estate investment
opportunities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dave Maxfield, Esq.
DAVE MAXFIELD, ATTORNEY, LLC
PO Box 11865
Columbia, SC 29211
Phone: (803) 509-6800
Fax: (855) 299-1656
Email: dave@consumerlawsc.com
HISENSE USA: Faces Macioce Fraud Class Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hisense USA
Corporation. The case is captioned as Robert Macioce, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hisense USA
Corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-01608-PAE (S.D.N.Y., Filed Feb. 25,
2025).
The suit alleges Defendant's fraud-related violations.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Paul A. Engelmayer.
Hisense USA Corporation is a consumer electronics and appliances
manufacturer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
William A Ladnier, Esq.
Mitchell Mark Breit, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
E-mail: aedwards@milberg.com
wladnier@milberg.com
mbreit@milberg.com
HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Albert Seeks to Certify Employee Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Albert v. Honda
Development & Manufacturing of America, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00694
(S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
granting motion for Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class certification,
appointment of class counsel and class representative, and issuance
of notice to Ohio class members.
The Plaintiff seeks Rule 23 certification of a class of non-exempt
employees of Honda Development & Manufacturing of America, LLC
("Honda") who have been systematically denied compensation in
violation of Ohio's Prompt Pay Act, Ohio's Civil Violations for a
Criminal Act Statute, and Ohio's overtime compensation statute.
The Ohio Class for which certification is sought consists of:
"All current and former non-exempt (including but not limited
to commission-based, hourly and salaried) employees of the
Defendant in Ohio during the Kronos Outage Period, from Dec.
1, 2021 to Feb. 28, 2022, whose weekly work hours were usually
or would usually have been tracked by the Kronos timekeeping
system, and who, during any one workweek during the Kronos
Outage Period, were not paid overtime compensation in the
amount of one and one-half times the employee's regular rate
of pay for all hours worked over 40 as a result of any late
and/or non-overtime payment."
On Sept. 30, 2024, directing the issuance of court-facilitated
notice to the FLSA Collective, the Court has already determined
that many of the factual requirements for certification of the
proposed Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Ohio Class have been met, asserts the
suit.
Honda provides product engineering and development, shipping and
export, painting, assembly, and quality assurance services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 19, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ivPDVR at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 308
Strongsville, OH 44136
Telephone: (216) 912-2221
E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com
- and -
Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
Christopher M. Timmel, Esq.
KLAFTER LESSER LLP
Two International Drive, Suite 350
Rye Brook, NY 10573
Telephone: (914) 934-9200
E-mail: seth@klafterlesser.com
christopher.timmel@klafterlesser.com
- and -
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 999-5200
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
- and -
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
Angeli Murthy, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., Suite 1600
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 418-2069
E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
amurthy@forthepeople.com
HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Scarborough Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Scarbrough v. Honda
Development & Manufacturing of America, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-04277
(S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
granting motion for Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class certification,
appointment of class counsel and class representative, and issuance
of notice to Ohio class members.
The Plaintiff seeks Rule 23 certification of a class of non-exempt
employees of Honda Development & Manufacturing of America, LLC
("Honda") who have been systematically denied compensation in
violation of Ohio's Prompt Pay Act, Ohio's Civil Violations for a
Criminal Act Statute, and Ohio's overtime compensation statute.
The Ohio Class for which certification is sought consists of:
"All current and former non-exempt (including but not limited
to commission-based, hourly and salaried) employees of the
Defendant in Ohio during the Kronos Outage Period, from Dec.
1, 2021 to Feb. 28, 2022, whose weekly work hours were usually
or would usually have been tracked by the Kronos timekeeping
system, and who, during any one workweek during the Kronos
Outage Period, were not paid overtime compensation in the
amount of one and one-half times the employee's regular rate
of pay for all hours worked over 40 as a result of any late
and/or non-overtime payment."
On Sept. 30, 2024, directing the issuance of court-facilitated
notice to the FLSA Collective, the Court has already determined
that many of the factual requirements for certification of the
proposed Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Ohio Class have been met, asserts the
suit.
Honda provides product engineering and development, shipping and
export, painting, assembly, and quality assurance services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 19, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=esoG0i at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 308
Strongsville, OH 44136
Telephone: (216) 912-2221
E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com
- and -
Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
Christopher M. Timmel, Esq.
KLAFTER LESSER LLP
Two International Drive, Suite 350
Rye Brook, NY 10573
Telephone: (914) 934-9200
E-mail: seth@klafterlesser.com
christopher.timmel@klafterlesser.com
- and -
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 999-5200
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
- and -
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
Angeli Murthy, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., Suite 1600
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 418-2069
E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
amurthy@forthepeople.com
HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Tripoli Seeks to Certify Employee Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRIPOLI v. HONDA
DEVELOPMENT & MANUFACTURING OF AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-03828
(S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
granting motion for Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class certification,
appointment of class counsel and class representative, and issuance
of notice to Ohio class members.
The Plaintiff seeks Rule 23 certification of a class of non-exempt
employees of Honda Development & Manufacturing of America, LLC
("Honda") who have been systematically denied compensation in
violation of Ohio's Prompt Pay Act, Ohio's Civil Violations for a
Criminal Act Statute, and Ohio's overtime compensation statute.
The Ohio Class for which certification is sought consists of:
"All current and former non-exempt (including but not limited
to commission-based, hourly and salaried) employees of the
Defendant in Ohio during the Kronos Outage Period, from Dec.
1, 2021 to Feb. 28, 2022, whose weekly work hours were usually
or would usually have been tracked by the Kronos timekeeping
system, and who, during any one workweek during the Kronos
Outage Period, were not paid overtime compensation in the
amount of one and one-half times the employee's regular rate
of pay for all hours worked over 40 as a result of any late
and/or non-overtime payment."
On Sept. 30, 2024, directing the issuance of court-facilitated
notice to the FLSA Collective, the Court has already determined
that many of the factual requirements for certification of the
proposed Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Ohio Class have been met, asserts the
suit.
Honda provides product engineering and development, shipping and
export, painting, assembly, and quality assurance services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 19, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v4Isf9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 308
Strongsville, OH 44136
Telephone: (216) 912-2221
E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com
- and -
Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
Christopher M. Timmel, Esq.
KLAFTER LESSER LLP
Two International Drive, Suite 350
Rye Brook, NY 10573
Telephone: (914) 934-9200
E-mail: seth@klafterlesser.com
christopher.timmel@klafterlesser.com
- and -
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 999-5200
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
- and -
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
Angeli Murthy, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., Suite 1600
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 418-2069
E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
amurthy@forthepeople.com
HONDA DEVELOPMENT: Whatley Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Whatley v. Honda
Development & Manufacturing of America LLC, Case No.
2:22-cv-04372-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting motion for Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class
certification, appointment of class counsel and class
representative, and issuance of notice to Ohio class members.
The Plaintiff seeks Rule 23 certification of a class of non-exempt
employees of Honda Development & Manufacturing of America, LLC
("Honda") who have been systematically denied compensation in
violation of Ohio's Prompt Pay Act, Ohio's Civil Violations for a
Criminal Act Statute, and Ohio's overtime compensation statute.
The Ohio Class for which certification is sought consists of:
"All current and former non-exempt (including but not limited
to commission-based, hourly and salaried) employees of the
Defendant in Ohio during the Kronos Outage Period, from Dec.
1, 2021 to Feb. 28, 2022, whose weekly work hours were usually
or would usually have been tracked by the Kronos timekeeping
system, and who, during any one workweek during the Kronos
Outage Period, were not paid overtime compensation in the
amount of one and one-half times the employee's regular rate
of pay for all hours worked over 40 as a result of any late
and/or non-overtime payment."
On Sept. 30, 2024, directing the issuance of court-facilitated
notice to the FLSA Collective, the Court has already determined
that many of the factual requirements for certification of the
proposed Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Ohio Class have been met, asserts the
suit.
Honda provides product engineering and development, shipping and
export, painting, assembly, and quality assurance services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 19, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4Sz3pI at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 308
Strongsville, OH 44136
Telephone: (216) 912-2221
E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com
- and -
Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
Christopher M. Timmel, Esq.
KLAFTER LESSER LLP
Two International Drive, Suite 350
Rye Brook, NY 10573
Telephone: (914) 934-9200
E-mail: seth@klafterlesser.com
christopher.timmel@klafterlesser.com
- and -
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 999-5200
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
- and -
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
Angeli Murthy, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., Suite 1600
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 418-2069
E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
amurthy@forthepeople.com
HUEL LTD: Sarayli Sues Over Protein Powder False Ads
----------------------------------------------------
AYKUT SARAYLI, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HUEL, LTD., a British limited company,
Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-02406 (N.D. Cal., March 10, 2025) is a
class action against the Defendant for unjust enrichment, breach of
express warranty, and violation of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Black Edition Vegan Protein Powder,
which are manufactured, packaged, labeled, advertised, distributed,
and sold by Defendant, are misbranded and falsely advertised
because they feature deceptive protein claims on the front label
and misrepresent the percent of Recommended Daily Value of protein
contained in each serving.
Consumers including Plaintiff reasonably relied on these label
statements such that they would not have purchased the Products
from Defendant if the truth about the Products was known, or would
have only been willing to pay a substantially reduced price for the
Products had they known that Defendant's representations were false
and misleading, says the suit.
Huel, Ltd. is a British company that makes plant-based meals,
snacks, drinks, and food supplements.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles C. Weller, Esq.
CHARLES C. WELLER, APC
11412 Corley Court
San Diego, CA 92126
Telephone: (858) 414-7465
Facsimile: (858) 300-5137
E-mail: legal@cweller.com
IDAHO: Rossow Wins Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEEVA ROSSOW, v. DAVE
JEPPESEN, Director, Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, in his
official capacity, Case No. 1:23-cv-00131-BLW (D. Idaho), the Hon.
Judge B. Lynn Winmill entered an order granting the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification:
of all women currently appearing on the State of Idaho
Child Protection Central Registry pursuant to IDAPA
16.06.01.563a for use of Tetrahydrocannabinol ("THC") while
pregnant, and all women whom the Idaho Department of Health
and Welfare will in the future 'substantiate' for use of THC
while pregnant and placement on the Central Registry
pursuant to IDAPA 16.06.01.563.02a is certified. The
Plaintiffs Keeva Rossow and Serah Thompson are appointed
representatives of the class.
The Plaintiff's Motion to Seal is denied. The Court will direct the
Clerk of the Court to unseal the unredacted memorandum in support
of class certification, Exhibit C, and Exhibit I. Ms. Rossow shall
refile Exhibit A with exhibits G, H, and I to the Jeppesen
Deposition with appropriate redactions.
The Court agrees that Ms. Rossow has acted diligently such that
good cause exists to add Ms. Thompson as a plaintiff.
The Defendant provides services to ensure the protection and
welfare of children and families.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4xmo4U at no extra
charge.[CC]
INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTH: Sheehy Suit Removed to D. Colorado
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Kerri Sheehy, Dean Beacom, and Taylor
Archuleta, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTH CARE INC., Case No.
2025CV30133 was removed from the District Court, Boulder County, to
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on
March 20, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00914.
The Plaintiffs assert two causes of action: Miscalculation of the
Overtime Rate and Miscalculation of Overtime Hours Due in violation
of the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Standards Order ("COMPS"), and
Failure to Pay All Earned, Vested and Determinable Wages in
violation of the Colorado Wage Claim Act.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marielle A. Moore, Esq.
Rebecca M. Lindell, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
2000 South Colorado Boulevard
Tower Three, Suite 900
Denver, CO 80222
Phone: 303.764.6800
Facsimile: 303.831.9246
Email: marielle.moore@ogletree.com
rebecca.lindell@ogletree.com
- and -
Jason N.W. Plowman, Esq.
15 West South Temple, Suite 950
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Phone: 801.658.6100
Facsimile: 385.360.1707
Email: jason.plowman@ogletree.com
INTERMOUNTAIN PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Downey Suit Removed to D. Mont.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Nicole Downey, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Intermountain Planned Parenthood, Inc.
d/b/a PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF MONTANA, Case No. DV-56-02025-18-NE was
removed from the MT 13th Judicial District Court, Yellowstone Co.,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana on March 19,
2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00033-TJC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Intermountain Planned Parenthood is a Non-Pharmacy Dispensing Site
(organization) practicing in Great Falls, Montana.[BN]
The Plaintiffs is represented by:
John C. Heenan, Esq.
HEENAN & COOK
1631 Zimmerman Trail
Billings, MT 59102
Phone: (406) 839-9091
Fax: (406) 839-9092
Email: john@lawmontana.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Keeley Onna Cronin, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1801 California Street, Suite 4400
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 764-4172
Email: kcronin@bakerlaw.com
IPF CONSULTANTS: Mangione Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IPF Consultants LLC.
The case is styled as Gia Gabriella Mangione, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. IPF Consultants LLC,
Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0003972 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin
Cty., March 18, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other
Employment."
IPF CONSULTANTS LLC is a California Limited-Liability Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Ginzburg, Esq.
FRONTIER LAW CENTER
23901 Calabasas Rd., Ste. 1084
Calabasas, CA 91302
Phone: (818) 914-3433
Fax: (818) 914-3433
Email: dan@frontierlawcenter.com
JAMES QUATTRONE: Conference to Discuss Settlement Set for April 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREATER CHAUTAUQUA FEDERAL
CREDIT UNION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, BOULEVARD FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, and GREATER NIAGARA
FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. SHERIFF JAMES B. QUATTRONE, in his official
capacity as Sheriff of Chautauqua County, New York, SHERIFF JOHN C.
GARCIA, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Erie County, New
York, SHERIFF MICHAEL J. FILICETTI, in his official capacity as
Sheriff of Niagara County, New York, and LETITIA JAMES, in her
official capacity as Attorney General of the State of New York,
Case No. 1:22-cv-02753-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mary Kay
Vyskocil entered an order denying without prejudice the pending
motions for summary judgment.
The parties shall appear for a conference on April 2, 2025, at
11:30 AM. The parties should be prepared to discuss settlement
efforts (see Individual Rules of Practice), the status of the case,
and trial.
The motion to seal pending at ECF No. 176 is provisionally granted.
The Clerk of Court is requested to terminate the motions pending at
ECF Nos. 176, 180, 183, and 188.
Initially, the Plaintiffs filed this action and demanded a jury
trial. However, the Plaintiffs subsequently withdrew their demand
for a trial by jury. Therefore, the parties pending motions for
summary judgment in this non-jury case are not in accordance with
this Court's Individual Rules of Practice.
The Plaintiffs bring this action asserting that the retroactive
application of the Fair Consumer Judgment Interest Act, which
reduced the statutory default post-judgment interest rate on
state-court judgments involving consumer debts from nine percent to
two percent, is unconstitutional as-applied to them.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4WKHh4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
JAMES QUATTRONE: Credit Union Bid for Class Certification Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREATER CHAUTAUQUA FEDERAL
CREDIT UNION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, BOULEVARD FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, GREATER NIAGARA FEDERAL
CREDIT UNION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. SHERIFF JAMES B. QUATTRONE, in his official capacity
as Sheriff of Chautauqua County, New York, SHERIFF JOHN C. GARCIA,
in his official capacity as Sheriff of Erie County, New York,
SHERIFF MICHAEL J. FILICETTI, in his official capacity as Sheriff
of Niagara County, New York, and LETITIA JAMES, in her official
capacity as Attorney General of the State of New York, Case No.
1:22-cv-02753-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil
entered an order denying the motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action asserting that the
retroactive application of the Fair Consumer Judgment Interest Act,
which reduced the default post-judgment interest rate on
state-court judgments involving consumer debts from nine percent to
two percent, is unconstitutional.
On April 28, 2022, the Court granted a preliminary injunction after
concluding that Plaintiffs have standing to sue and that they have
demonstrated a claim under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yoePHW at no extra
charge.[CC]
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Riccitelli Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Linda Riccitelli, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Johnson Controls, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-03243 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin on March 20, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00425-JPS to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.
Johnson Controls -- https://www.johnsoncontrols.com/ -- is a global
leader in building technologies, offering products, services and
insights for HVAC, security, fire, digital and energy
efficiency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Saul David Zabell, Esq.
Ryan M. Eden, Esq.
ZABELL & ASSOCIATES, LLP
2 Corporate Drive
Bohemia, NY 11716
Phone: (631) 589-7242
The Defendants are represented by:
Jocelyn Annise Merced, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C (AL)
420 20th Street North, Suite 1900
Birmingham, AL 35203
Phone: (973) 656-1600
Fax: (973) 656-1611
KAILA & SOLOMON LAW: Newman Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kaila & Solomon Law
Group LLC, et al. The case is styled as Wesley Newman, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. Kaila & Solomon Law Group
LLC doing business as: Guardian Law, ClicTree LLC, Case No.
1:25-cv-01471-WMR (N.D. Ga., March 20, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Guardian Law Group LLP -- https://www.guardian.law/ -- specializes
in various practice areas to cater to the diverse needs of our
clients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tristan Wade Gillespie, Esq.
600 Blakenham Court
Johns Creek, GA 30022
Phone: (404) 276-7277
Email: gillespie.tristan@gmail.com
KANSAS CITY LIFE: Van Zanten Suit Removed to W.D. Mo.
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as PETER M. VAN ZANTEN, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KANSAS CITY LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2516-CV04172, was removed
from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Missouri on March
12, 2025.
The Clerk of the Court for the Western District of Missouri
assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00179-RK to the proceeding.
In his complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that KCL imposes cost of
insurance charges and expense charges on owners of Century II
variable life insurance policies in excess of the amounts
authorized by their express terms.
Kansas City Life Insurance Company is a public insurance company
established in 1895 and located in Kansas City, Missouri.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Traci L. Martinez, Esq.
SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS, LLP
2000 Huntington Center
41 South High Street
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 365-2700
Facsimile: (614) 365-2499
E-mail: traci.martinez@squirepb.com
- and -
John W. Shaw, Esq.
BERKOWITZ OLIVER LLP
2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1200
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 561-7007
Facsimile: (816) 561-1888
E-mail: tjshaw@berkowitzoliver.com
KINGS BAY SHOPPING CENTER: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. KINGS BAY SHOPPING CENTER LTD,
ANDRAVER, INC. D/B/A SMOOTHIE KING, PAPPA RICCOS INC. D/B/A PAPA
RICCOS PIZZA AND LAZANA CORPORATION D/B/A PINCH A PENNY, Case No.
1:25-cv-21307-KMM (S.D. Fla., March 20, 2025), is brought for
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result
of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff
by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the commercial property and restaurant and bar
business within the commercial property.
Although well over 33 years have passed since the effective date of
Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities
accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Plaintiff found
the Commercial Property and the business located within the
commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff
encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and
the business located within the commercial property and wishes to
continue his patronage and use of the premises.
The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and
businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to
access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each
denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial
Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA.
The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies),
embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff and others similarly
situated.
The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff
by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located
therein, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae
down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate.
KINGS BAY SHOPPING CENTER LTD, owns, operates, and oversees the
commercial plaza property.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104
Miami, FL 33144
Phone: (786) 361-9909
Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com
KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Hagins Wins Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Hagins, et al., v.
Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Incorporated, Case No.
2:22-cv-01835-ROS (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Roslyn Silver entered
an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(1),
the Court certifies the class as:
"All persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, Inc. Retirement Plan, at
any time between Oct. 26, 2016 and the present."
The Court further entered an order:
-- appointing Plaintiffs Hagins and Woodard as class
representatives.
-- appointing the law firms of McKay Law, LLC, Morgan & Morgan,
P.A., and Wenzel Fenton Cabasa, P.A. as class counsel pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).
Because the Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(a) and (b), class certification is warranted, the Court
says.
The Plaintiffs assert the Defendant breached its fiduciary duties
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") by (1)
causing the Plan to select and retain underperforming and
excessively expensive investment options rather than prudent
investments for the Plan's investment menu and (2) failing to
monitor and control excessive compensation paid by Plan
participants to Principal.
Knight-Swift provides transportation and logistics services.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tM5bFL at no extra
charge.[CC]
KRISTI NOEM: Has Until April 7 to File Class Cert Bid Response
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as UNITED FARM WORKERS, et
al., v. KRISTI NOEM, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00246-JLT-CDB (E.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting ex parte motion for
extension of time to respond to the Plaintiffs' motions for
preliminary injunction and provisional class certification.
-- The Defendants shall have until April 7, 2025, to respond to
the Plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunction and
provisional class certification.
-- Any reply brief to any filed opposition to the motions shall
be in accordance with Local Rule 230(d).
The Plaintiffs initiated his action with the filing of a complaint
against the Defendants on Feb. 26, 2025.
On March 7, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed motions for provisional
class certification and for preliminary injunction.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 17, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4G7EPT at no extra
charge.[CC]
KROGER CO: Morgan Labor Suit Removed to D. Colo.
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as VALARIE MORGAN, individually and behalf of all
those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE KROGER CO.; DILLON
COMPANIES, LLC; and ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC. Defendants, Case No.
2025CV30407, was removed from the Denver County District Court of
Colorado to the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado on March 14, 2025.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Colorado assigned Case No.
1:25-cv-00837 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants' unlawful conduct resulted
in lower wages and lower benefits for all putative class members
from early 2022 onward.
The Kroger Co. is an American retail company that operates
supermarkets and multi-department stores throughout the United
States.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Maureen R. Witt, Esq.
Alexander D. White, Esq.
Adrianne K. Rosenbluth, Esq.
HOLLAND & HART LLP
555 17th Street, Suite 3200
Denver, CO 80202
- and -
Randall H. Miller, Esq.
Lucas Westerman, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
1144 Fifteenth Street, Suite 3100
Denver, CO 80202
E-mail: randy.miller@arnoldporter.com
lucas.westerman@arnoldporter.com
LAKEVIEW LOAN: Bid to Strike Class Demand Tossed
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Morrill v. Lakeview Loan
Servicing, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-20955 (S.D. Fla., Filed March 29,
2022), the Hon. Judge Darrin P. Gayles entered an order denying the
Defendants' motion to strike class demand for statutory damages by
California subclass and memorandum of law.
The Court finds that it is premature to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
class action allegations at this stage.
The Defendants may raise their arguments as to the merits of
Plaintiffs' class allegations upon Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other
Personal Injury.
Lakeview is a servicer of residential mortgage loans, owns mortgage
servicing rights (MSRs) and originates residential mortgage
loans.[CC]
LANDMARK RECOVERY: Hale Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Maranda Hale, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. LANDMARK RECOVERY OF OHIO, LLC, LANDMARK
RECOVERY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLC, LANDMARK RECOVERY MANAGEMENT
COMPANY LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-02011 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on March 19,
2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00312 to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Landmark Recovery -- https://landmarkrecovery.com/ -- offers drug
and alcohol rehab, detox, & individualized treatment plans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126
Columbus, OH 43220
Phone: 614-949-1181
Fax: 614-386-9964
Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
LELAND DUDEK: Supplemental Brief Filing on Class Cert Due April 14
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as L.N.P., V. LELAND DUDEK,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, et al., Case
No. 1:24-cv-01196-MSN-IDD (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Michael
Nachmanoff entered an order that the Defendants shall file their
supplemental brief on class certification on or before April 14,
2025.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GyJ4Jj at no extra
charge.[CC]
LENNAR HOMES: Parties in Schwarz Must Confer Class Cert Sched
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Schwarz, et al., v. Lennar
Homes LLC, et al., Case No. 6:25-cv-00466 (M.D. Fla., Filed March
17, 2025), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing
the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for
class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in
their case management report.
-- The deadlines should include a deadline for:
(1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and
defendant;
(2) discovery - class action;
(3) motion for class certification;
(4) response to motion for class certification; and
(5) reply to motion for class certification.
The nature of suit states Removal-Breach of Contract.
Lennar is an American home construction company based in Miami-Dade
County, Florida.[CC]
LEVI STRAUSS: Orr Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Anna Orr, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LEVI STRAUSS & CO., a California
company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV03952 was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on March 19, 2025, and assigned Case No.
2:25-cv-02415.
The Complaint alleges Plaintiff is a California citizen. The
Plaintiff seeks to represent class members within the state of
California whose identifying information was sent to TikTok as a
result of visiting Defendant's website, www.beyondyoga.com, within
the statute of limitations period. The Plaintiff alleges that every
person who visits Defendant's website has their identifying
information sent to TikTok.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
P. Craig Cardon, Esq.
Jay T. Ramsey, Esq.
Alyssa Sones, Esq.
Kevin Murphy, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6017
Phone: (310) 228-3700
Facsimile: (310) 228-3701
Email: ccardon@sheppardmullin.com
jramsey@sheppardmullin.com
asones@sheppardmullin.com
kemurphy@sheppardmullin.com
LONG BEACH, CA: Filing of Opposition Papers Extended to May 2
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Guma et al., v. The City
of Long Beach et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-04529-GRB-JMW (E.D.N.Y.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting extension
of one week to all dates on the briefing schedule for Plaintiffs'
anticipated motion for class certification.
-- Moving Papers – March 28, 2025
-- Opposition Papers – May 2, 2025
-- Reply Papers – May 14, 2025
The parties appreciate the Court's consideration of this request
and respectfully ask that the Court adopt and so-order the above
briefing schedule.
Long Beach is an oceanfront city in Nassau County, New York.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 20, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zszizH at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew J. Campanelli, Esq.
CAMPANELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
1757 Merrick Avenue, Suite 204
Merrick, NY 11566
Telephone: (516)746-1600
Facsimile: (516) 746-2611
MAIN STREET: Undervalues Total Loss Claims, Tucker Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
LAURA G. TUCKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAIN STREET AMERICA PROTECTION INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00225 (W.D.N.Y., March 13,
2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, against the Defendant
for systematically undervaluing total loss claims through a uniform
and deceptive valuation practice that arbitrarily reduces vehicle
values through artificial "Condition Adjustments" that do not
reflect actual market conditions.
When insurance policyholders suffer a total loss of their vehicle,
Main Street Auto is contractually obligated to pay the Actual Cash
Value of the loss vehicle. However, Main Street systematically
underpays its insureds by utilizing valuation reports prepared by
CCC Information Services that artificially deflate vehicle values
through a standardized process: applying a fabricated "condition
adjustment" to every comparable vehicle, which reduces values by
approximately 10% to 12.5% in value, says the suit.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated New York
policyholders who have been systematically underpaid through this
uniform scheme of arbitrary Condition Adjustments, and to enjoin
Main Street Auto from continuing these deceptive practices in
violation of their contractual obligations and New York General
Business Law.
Main Street America Protection Insurance Company conducts
substantial business throughout New York State, including but not
limited to, selling automobile insurance policies and adjusting
insurance claims.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
JON L. NORINSBERG, ESQ., PLLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 791-5396
Facsimile: (212) 406-6890
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
MANAGED CARE: Crowe Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by May 19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Crowe v. Managed Care of
North America, Inc., Case No. 0:23-cv-61065 (S.D. Fla., Filed June
5, 2023), the Hon. Judge Raag Singhal entered an order granting the
Defendants' unopposed motion for extension of time for the
Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification.
-- The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification
by May 19, 2025.
The nature of suit states Torts - Personal Property - Other
Personal Property Damage.
Managed Care provides dental plans.[CC]
MANAGED CARE: More Time to File for Class Cert Bid Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA CROWE, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MANAGED CARE OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. d/b/a MCNA DENTAL, MCNA
INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a MCNA DENTAL, and HEALTHPLEX, INC., Case No.
0:23-cv-61065-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order extending the deadline for the Plaintiffs to file
their Motion for Class Certification by three weeks, to and
including May 19, 2025.
No other case deadlines would be impacted by the Defendants'
request. Given that there is good cause for the requested relief,
to which there is no opposition, the Motion should be granted.
A proposed Order granting this Motion is attached as Exhibit A.
This extension would ensure that the Parties have sufficient time
to provide productions in advance of depositions contemplated by
both parties and complete all discovery, including expert
discovery, by the current deadline.
MCNA Dental is a government-sponsored dental insurer and dental
benefits administrator.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 19, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DyHt39 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Mark R. Cheskin, Esq.
Allen P. Pegg, Esq.
Mark R. Cheskin, Esq.
Allison Holt Ryan, Esq.
Alicia J. Paller, Esq.
Abby Walter Gray, Esq.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2700
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 459-6500
Facsimile: (305) 459-6550
E-mail: allen.pegg@hoganlovells.com
mark.cheskin@hoganlovells.com
allison.holt-ryan@hoganlovells.com
alicia.paller@hoganlovells.com
abby.walter-gray@hoganlovells.com
MDL 2873: 3M Exposes Firefighters to Toxic Chemicals, Carson Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas P. Carson, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA LUSS., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS
INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to the
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00922-RMG
(D.S.C., February 19, 2024) is an action for damages for personal
injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and
related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or
PFOS.
According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately,
caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications, says the suit.
Plaintiff Carson regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed
to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed
with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products, the suit alleges.
The Carson 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.[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: 3M Exposes Firefighters to Toxic Chemicals, Conner Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW CONNER, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA LUSS., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS
INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to the
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00925-RMG
(D.S.C., February 19, 2024) is an action for damages for personal
injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and
related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or
PFOS.
According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately,
caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications, says the suit.
Plaintiff Conner regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed
to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed
with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products, the suit alleges.
The Conner 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.[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: 3M Exposes Firefighters to Toxic Chemicals, Miller Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Lee Miller, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA LUSS., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS
INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to the
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00912-RMG
(D.S.C., February 19, 2024) is an action for damages for personal
injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and
related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or
PFOS.
According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately,
caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications, says the suit.
Plaintiff Miller regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed
to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed
with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products, the suit alleges.
The Miller 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.[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: Acquaviva Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Anthony Acquaviva, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota
Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.;
AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA LUSS., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to the
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00915-RMG
(D.S.C., February 19, 2024) is an action for damages for personal
injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and
related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or
PFOS.
According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately,
caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications, says the suit.
Plaintiff Acquaviva regularly used, and was thereby directly
exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his
working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. He was
diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products, the suit alleges.
The Acquaviva 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.[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 Contains Toxic Chemicals, Downey Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
Brian Downey v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01131-RMG (D.S.C.,
Feb. 25, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF)
and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the
Plaintiff contends.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to
proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains
and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique
chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of
exposed individuals.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Plaintiff contends that he regularly used, and was thereby
directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish
fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian
firefighter.
As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG
products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer and
thyroid disease, which has caused him to suffer severe personal
injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress.
The Downey case is consolidated in RE: AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION Multidistrict Litigation (MDL NO.
2873).
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production.
The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB
GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS
INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT
CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX,
LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON
CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP,
INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC;
MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY
COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST
USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.;
WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[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 Contains Toxic PFAS, Budnick Class Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Noel M. Budnick v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01122-RMG (D.S.C.,
Feb. 25, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF)
and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the
Plaintiff contends.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to
proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains
and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique
chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of
exposed individuals.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Plaintiff contends that he regularly used, and was thereby
directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish
fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian
firefighter.
As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG
products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer and
thyroid disease, which has caused him to suffer severe personal
injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress.
The Budnick case is consolidated in RE: AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION Multidistrict Litigation (MDL NO.
2873).
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production.
The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB
GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS
INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT
CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX,
LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON
CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP,
INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC;
MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY
COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST
USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.;
WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[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 Contains Toxic PFAS, Senyo Class Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
Harry Senyo v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01124-RMG (D.S.C., Feb. 25,
2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and
firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the
Plaintiff contends.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to
proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains
and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique
chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of
exposed individuals.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Plaintiff contends that he regularly used, and was thereby
directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish
fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian
firefighter.
As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG
products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer and
thyroid disease, which has caused him to suffer severe personal
injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress.
The Senyo case is consolidated in RE: AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION Multidistrict Litigation (MDL NO.
2873).
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production.
The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB
GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS
INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT
CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX,
LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON
CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP,
INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC;
MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY
COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST
USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.;
WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[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: Andrews Sues Over Toxic Chemicals in Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Andrews, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA LUSS., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS
INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to the
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00916-RMG
(D.S.C., February 19, 2024) is an action for damages for personal
injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and
related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or
PFOS.
According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately,
caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications, says the suit.
Plaintiff Andrews regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed
to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed
with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products, the suit alleges.
The Andrews 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.[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: Atkinson Sues Over Toxic Chemicals in Aqueous Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Atkinson, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA LUSS., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS
INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to the
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00914-RMG
(D.S.C., February 19, 2024) is an action for damages for personal
injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and
related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or
PFOS.
According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately,
caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications, says the suit.
Plaintiff Atkinson regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed
to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed
with ulcerative colitis as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products, the suit alleges.
The Atkinson 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.[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: Bratt Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ronnie Bratt, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA LUSS., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS
INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to the
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00921-RMG
(D.S.C., February 19, 2024) is an action for damages for personal
injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and
related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or
PFOS.
According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately,
caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications, says the suit.
Plaintiff Bratt regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed
to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed
with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products, the suit alleges.
The Bratt 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.[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: Brooks Sues Over Toxic Chemicals in Drinking Water
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Brooks, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA LUSS., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORP.; BUCK
EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; 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.; KIDDIE 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; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.
(f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01190-RMG
(D.S.C., February 27, 2024) is an action for damages for personal
injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and
related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or
PFOS.
According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately,
caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications, says the suit.
Plaintiff Brooks is a resident and citizen of Albion, Maine and
drank water from Suffolk County Water Authority. He was exposed to
PFAS chemicals through their drinking water. The Plaintiff was
diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to
Defendants' PFAS containing products, the suit asserts.
The Brooks 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.[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: Cook Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------
David Cook, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA LUSS., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS
INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to the
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00926-RMG
(D.S.C., February 19, 2024) is an action for damages for personal
injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and
related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or
PFOS.
According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately,
caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications, says the suit.
Plaintiff Cook regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed with
kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products,
the suit alleges.
The Cook 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.[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: Drinking Water Contains Harmful Chemicals, Cioban Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Cioban, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA LUSS., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORP.; BUCK
EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; 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.; KIDDIE 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; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.
(f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01191-RMG
(D.S.C., February 27, 2024) is an action for damages for personal
injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and
related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or
PFOS.
According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately,
caused her to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications, says the suit.
Plaintiff Cioban is a resident and citizen of Cape Coral, Florida
and drank water from Lee County Utilities. She was exposed to PFAS
chemicals through their drinking water. The Plaintiff was diagnosed
with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' PFAS
containing products, alleges the suit.
The Cioban 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.[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 Bennett Suit Over Toxic Chemical Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------
Robin Bennett, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA LUSS., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS
INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to the
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00918-RMG
(D.S.C., February 19, 2024) is an action for damages for personal
injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and
related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or
PFOS.
According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately,
caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications, says the suit.
Plaintiff Bennett regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed
to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed
with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products, the suit alleges.
The Bennett 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.[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 Boisvert Suit Over Toxic Chemical Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Boisvert, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA LUSS., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS
INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to the
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00920-RMG
(D.S.C., February 19, 2024) is an action for damages for personal
injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and
related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or
PFOS.
According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately,
caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications, says the suit.
Plaintiff Boisvert regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed
to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed
with ulcerative colitis as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products, the suit alleges.
The Boisvert 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.[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 Driscoll Suit Over Toxic Chemical Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Driscoll, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA LUSS., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS
INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to the
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00909-RMG
(D.S.C., February 19, 2024) is an action for damages for personal
injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and
related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or
PFOS.
According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately,
caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications, says the suit.
Plaintiff Driscoll regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed
to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed
with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products, the suit alleges.
The Driscoll 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.[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 Gonzalez Suit Over Toxic Chemical Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------
Amparo Gonzalez, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA LUSS., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORP.; BUCK
EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; 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.; KIDDIE 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; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.
(f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01192-RMG
(D.S.C., February 27, 2024) is an action for damages for personal
injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and
related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or
PFOS.
According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately,
caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications, says the suit.
Plaintiff Gonzales is a resident and citizen of Orlando, Florida
and drank water from Miami-Dade Water Sewer Department. He was
exposed to PFAS chemicals through their drinking water. The
Plaintiff was diagnosed with thyroid disease and kidney cancer as a
result of exposure to Defendants' PFAS containing products, alleges
the suit.
The Gonzalez 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.[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 Hall Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------
Evan B. Hall v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01120-RMG (D.S.C.,
Feb. 25, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal
injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF)
and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the
Plaintiff contends.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to
proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains
and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique
chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of
exposed individuals.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
The Plaintiff contends that he regularly used, and was thereby
directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish
fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian
firefighter.
As a result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF and TOG
products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer and
thyroid disease, which has caused him to suffer severe personal
injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress.
The Hall case is consolidated in RE: AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION Multidistrict Litigation (MDL NO.
2873).
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production.
The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB
GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS
INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT
CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX,
LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON
CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP,
INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC;
MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY
COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST
USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.;
WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC.[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 Richardson Suit Over Toxic Chemical Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------
Curtis Lee Richardson, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota
Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.;
AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA LUSS., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to the
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00909-RMG
(D.S.C., February 19, 2024) is an action for damages for personal
injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and
related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or
PFOS.
According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately,
caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications, says the suit.
Plaintiff Richardson regularly used, and was thereby directly
exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his
working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. He was
diagnosed with bladder cancer as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products, the suit alleges.
The Richardson 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.[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: Field Sues Over Toxic Chemicals in Drinking Water
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chester L. Field Jr., Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota
Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.;
AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA LUSS., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORP.;
BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; 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.; KIDDIE 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; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS
CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No.
2:25-cv-01201-RMG (D.S.C., February 27, 2024) is an action for
damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic
acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately,
caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications, says the suit.
Plaintiff Field is a resident and citizen of Kalamazoo, Michigan
and drank water from Kalamazoo Water and Sewer Service. He was
exposed to PFAS chemicals through their drinking water. The
Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure
to Defendants' PFAS containing products, the suit asserts.
The Field 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.[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: Illness Caused by PFAS Exposure, De la Rosa Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Roberto De la Rosa, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA LUSS., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS
INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to the
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00927-RMG
(D.S.C., February 19, 2024) is an action for damages for personal
injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and
related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or
PFOS.
According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately,
caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications, says the suit.
Plaintiff De la Rosa regularly used, and was thereby directly
exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his
working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. He was
diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products, the suit alleges.
The De la Rosa 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.[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: Illness Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure, Kinne Says
------------------------------------------------------------
TRACY KINNE, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA LUSS., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORP.; BUCK
EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; 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.; KIDDIE 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; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.
(f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01205-RMG
(D.S.C., February 27, 2024) is an action for damages for personal
injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and
related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or
PFOS.
According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately,
caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications, says the suit.
Plaintiff Kinne is a resident and citizen of Dolores, Colorado. He
regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in
training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a
military and/or civilian firefighter. The Plaintiff was diagnosed
with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products, the suit asserts.
The Kinne 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.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN GACOVINO P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 761-0467
MDL 2873: Mattox Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wade Mattox, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA LUSS., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORP.; BUCK
EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; 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.; KIDDIE 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; and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC.
(f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01202-RMG
(D.S.C., February 27, 2024) is an action for damages for personal
injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and
related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or
PFOS.
According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately,
caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications, says the suit.
Plaintiff Mattox is a resident and citizen of Estill Springs,
Tennessee. He was regularly exposed to contaminated drinking water
and AFFF during his employment as a firefighter. The Plaintiff was
diagnosed with thyroid disease as a direct result of exposure to
Defendants' products, the suit asserts.
The Mattox 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.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq.
MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP
101 West Elm St., Suite 520
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (803) 315-3357
Facsimile: (610) 941-9880
E-mail: jshenkar@bernllp.com
MDL 2873: PFAS Contain Harmful Chemicals, Banks Says
----------------------------------------------------
Johnnie Banks, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA LUSS., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS
INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to the
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00917-RMG
(D.S.C., February 19, 2024) is an action for damages for personal
injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and
related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or
PFOS.
According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately,
caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications, says the suit.
Plaintiff Banks regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed
to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed
with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products, the suit alleges.
The Banks 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.[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: PFAS Exposure Caused Illness, Blair Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------
Terry Blair, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA LUSS., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS
INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to the
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00919-RMG
(D.S.C., February 19, 2024) is an action for damages for personal
injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and
related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or
PFOS.
According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately,
caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications, says the suit.
Plaintiff Blair regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed
to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed
with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products, the suit alleges.
The Blair 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.[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
MENTAVI INC: Tracking Tools Access Private Info, Martinez Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL MARTINEZ and TIFFANY PARRISH, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MENTAVI, INC., ADHD
ONLINE, LLC and ADHD ONLINE LLC, d/b/a MENTAVI HEALTH, Defendants,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00228-RJJ-PJG (W.D. Mich., February 27, 2025)
arises from the Defendants' violations of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act by disclosing the contents of
Plaintiffs' and Class members' electronic communications to third
parties, including Facebook and Google, without authorization or
consent.
In order to acquire the highly valuable personally identifiable
information and protected health information of its patients and
prospective patients, including Plaintiffs, ADHD Online installed
tracking technologies including, but not limited to, the Meta
Pixel, Google Analytics and Google DoubleClick on their website,
https://adhdonline.com/
ADHD Online owed common law, contractual, statutory and regulatory
duties to keep Users' PHI and PII safe, secure and confidential.
Furthermore, by obtaining, collecting, using and deriving a benefit
from their PHI and PII, ADHD Online assumed legal and equitable
duties to Users to protect and safeguard their PHI and PII from
unauthorized disclosure. However, ADHD Online failed in its
obligations and promises by utilizing the tracking tools to collect
and divulge users' PHI and PII to unauthorized third parties, says
the suit.
ADHD Online is a telehealth company that connects patients and
prospective patients with clinicians and therapists for online
mental health diagnosis and treatment of attention
deficit/hyperactivity disorder.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David S. Almeida, Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
849 W. Webster Avenue
Chicago, IL 60614
Telephone: (708) 529-5418
E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com
- and -
Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP
One US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 833-4825
E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com
- and -
Andrew R. Tate, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP
235 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 400
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 282-4806
E-mail: atate@peifferwolf.com
MERCHANTS SECURITY: Adams Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Adams, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
MERCHANTS SECURITY SERVICE OF DAYTON, OHIO, INC. d/b/a MERCHANTS
SECURITY SERVICE, Case No. 3:25-cv-00087-TMR-CHG (S.D. Ohio, March
18, 2025), is brought to challenge policies and practices of
Defendant that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA") as a result of
the Defendants failure to pay overtime wages.
The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees performed this
unpaid work every workday, and it constituted a part of their fixed
and regular working time. This unpaid work performed by Plaintiff
and other similarly situated employees constituted a part of their
principal activities, was required by Defendant, and was performed
for Defendant's benefit.
The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees routinely
worked 40 or more hours per workweek. As a result, Defendant failed
to accurately record and compensate Plaintiff and those similarly
situated employees for all hours worked, including their pre-
and/or post-shift activities and/or job-to-job travel, which
resulted in Defendant not paying for all overtime compensation for
hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek., says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from May 2023 to May or
June, 2024.
The Defendant owns and operates a security services company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
1360 East 9th Street, Ste. 808
Cleveland, OH 44114
Phone: (216) 230-2944
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
- and -
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7034 Braucher Street NW, Suite B
North Canton, OH 44720
Phone: 330-470-4428
Facsimile: 330-754-1430
Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
MIDTOWN HOME: Prosser TCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Christopher Prosser, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midtown Home
Improvements, Inc., Case No. 25JE-CC00059 was removed from the
Jefferson County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri on March 5, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00271-JSD to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Midtown Home Improvements, Inc. -- https://midtownhi.com/ --
operates as a remodeling company.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendants are represented by:
Andrew D. Kinghorn, Esq.
Harry L. Benson, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS PC - St. Louis
1 N. Brentwood Boulevard, Suite 1150
St. Louis, MO 63105
Phone: (314) 827-3939
Fax: (314) 827-3940
Email: andrew.kinghorn@jacksonlewis.com
harry.benson@jacksonlewis.com
MIDWEST CATALOG: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Sept. 26
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW JAMES MCGONIGLE, v.
MIDWEST CATALOG BRANDS LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00864-jdp (W.D. Wis.),
the Hon. Judge Anita Marie Boor entered a preliminary pretrial
conference order as follows:
1. Motions for class certification and plaintiff's disclosure
of class certification expert reports/summaries: Sept. 26,
2025.
2. Opposition to class certification and defendant's disclosure
of class certification expert reports/summaries: Nov. 14,
2025.
3. Reply brief in support of motion for class certification and
deadline for filing Daubert motions for class certification
experts: Jan. 2, 2026
a. Responses to Daubert motions: Jan. 30, 2026
b. Replies: Feb. 13, 2026
4. Disclosure of experts: Plaintiff/Proponent: April 17, 2026
Defendant/Respondent: May 22, 2026
5. First Final Pretrial Conference: Jan. 13, 2027 at 2:30 p.m.
Second Final Pretrial Conference: Jan. 20, 2027 at 2:30 p.m.
Midwest Catalog is a company with nationally-focused eCommerce
activity.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S2K87a at no extra
charge.[CC]
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Parties' Bid to Seal Class Cert Docs OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN E. RAMEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MOLINA HEALTHCARE INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-05768-RAJ (W.D. Wash.),
the Hon. Judge Richard Jones entered an order granting the Parties'
stipulated motion to seal documents.
The Court orders the sealing of the unredacted version of the reply
to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff provides that the excerpts of the deposition
transcripts contain protected health information under the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Furthermore, the
Plaintiff states that public disclosure of the confidential
information may cause competitive harm.
Given that the Motion is unopposed and there is binding case law on
the issue, the Court concurs with the Plaintiff's reasoning. The
Court also finds that the public interest in gaining access to
sensitive medical information and certain business practices does
not outweigh the private interest in keeping this information
sealed.
The class action lawsuit pertains to alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). In June 2023, the
Plaintiff received an unsolicited call from Defendant regarding
enrollment in a health maintenance organization healthcare plan for
her daughter.
The Plaintiff was under the impression she was conversing with her
daughter's actual insurer, Aetna, and therefore agreed to switch
the healthcare plan. After realizing that it was Defendant who was
making these calls, Plaintiff indicated her desire to revert her
daughter's health insurance back to Aetna.
For the next several weeks, Plaintiff received numerous phone calls
and generic voicemails from Defendant, which she labels as an
"annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of privacy." Her complaint
asserts a single cause of action on behalf of herself and eligible
class members for violation of the TCPA.
Molina Healthcare provides health insurance to individuals through
government programs such as Medicaid and Medicare.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Rni9i9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Van Meter Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Megan Waggener Van Meter, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL,
INC.; and DOES 1-10, Case No. 3:24-cv-00565 was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
March 19, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-02873 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.
Mondelez International, Inc. --
https://www.mondelezinternational.com/ -- is an American
multinational confectionery, food, holding, beverage and snack food
company based in Chicago.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James B. Zouras, Esq.
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
Justin M. Caparco, Esq.
Lauren A. Warwick, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
222 West Adams Street, Suite 2020
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (650) 561-4791
Email: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
rstephan@stephanzouras.com
jcaparco@stephanzouras.com
lwarwick@stephanzouras.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Dean Nicholas Panos, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
353 N. Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: (312) 222-9350
Email: dpanos@jenner.com
- and -
Alexander Michael Smith, Esq.
Madeline Paige Skitzki, Esq.
JENNER AND BLOCK LLP
515 South Flower Street, Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90660
Phone: (213) 239-5100
Email: asmith@jenner.com
mskitzki@jenner.com
MVP GROUP: Faces Cole Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
MORGAN COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
Plaintiff v. MVP Group International, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-02523 (N.D. Ill., March 11, 2025) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, https://colonialcandle.com, to
be fully accessible and independently usable by Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons 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 inaccurate landmark structure,
inaccurate heading hierarchy, inadequate focus order, ambiguous
link texts, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down
menus, empty links that contain no text, and the requirement that
transactions be performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in MVP
Group International'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.
MVP Group International, Inc. operates the website that provides
consumers with access to goods and services, including, the ability
to view different types of candles, including tapers, jars,
pillars, and wax melts.[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
MWP SUPPLY: Faces Waugh Suit Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------
KEVIN WAUGH, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MWP SUPPLY, INC. d/b/a CARDINAL HOME CENTER,
Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00010-JHY-JCH (W.D. Va., March 13,
2025) is a collective and class action lawsuit against the
Defendant for unpaid wages and unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Virginia Overtime Wage Act, and the Virginia
Wage Payment Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant, pursuant to its policies
and practices, failed and refused to pay Plaintiff and the Putative
Class Members for all hours worked by them, including for pre-shift
and post-shift work performed, in addition to when Plaintiff and
the Putative Class Members worked through their lunch breaks. These
policies and practices resulted in Cardinal Home failing to
compensate Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members all wages,
inclusive of their overtime rate for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week.
The Plaintiff began his employment with Defendant by working the
sales counter in Defendant's store in Charlottesville, Virginia. In
or around February 2023, the Plaintiff applied for a different role
as Inventory Controller, and subsequently began that job in May
2023.
MWP Supply, Inc. is in the business of providing builders,
contractors, and homeowners with building supplies, including but
not limited to: paint, lumber, cabinets, blinds, shades, windows,
doors, composite decking, fencing, plumbing & HVAC, siding,
plywood, masonry, hardware, and tools.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark J. Passero, Esq.
Alicia M. Penn-Taylor, Esq.
LAWRENCEQUEEN
701 E. Franklin Street, Suite 700
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 643-9343
Facsimile: (804) 643-9368
E-mail: mpassero@lawrencequeen.com
apenntaylor@lawrencequeen.com
MYKITA SHOP: Isakov Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
------------------------------------------------------------
SIMON ISAKOV, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Mykita Shop, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-02144 (S.D.N.Y., March 14, 2025) is a civil rights action
against Mykita Shop for its failure to design, construct, maintain,
and operate its website, https://mykita.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.
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 inaccurate landmark structure,
inaccurate heading hierarchy, inadequate focus order, ambiguous
link texts, changing of content without advance warning, the lack
of navigation links, 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
Mykita Shop'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.
Mykita Shop, LLC operates the website that offers optical glasses,
sunglasses, prescription eyewear, sports eyewear, reading glasses,
blue light blocking glasses, clip on lenses, and eyewear
accessories.[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
NATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE: Clough Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Clough, II, individually and on behalf of a class of all
persons and entities similarly situated v. NATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICE CO., LLC and PELICAN INVESTMENT HOLDING, LLC, Case No.
2:25-cv-00271-ALM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, March 18, 2025), is brought under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") as a result of the
Defendant's illegal telemarketing practices.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant National Administrative
Service Co., LLC hired Defendant Pelican Investment Holding, LLC,
who made telemarketing calls for purposes of promoting its goods
and services without prior express written consent to individuals
that were listed on the National Do Not Call Registry. Because
these calls were transmitted using technology capable of generating
thousands of similar calls per day, Plaintiff sues on behalf of a
proposed nationwide class of other persons who received similar
calls. A class action is the best means of obtaining redress for
Defendants' illegal telemarketing and is consistent both with the
private right of action afforded by the TCPA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an individual.
National Administrative sells vehicle service warranty
contracts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
Jonathan P. Misny, Esq.
MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
1114 Dublin Road
Columbus, OH 43215
Phone: (614) 488-0400
Facsimile: (614) 488-0401
Email: murphy@mmmb.com
misny@mmmb.com
- and -
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Phone: (508) 221-1510
Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com
NATIONAL GRID: Tedzen Dondim Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled TEDZEN DONDIM, INC., 1729 REALTY CORP., DOMINIQUE
MOSELLE REMINICK, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL GRID USA, its affiliates, partners,
subsidiaries, and related entities and SALLY LIBRERA, President of
National Grid, Defendants, Case No. 504836/2025, was removed from
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
on March 12, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01410 to the
proceeding.
The amended complaint asserts two claims that arise under federal
law: one claim asserts a violation of the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment, and another claim alleges a violation of the
Clean Air Act.
National Grid USA operates as an electricity and gas utility
company.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael J. Fitzpatrick, Esq.
Richard H. Brown, Esq.
DAY PITNEY LLP
605 3rd Avenue, 31st Floor
New York, NY 10158
Telephone: (212) 297-5854
E-mail: rbrown@daypitney.com
mfitzpatrick@daypitney.com
NAZS HALAL: Wee-Ellis Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
--------------------------------------------------------------
MELCHION WEE-ELLIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Nazs Halal, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-01349 (E.D.N.Y., March 10, 2025) is a civil rights action
against Nazs Halal for its failure to design, construct, maintain,
and operate their website, https://nazshalal.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.
On February 26, 2025, the Plaintiff was looking for a local
restaurant that offered halal food with options for online ordering
for pickup or delivery. He visited the Defendant's website to
explore their menu and place an online order but encountered
several accessibility issues, such as ambiguous links and buttons.
While trying to explore the menu, he came across interactive
elements that had no role description. These elements did not
indicate if they were buttons or links, even though they behaved as
links. This caused confusion for the Plaintiff, as he was unsure
how to proceed further and mistakenly thought there were no
interactive elements. These access barriers have caused
Nazshalal.com to be inaccessible to, and not independently usable
by blind and visually-impaired persons, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Nazs Halal'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.
Nazs Halal, Inc. operates the website which provides consumers with
access to halal cuisine, including rice platters, gyros,
sandwiches, wings, and more which Defendant offers in connection
with their physical location.[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
NETWORK INFRA: Calderon Seeks Conditional Status of FLSA Collective
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MANUEL ANGEL CALDERON,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE INC. and PATRICK CLARKE, Jointly and
Severally, Case No. 1:24-cv-05442-ALC-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:
-- conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
collective action and
-- authorizing notice to be issued to all persons similarly
situated so that they may be informed of the action and given
a meaningful opportunity to "opt-in" to the action as
plaintiff by also asserting FLSA claims.
Network Infrastructure provides information technology consulting
services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 19, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qs5fbD at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
PELTON GRAHAM LLC
111 Broadway, Suite 1503
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 385-9700
Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
NEW DAY PROPERTIES: Padgett Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Day Properties
LLC. The case is styled as Randall Padgett, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. New Day Properties LLC,
Case No. 2:25-cv-00380-AMM (N.D. Ala., March 13, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
New Day Properties -- https://newdayproperties.com/ -- is a locally
owned and operated business based out of Pelham, Alabama
specializing in buying properties directly.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen H. Jones, Esq.
JONES LAW OFFICE
1714 4th Avenue North
Bessemer, AL 35020
Phone: (205) 428-2110
Fax: (205) 426-1132
Email: shjlaw@gmail.com
NEW DIRECTION: Hatten Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Kaira Imari Hatten, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. NEW DIRECTION SOLUTIONS, LLC; and DOES
1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV03867 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on March 20, 2025, and assigned Case No.
2:25-cv-02497.
In her Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following eight causes of
action on behalf of herself and a class of individuals she seeks to
represent: failure to pay wages for all hours worked in violation
of Labor Code; failure to pay overtime wages for daily overtime
worked in violation of Labor Code; failure to authorize or permit
meal periods in violation of Labor Code; failure to authorize or
permit rest periods in violation of Labor Code; failure to
indemnify employees for employment-related losses/expenditures in
violation of Labor Code; failure to provide complete and accurate
wage statements in violation of Labor Code; failure to timely pay
all earned wages and final paychecks due at time of separation of
employment in violation of Labor Code; and unfair business
practices in violation of Business and Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Mia Farber, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 689-0404
Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
Email: Mia.Farber@jacksonlewis.com
- and -
Evan D. Beecher, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 341-0404
Facsimile: (916) 341-0141
Email: Evan.Beecher@jacksonlewis.com
- and -
Sean M. Bothamley, Esq.
Veena Bhatia (State Bar No. 339939)
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
160 W. Santa Clara, Suite 400
San Jose, CA 95113
Phone: (408) 579-0404
Facsimile: (408) 454-0290
Email: Sean.Bothamley@jacksonlewis.com
Veena.Bhatia@jacksonlewis.com
NEW ERA: Williams Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERNEST WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEW ERA ENTERPRISES, INC. and NEW ERA LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-01175 (S.D. Tex.,
March 12, 2025) arose due to Defendants' exposure of Plaintiff and
other consumers' personally identifiable information (PII) to
unauthorized people, especially hackers with nefarious intentions,
resulting in harm to the affected individuals, including, but not
limited to, the invasion of their personal financial matters.
According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their duty to
protect the sensitive PII entrusted to it. As such, Plaintiff
brings this Class action on behalf of himself and the over 300,000
other individuals whose PII was accessed and exposed to
unauthorized third parties during a data breach of Defendant's
system between December 9 and December 18, 2024, which Defendants
discovered on December 18, 2024 and announced publicly via letter
to affected individuals on or about February 14, 2025.
To recover from Defendants for their sustained, ongoing, and future
harms, the Plaintiff seeks damages in an amount to be determined at
trial, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief requiring
Defendants to: 1) disclose, expeditiously, the full nature of the
Data Breach and the types of PII accessed, obtained, or exposed by
the hackers; 2) implement improved data security practices to
reasonably guard against future breaches of PII possessed by
Defendants; and 3) provide, at its own expense, all impacted
victims with lifetime identity theft protection services.
New Era Enterprises, Inc. is a life insurance company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street, Suite N300
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (215) 867-2399
E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Varbanovski Balks at Unprotected Personal Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN VARBANOVSKI, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-02422 (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2025) is a class action
against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
sensitive information of Plaintiff and other students and
student-applicants.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information
-- which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding
that Defendant would protect it against disclosure -- was targeted,
compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the data breach. The
personally identifiable information compromised in the data breach
included Plaintiff's and Class Members' full names, test scores,
majors, cities and zip codes, student applications, demographic
data, and citizenship statuses. The Data Breach was a direct result
of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect
consumers' PII from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack,
says the suit.
Through this Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms
on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals whose
PII was accessed during the data breach.
New York University is a private university based in New York, New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven Sukert, Esq.
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 332-4200
E-mail: sukert@kolaywers.com
ostrow@kolawyers.com
NEW YORK: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Stokes Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
NAHEIM STOKES, IAN FEINSTEIN, and FRANK CASTAGNA, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE CITY
OF NEW YORK, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02408 (S.D.N.Y., March 24,
2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs against the
Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act including
failure to pay overtime, failure to pay overtime promptly/timely,
and failure to pay overtime at the proper rate from March 24, 2022
forward.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and all others similarly
situated routinely worked over 40 hours a week. However, the
Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiffs and all others similarly
situated for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek at a rate of
one and one-half times their regular rate of pay.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as correction
officers working at Rikers Island.
New York City is a municipality organized and existing pursuant to
the laws of the State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Paul A. Pagano, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PAUL A. PAGANO, P.C.
100 Duffy Avenue, Suite 510
Hicksville, NY 11801
Telephone: (917) 589-1479
E-mail: Paul@LawOfficePaulPagano.com
- and -
Jason L. Abelove, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JASON L. ABELOVE, P.C.
666 Old Country Road, Suite 303
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 222-7000
E-mail: jason@jasonabelove.com
NEW YORK: Zielinski Files Suit Over Prisoners' Civil Rights Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against New York State Correctional
Officers and Police Benevolent Association, Inc. The case is
captioned as Jeremy Zielinski, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. New York State Correctional Officers and
Police Benevolent Association, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:25-cv-01776-UA (S.D.N.Y., February 27, 2025).
The case is brought over Defendants' alleged violation of
prisoners' civil rights.
New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent
Association, Inc. is a labor union representing the interests of
state security and institution safety personnel in New York,
including correctional officers, security officers, and other
related roles.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
OLDS PRODUCTS: Quiroga Voluntarily Dismisses Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMON QUIROGA, v. OLDS
PRODUCTS CO. OF ILLINOIS, Case No. 2:22-cv-00390-SCD (E.D. Wis.),
the Hon. Judge Stephen Dries entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal pursuant to fed. r. civ.
p. 41(a)(2).
The court dismisses the Plaintiff's claims under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) with prejudice and dismisses the plaintiff's
claims under Wisconsin's wage payment and collection laws without
prejudice.
Raymon Quiroga alleges that his former employer, Olds Products Co.
of Illinois, failed to pay him for all hours worked and at the
proper rate, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Wisconsin's wage payment and collection laws.
Quiroga claims that these underpayments resulted from a policy or
practice that affected many other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees
at Olds' production facility in Wisconsin.
After the court denied his motion for class certification under
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Quiroga moved to
voluntarily dismiss his FLSA claims with prejudice and his
Wisconsin claims without prejudice. Olds Products does not oppose
the request for voluntary dismissal.
Quiroga seeks to abandon his federal claims while preserving his
ability to pursue his state claims in state court. In Royal Canin
U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, the Supreme Court clarified "the
plaintiff's excision of her federallaw claims deprives the district
court of its authority to decide the state-law claims remaining."
220 L. Ed. 2d 289, 308 (2025).
The Defendant produces and sells mustards.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FUpGw7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
ORTHOMINDS LLC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Villasenor Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARELI VILLASENOR, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ORTHOMINDS, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-01565-JPB (N.D. Ga., March 24, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected
health information and personally identifiable information stored
within Defendant's information network.
With this action, the Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible
for the harms it caused and will continue to cause Plaintiff and,
at least, thousands of others similarly situated persons in the
massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by
Defendant in November 2024, in which cybercriminals infiltrated
Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and accessed
highly sensitive personally identifiable information and protected
health information that was being kept unprotected.
The Plaintiff further seeks to hold Defendant responsible for not
ensuring that PHI/PII was maintained in a manner consistent with
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.
Plaintiff Areli Villasenor is a former patient of an entity that
utilized Defendant's services.
OrthoMinds, LLC is an orthodontic solutions company headquartered
in Alpharetta, Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
M. Brandon Smith, Esq.
CHILDERS, SCHLUETER & SMITH, LLC
1932 N. Druid Hills Road, Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30319
Telephone: (404) 419-9500
Facsimile: (404) 419-9501
E-mail: bsmith@cssfirm.com
- and -
Daniel Srourian, Esq.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
468 N. Camden Drive Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (213) 474-3800
Facsimile: (213) 471-4160
E-mail: daniel@slfla.com
OUTSET MEDICAL: Faces PCRA Securities Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Outset Medical, 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 on October 18, 2024,
a purported stockholder class action lawsuit, "Plymouth County
Retirement Association v. Outset Medical, Inc, et al.,"
5:24-cv-06124-HSG, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. It names the company's former
chief financial officer as a defendant.
The complaint alleges that between September 15, 2020 and August 7,
2024, the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by making false or
misleading statements about its business, operations and prospects
related to the sale and marketing of the Tablo(R) Hemodialysis
System and TabloCart with Prefiltration, including concerning the
impact of certain FDA processes for these products on the company's
revenue growth.
Outset is a medical technology company into hemodialysis
technology. Its proprietary Tablo(R) Hemodialysis System allows
dialysis to be delivered anytime, anywhere and by virtually anyone
requiring only an electrical outlet and tap water to operate and
serves as a dialysis clinic on wheels.
OUTSET MEDICAL: Faces Porcelli Securities Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Outset Medical, 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 on August 29, 2024,
a purported stockholder class action lawsuit "Porcelli, et al. v.
Outset Medical, Inc., et al.," 5:24-cv-06124-EJD, was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming
the company, its chief executive officer, and chief financial
officer as defendants.
Complaint alleges that between August 1, 2022 and August 7, 2024,
the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by making false or misleading
statements about its business, operations and prospects related to
the sale and marketing of the Tablo(R) Hemodialysis System and
TabloCart with Prefiltration, including concerning the impact of
certain FDA processes for these products on the company's revenue
growth.
Outset is a medical technology company into hemodialysis
technology. Its proprietary Tablo(R) Hemodialysis System allows
dialysis to be delivered anytime, anywhere and by virtually anyone
requiring only an electrical outlet and tap water to operate and
serves as a dialysis clinic on wheels.
OVERDRIVE INC: Faces Cone Class Action Suit in C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against OverDrive, Inc. The
case is captioned as Beth Cone, Beth Cone individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. OverDrive, Inc., Case
No. 2:25-cv-01617-FLA-MAA (C.D. Cal., Filed Feb. 25, 2025).
The suit demands $5,000,000 in damages.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha.
OverDrive is a digital distributor of ebooks, audiobooks, online
magazines and streaming video titles. The company provides digital
rights management and download fulfillment services for publishers,
public libraries, K–12 schools, colleges, universities,
corporations, legal industries, and formerly retailers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Emily Ayres Horne, Esq.
BURSOR AND FISHER P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
ehorne@Bursor.com
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Luong Suit Transferred to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Daisy Luong, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC. a Delaware
corporation, THE HONEY SCIENCE CORPORATION, Case No. 3:25-cv-00102
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on March 20, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-02657-DMR to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Conversion.
PayPal Holdings, Inc. -- https://www.paypal.com/ -- is an American
multinational financial technology company operating an online
payments system in the majority of countries that support online
money transfers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric D. Stevenson, Esq.
STEVENSON KLOTZ
815 S. Palafox St., Ste. 302
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: (850) 444-0000
Email: Eric@stevensonklotz.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Diana Marie Fassbender, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20037
Phone: 202.339.8400
Facsimile: 202.339.8500
Email: dszego@orrick.com
PERRIGO CO: Settlement in Baton Suit Gets Court Nod
---------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company PLC disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 28, 2025, that on December 31, 2018, a
shareholder filed an action against the company, its former CEO
Murray Kessler, and former CFO Ronald Winowiecki in Tel Aviv
District Court captioned "Baton v. Perrigo Company plc, et. al."
The case is a securities class action brought in Israel that
alleges that persons who purchased securities through the Tel Aviv
stock exchange and suffered damages can assert claims under Israeli
securities law that will follow the liability principles of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act. In
April 2023, a mediation had led to a preliminary agreement on
settlement. The parties submitted settlement papers, without any
concession of liability or wrongdoing by the defendants, to the
counterpart U.S. court on November 17, 2023.
On June 5, 2024, that court approved the settlement, which was
funded by insurance during the quarter ended December 31, 2024. The
court in Israel is overseeing distribution of the settlement funds
to the class members in the Baton case, which should be completed
this year. At that point, under Israel procedures, this case would
end.
Perrigo Company PLC is a provider of over-the-counter health and
wellness solutions. It is headquartered in Ireland and markets
around the world.
PERRIGO COMPANY: Court OK's Settlement in Shareholder Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company PLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 28, 2025, that a settlement has been reached
on the various suits it was facing.
On April 5, 2024, the class plaintiffs filed papers seeking court
approval of a settlement between the alleged classes and the
defendants for $97 million. Perrigo and the remaining individual
defendant agreed to the proposed settlement without any concession
of liability or wrongdoing. Because this is a settlement of a class
action lawsuit, court oversight and approval is required.
On April 23, 2024, the court issued an Order of Preliminary
Approval of the proposed settlement. On September 5, 2024, the
court granted final approval of the class action settlement and
terminated the case with respect to Perrigo, its co-defendant, and
other individuals who previously had been named as defendants.
Beginning in May 2016, purported class action complaints were filed
against the company and its former CEO, Joseph Papa, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, one of which is
"Roofers' Pension Fund v. Papa, et al.," purporting to represent a
class of shareholders for the period from April 21, 2015 through
May 11, 2016, inclusive.
The original complaint alleged violations of federal securities
laws in connection with the actions taken by the company and the
former executive to defend against the unsolicited takeover bid by
pharmaceutical company Mylan N.V. in the period from April 21, 2015
through November 13, 2015. The plaintiff also alleged that the
defendants provided inadequate disclosure concerning alleged
business developments during the alleged class period including
integration problems related to the Omega acquisition.
The operative complaint is the first amended complaint filed on
June 21, 2017, and named as defendants the company and 11 current
or former directors and officers of Perrigo (Mses. Judy Brown,
Laurie Brlas, Jacqualyn Fouse, Ellen Hoffing, and Messrs. Joe Papa,
Marc Coucke, Gary Cohen, Michael Jandernoa, Gerald Kunkle, Herman
Morris, and Donal O'Connor). The amended complaint alleges
violations of federal securities laws arising out of the actions
taken by us and the former directors and executives to defend
against the unsolicited takeover bid by Mylan in the period from
April 21, 2015 through November 13, 2015 and the allegedly
inadequate disclosure throughout the entire class period related to
the business developments during that longer period (April 2015 to
May 2017) including purported integration problems related to the
Omega acquisition, alleges incorrect reporting of organic growth at
the company and at Omega, alleges price fixing activities with
respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals, and alleges
improper accounting for the Tysabri(R) royalty stream. During 2017,
the defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the plaintiffs
opposed.
On July 27, 2018, the court issued an opinion and order granting
the defendants' motions to dismiss in part and denying the motions
to dismiss in part. The court dismissed without prejudice
defendants Laurie Brlas, Jacqualyn Fouse, Ellen Hoffing, Gary
Cohen, Michael Jandernoa, Gerald Kunkle, Herman Morris, Donal
O’Connor, and Marc Coucke.
The court also dismissed without prejudice claims arising from the
Tysabri accounting issue described above and claims alleging
incorrect disclosure of organic growth described above. The
defendants who were not dismissed are the Company, Joe Papa, and
Judy Brown. The claims that were not dismissed relate to the
integration issue regarding the Omega acquisition, the defense
against the Mylan tender offer, and the alleged price fixing
activities with respect to six generic prescription
pharmaceuticals.
On November 14, 2019, the court granted the lead plaintiffs' motion
and certified three classes for the case: all those who purchased
shares between April 21, 2015 through May 2, 2017 inclusive on a
U.S. exchange and were damaged thereby, all those who purchased
shares between April 21, 2015 through May 2, 2017 inclusive on the
Tel Aviv exchange and were damaged thereby and all those who owned
shares as of November 12, 2015 and held such stock through at least
8:00 a.m. on November 13, 2015. Plaintiffs' counsels have sent
notices to the alleged classes.
The parties took discovery from 2018 through 2020. After discovery
ended, defendants filed motions for summary judgement and to
exclude plaintiffs' experts, which were fully briefed. The case was
then re-assigned to a new federal judge, who heard oral argument on
the motions in April 2022. In July 2023 the court reassigned the
case to another federal judge.
Perrigo Company PLC is a provider of over-the-counter health and
wellness solutions. It is headquartered in Ireland and markets
around the world.
PERRY RUSSELL: Court Junks Thompson's Bid to Stay
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID THOMPSON, v. PERRY
RUSSELL, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00341-MMD-CSD (D. Nev.), the Hon.
Judge Miranda Du entered an order denying Thompson's Motion to
stay.
The Court says it will deny the motion, because the Landis factors
do not favor granting a stay,
The Court infers from Thompson's Motion that he seeks an unfavored
stay of unlimited duration pending events in Lyons that the Court
cannot say will be concluded within a reasonable time perhaps
because he either feels a class action is a better vehicle to
adjudicate his claims or he wants to be sure everyone else who was
locked outside on that hot morning gets relief as well. But
regardless of the reasons he hints at, Thompson seeks a disfavored
stay.
Pro se Plaintiff David Thompson, formerly incarcerated in the
custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections, brought this
civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, contending that
his rights were violated when prison officials detained him in
excessive sunlight and heat conditions for over three hours on a
single occasion in July 2021.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XFUIyr at no extra
charge.[CC]
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER: Settlement Deal in Class Suit Gets Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER DATA SECURITY
LITIGATION, Case No. 2:24-cv-02106-KSM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
entered a memorandum:
-- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the
class settlement agreement and
-- approving the Plaintiffs' request for an award of attorneys'
fees, reimbursement of expenses to class counsel, and a
service award in the revised amount of $750 to each class
representative.
Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that the proposed settlement
meets the criteria for final approval. The settlement agreement is
entitled to an initial presumption of fairness because:
(1) the parties negotiated the settlement at arms' length with
the assistance of mediator Bennett Picker, Esq.,
(2) prior to reaching a settlement, experienced class counsel
thoroughly investigated the class members' claims,
conducted lengthy interviews of Plaintiffs and other class
members, and reviewed all documents produced by Defendants
regarding the security breach,
(3) class counsel have significant experience in similar
litigation, and
(4) there were no objections in a settlement class of over
25,000 people. Thus, the GMC factors weigh in favor of
approval, and so an initial presumption of fairness
attaches.
The settlement agreement identifies the following settlement class:
"approximately 25,549 natural persons whose Private
Information was compromised in the Data Incident."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the Judge(s)
presiding over the Action and members of their immediate
families and theirstaff; (2) Philadelphia Inquirer and its
affiliates, including their subsidiaries, parent companies,
successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Philadelphia
Inquirer or its affiliates and their parents, have a
controlling interest, and their current or former officers and
directors; (3) natural persons who properly execute and submit
a Request for Exclusion prior to the expiration of the Opt-Out
Period; and (4) the successors or assigns of any such excluded
natural person.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant, The Philadelphia Inquirer,
failed to adequately safeguard sensitive personal information
entrusted to it, despite acknowledging the risk of a data breach.
A copy of the Court's memorandum dated March 18, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hIFyUS at no extra
charge.[CC]
PIAXTLA ES MEXICO: Faces Rojas Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
GESABEL LOPEZ ROJAS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PIAXTLA ES MEXICO DELI INC. (D/B/A RICOS
TACOS), JOSEFINA FORTOSO A.K.A JOSEFINA SIERRA, and PEDRO FORTOSO,
Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01413 (E.D.N.Y., March 12, 2025)
arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages, failure to pay one additional hour's pay at the
basic minimum wage rate before allowances for each day Plaintiff's
spread of hours exceeded 10 hours, failure to provide written wage
notice, failure to furnish wage statements, failure to reimburse
equipment costs, and unlawful wage deductions.
The Plaintiff was employed as a cook, dishwasher, and food
expeditor by Defendants at Ricos Tacos from approximately May 2022
until October 4, 2023.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a Mexican restaurant in
Brooklyn, New York under the name "Ricos Tacos."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
PIE EMPIRE: Wells Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Michael Wells, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. PIE EMPIRE, LLC, d/b/a Stoner's Pizza
Joint, and DONALD BOYLE, individually, Case No. 2025-10259-CIDL was
removed from the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit in
and for Volusia County, Florida, to the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida on March 19, 2025, and
assigned Case No. 6:25-cv-00485.
In the Complaint filed in the State Court Action, Plaintiff
purports to state claims against the Defendants under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages and Florida Constitution, to recover unpaid minimum
wages, owed to Plaintiff and similarly situated hourly paid
employees employed by Defendants.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Rachel D. Gebaide, Esq.
Jyllian R. Bradshaw, Esq.
Allison H. Gray, Esq.
LOWNDES, DROSDICK, DOSTER, KANTOR & REED, P.A.
215 North Eola Drive
Orlando, FL 32801
Phone: (407) 843-4600
Facsimile: (407) 843-4444
Email: rachel.gebaide@lowndes-law.com
jyllian.bradshaw@lowndes-law.com
allison.gray@lowndes-law.com
janie.kearse@lowndes-law.com
litcontrol@lowndes-law.com
POST CONSUMER: Krikorian Sues Over False Pet Food Ads
-----------------------------------------------------
SEVAK KRIKORIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. POST CONSUMER BRANDS LLC, a limited
liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02122 (C.D. Cal.,
March 10, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and all purchasers of Rachael Ray pet food products, sold
online and at retail locations throughout California and the United
States pursuant to the California Unfair Competition Law and the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant falsely and deceptively
advertises the products as containing "No Artificial Preservatives"
and as "Natural Food." However, contrary to the Products'
challenged representations, the Products actually contain citric
acid -- an artificial preservative ingredient used in food
products.
Through falsely, misleadingly, and deceptively labeling the
Products, the Defendant seeks to take advantage of consumers'
desire for a truly premium products that are free from
preservatives. Yet, Defendant does so at the expense of unwitting
consumers, as well as Defendant's lawfully acting competitors, over
whom Defendant maintains an unfair competitive advantage, says the
suit.
Post Consumer Brands LLC is an American consumer packaged goods
food manufacturer headquartered in Lakeville, Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Valter Malkhasyan, Esq.
Erik Pogosyan, Esq.
MALK & POGO LAW GROUP, LLP
1241 S. Glendale Ave, Suite 204
Glendale, CA 91205
Telephone: (818) 484-5204
Facsimile: (818) 824-5144
E-mail: valter@malkpogolaw.com
erik@malkpogolaw.com
PRODRIVERS WEST: Cortes Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Benjamin Cortes, an individual and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. PRODRIVERS WEST, INC., a
Georgia corporation doing business as PRODRIVERS; ERNESTO FLORES,
an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV29576 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on March 20,
2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02451.
The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts eleven causes of action styled as
follows: failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum
wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest
periods; waiting time penalties; wage statement violations; failure
to timely pay wages; failure to indemnify; failure to pay interest
on deposits; violation of Labor Code; and unfair competition.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Sabrina A. Beldner, Esq.
David Szwarcsztejn, Esq.
Charles J. Urena, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501
Phone: 310.315.8200
Facsimile: 310.315.8210
Email: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com
dszwarcsztejn@mcguirewoods.com
curena@mcguirewoods.com
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Cole Appeals Suit Dismissal to 3rd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA COLE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss in the lawsuit entitled
Angela Cole, et al., individually and on behalf of and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Quest Diagnostics Inc., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-20647, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
claim that without their consent, Quest assisted Facebook, a third
party, in intercepting their internet communications and medical
information while they navigated the websites. Specifically, the
Plaintiffs allege that Quest integrated the "Facebook Tracking
Pixel" into their websites to track the data of users. The Facebook
Tracking Pixel is a business tool Facebook offers to advertisers
like Quest.
On Jan. 6, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which
alleges violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (Count
One) and the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Count
Two).
On Feb. 5, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which Judge William J. Martini granted in part
and denied in part on July 2, 2024. The Court denied the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Count One claim, but granted the
motion to dismiss Count Two. Count Two was dismissed without
prejudice and the Plaintiffs were given leave to amend.
On July 16, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration
of the July 2 Order.
On Jan. 14, 2025, Judge Martini entered an Order vacating the July
2 Order. The Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint's Count
One claim was granted. Count One was dismissed with prejudice.
Count Two was dismissed without prejudice and the Plaintiffs were
given leave to amend.
The appellate case is captioned Angela Cole, et al. v. Quest
Diagnostics Inc., Case No. 25-1449, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on March 13, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants ANGELA COLE, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Kevin G. Cooper, Esq.
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
- and –
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Defendant-Appellee QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INC. is represented by:
Christian J. Clark, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH
1177 Avenue of the Americas, 41st Floor
New York, NY 10036
- and –
William J. Lattimore, Esq.
Paul A. Rosenthal, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH
600 Campus Drive
Florham Park, NJ 07932
Telephone: (973) 549-7000
(973) 549-7030
- and –
Zoe K. Wilhelm, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH
Four Embarcadero Center, 27th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
RARE CARAT: Battle Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated Plaintiff v. Rare Carat, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-02576 (N.D. Ill., March 12, 2025) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, https://www.rarecarat.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.
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 inaccurate landmark structure,
inaccurate heading hierarchy, ambiguous link texts, changing of
content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive
elements, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of adequate
labeling of form fields, 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
Rare Carat'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.
Rare Carat, Inc. operates the website that offers diamonds,
including natural and lab-grown options, gemstone rings, diamond
earrings, engagement rings, diamond pendants, bracelets, necklaces,
and custom jewelry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (718) 705-8706
Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
E-mail: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com
REBUILT BROKERAGE: Chavez TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANANDA CAMARGO CHAVEZ, v.
REBUILT BROKERAGE LLC d/b/a REBUILT REALTY AND REBUILT OFFERS LLC,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00504-RP (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order
(1) Certifying the proposed Class,
(2) Appointing Ms. Chavez to serve as the Class Representative,
and
(3) Appointing the undersigned as Class Counsel.
The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court certify a
class, tentatively defined as follows and subject to amendment,
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3):
"All persons in the United States whose (1) telephone numbers
were on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 31
days, (2) but who received more than one telemarketing text
message from or on behalf of a Rebuilt entity, (3) within a
12-month period (4) as reflected in the data produced by
MessageMedia (5) at any time in the period that begins four
years before the date of filing this Complaint to trial."
The case concerns telemarketing text messages sent by the
Defendants directly through a text messaging platform they used
called MessageMedia a/k/a ClickSend. The text messages promoted the
Defendants' real estate services and were sent to numbers, like the
Plaintiff's, listed on the National Do Not Call Registry in alleged
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").
Rebuilt Brokerage is a Texas real estate firm.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 20, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oyYmeM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq.
PERRONG LAW LLC
2657 Mount Carmel Avenue
Glenside, PA 19038
Telephone: (215) 225-5529
Facsimile: (888) 329-0305
E-mail: a@perronglaw.com
- and -
Anthony Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (617) 485-0018
Facsimile: (508) 318-8100
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PIETOSO, INC. D/B/A CAFE
NAPOLI, v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No.
4:19-cv-00397-JAR (E.D. Mo.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter
an order granting the Defendants an extension of seven days, up to
and including April 4, 2025 to file their opposition to the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
The Court recently amended the scheduling order to address certain
class certification-related deadlines based on deposition
scheduling. Defendants timely served their expert report on March
21.
Under the current schedule, Defendants’ deadline to file its
opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for class certification is March
28.
Since the Court's order, the undersigned counsel was pulled away by
personal matters, including his father’s funeral, and the press
of business, including five expert depositions in six business
days, which necessitates a short extension to finalize the briefing
and other papers on behalf of Defendants. Defendants therefore
request an extension of seven days, up to and until April 4, 2025,
to file the opposition.
The Defendants' counsel has contacted Plaintiff’s counsel about
this extension, and Plaintiff’s counsel has consented.
Republic Services is a North American waste disposal company whose
services include non-hazardous solid waste collection, waste
transfer, waste disposal, recycling, and energy services.
W
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 24, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WTSaX8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jonathan B. Potts, Esq.
Meridyth Andresen, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 259-2403
E-mail: jonathan.potts@bclplaw.com
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Continues to Defend Sherman Act-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership disclosed in
its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 21,
2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the
consolidated Sherman Act-related class suit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
On October 5, 2018, a class action complaint was filed against
Burger King Worldwide, Inc. ("BKW") and Burger King Company,
successor in interest, ("BKC") in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida by Jarvis Arrington, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated.
On October 18, 2018, a second class action complaint was filed
against RBI, BKW and BKC in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida by Monique Michel, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated.
On October 31, 2018, a third class action complaint was filed
against BKC and BKW in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida by Geneva Blanchard and Tiffany Miller,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.
On November 2, 2018, a fourth class action complaint was filed
against RBI, BKW and BKC in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida by Sandra Munster, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated.
These complaints have been consolidated and allege that the
defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by incorporating
an employee no-solicitation and no-hiring clause in the standard
form franchise agreement all Burger King franchisees are required
to sign. Each plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages for
himself or herself and other members of the class.
On March 24, 2020, the Court granted BKC’s motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim and on April 20, 2020 the plaintiffs filed
a motion for leave to amend their complaint. On April 27, 2020, BKC
filed a motion opposing the motion for leave to amend. The court
denied the plaintiffs motion for leave to amend their complaint in
August 2020 and the plaintiffs appealed this ruling. In August
2022, the federal appellate court reversed the lower court's
decision to dismiss the case and remanded the case to the lower
court for further proceedings. While we intend to vigorously defend
these claims, we are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this
case or estimate the range of possible loss, if any.
Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership franchises and
operates quick service restaurants serving premium coffee and other
beverage and food products under the Tim Hortons(R) brand, fast
food hamburgers principally under the Burger King(R) brand, chicken
principally under the Popeyes(R) brand and sandwiches under the
Firehouse Subs(R) brand.
REUZEL INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Espinal Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
FRANGIE ESPINAL, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REUZEL, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-02074 (S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2025) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://www.reuzel.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
March 5, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Reuzel Hair Care Bundle
Daily Shampoo & Conditioner from Defendant and to view the
information on the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access
barriers that denied Plaintiff 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.
She 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.
Reuzel, Inc. operates the website that offers hair care
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
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
RICE DRILLING: Gregor Bid to Certify Class Tossed w/o Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gregor, et al., v. Rice
Drilling D LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-03999 (S.D. Ohio, Filed
July 23, 2021), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers entered an
order denying without prejudice motion to certify class.
The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract.[CC]
RICOH USA: Filing for Class Certification Bid Extended to June 9
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKE THE PRINTER, INC., a
California corporation, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. RICOH USA, INC., a Denver corporation, Case
No. 2:24-cv-08192-JFW-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Walter
entered an order approving joint stipulation to extend deadline for
the Plaintiff to file motion for class certification.
The deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification
is extended from April 7, 2025 to June 9, 2025.
Ricoh produces and distributes printing equipment.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ABIz6z at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian J. Panish, Esq.
Jesse Creed, Esq.
Bernadette M. Bolan, Esq.
PANISH | SHEA | RAVIPUDI LLP
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 477-1700
Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
E-mail: panish@panish.law
jcreed@panish.law
bbolan@panish.law
ROBERT FREDERICK: Smith Sues Over Unlawful Mass Layoff
------------------------------------------------------
Craig Smith, Dawn Casale, Donna DAlfonso, Edgar Mendoza, Hyun Kim,
Ishita Ahmed, Jason Sakowski, Jennifer Collins, Jennifer
Digirolamo, Jennifer Ehlers, Jensine May Dela Cruz, Jessica
Schoener, John Morris, John Nantes, Joseph Orengo, Kaleigh Hordof,
Kartik Kolluri, Kate Mchale, Kelly Fitzgerald, Kevin Lauturner,
Larry Kikuchi, Lauren Pacini, Lisa Wiley, Lorawn Dupree, Maria
Barraza, Mark Cofone, Mark Jacobson, Mark Metzinger, Melissa
DiNapoli, Melissa Librandi, Melissa Munz, Nicole Chmielewski,
Nicole Quinlan, Nicole Schroeder, Nienu Roy, Pamela Wyman, Per
Sterner, Polina Lewkowicz, Ryan Putman, Sabeen Afzal, Samantha
Acevedo, Sharon Keith, Sonia Garza, Tanijua Malcolm Sargeant,
Travis Olson, Vaibhav Jain, Veronica Beckett, Veronica Palmisano,
Vincent Cleary, Walter Linsley, Yesenia Fitzsimmons, Alexandra
Cappello, Alexia Milone, Alisa Stewart, Alyssa Longo, Andrew
Warren, Angela Van Druten, Ashley Montes, Ashley Ruppel, Brenna
Phelan, Candace Piczon, Carmella Romania, Charles Romero, Chelsea
Flecker, Colleen Celmer, Cory Mongno, and Cortnie Tango,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
ROBERT FREDERICK HULL, BARRY STUART LITWIN, IAN HELLER, KAREN
MCGOWAN, DANIEL LAMADRID, ETHAN ISAAC, JOHN CAPELA, MARC EDWARD
EHLE, JOHN DOES 1-10, and MARY JONES 1-10, Case No. 2:25-cv-01099
(D.N.J., Feb. 7, 2025), is brought pursuant the New Jersey
Millville Dallas Airmotive Plant Job Loss Notification Act ("NJ
WARN Act") on behalf of all similarly situated individuals who were
employed by Party City and assigned to its headquarters located at
100 Tice Boulevard (a/k/a 1 Celebration Square), Woodcliff Lake,
New Jersey 07677 and whom Defendants laid off as part of a mass
layoff or plant closing--on December 20, 2024--without the notice
and severance payments required by the NJ WARN ACT.
Although Defendants knew that they intended to lay off
approximately 400 employees who were assigned to their Woodcliff
Lake headquarters on December 20, 2024, they failed to give
Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members ninety days notice of the
mass layoff/termination of operations as required by the NJ WARN
Act. Furthermore, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and the
Putative Class Members any severance in violation of the NJ WARN
Act. The Plaintiffs seek severance of one week of pay for each year
of employment and--because Defendants failed to provide the
statutory ninety days notice--an additional four weeks as required
by the NJ WARN Act, for themselves and Putative Class Members along
with payment by the Defendants of Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and
costs, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members were employed by
Party City and assigned to their Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey
headquarters to which they reported to, and from which they
received assignments.
Robert Frederick Hull is an individual who resides in the State of
North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Harrison, Esq.
Julie Salwen, Esq.
HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOC., LTD
110 State Highway 35, Suite 10
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Phone: 888-239-4410
Email: dharrison@nynjemploymentlaw.com
jsalwen@nynjemploymentlaw.com
ROCK EM APPAREL: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Evans Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
Plaintiff v. Rock Em Apparel Co., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02527
(N.D. Ill., March 11, 2025) is a civil rights action against the
Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website, https://rockemsocks.com, to be fully
accessible and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons pursuant to 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 inaccurate landmark structure,
inaccurate heading hierarchy, inadequate focus order, ambiguous
link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear
labels for interactive elements, the lack of adequate labeling of
form fields, the denial of keyboards access for some interactive
elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL
address and the requirement that transactions be performed solely
with a mouse.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Rock Em Apparel'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.
Rock Em Apparel Co. operates the website which provides consumers
with access to goods and services, including, the ability to view
socks and boxers with sports team designs, pop culture and
lifestyle prints, and options for personal customization.[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
SAFEWAY INC: Wilson Suit Removed to D. Oregon
---------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jason Wilson, individually and for others
similarly situated v. SAFEWAY INC., a Delaware corporation, Case
No. 25CV03910 was removed from the Circuit Court of the State of
Oregon for the County of Coos, to the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon on March 20, 2025, and assigned Case No.
6:25-cv-00478-MTK.
The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges three causes of action for:
failure to timely pay all wages in connection with predictive work
scheduling violations; interference with Oregon predictive work
scheduling; and failure to timely pay earned wages upon
termination.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Edward Choi, Esq.
MILLER NASH LLP
1140 SW Washington St, Ste 700
Portland, OR 97205
Phone: 503.224.5858
Fax: 503.224.0155
Email: Ed.Choi@millernash.com
- and -
Mara D. Curtis, Esq.
Rafael N. Tumanyan, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
515 South Flower St., Suite 4300
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514
Phone: 213.457.8000
Fax: 213.457.8080
Email: mcurtis@reedsmith.com
rtumanyan@reedsmith.com
SANDBOX VR: Patel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SANDBOX VR, INC., et
al. The case is styled as Pritesh Patel, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. SANDBOX VR, INC.,
SANDBOX VR POP-UP, LLC, DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, Case No.
CGC25623453 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., March 19, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Sandbox VR -- https://sandboxvr.com/ -- is a virtual reality
startup that offers a premium, fully-immersive virtual reality
experience.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
725 South Figueroa St., 31st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: 213-232-3128
Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
SANDPIPER PLAZA: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Feltzin Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE FELTZIN v. SANDPIPER PLAZA, INC, Case No. e 2:25-cv-14092
(S.D. Fla., March 21, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought by
the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated mobility-impaired individuals alleging that Defendant's
Commercial Property violates the Americans with Disabilities Act,
seeking injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses,
and costs.
The Plaintiff visits the Commercial Property and businesses located
within the commercial property, to include a visit to the
Commercial Property and business located within the Commercial
Property on Feb. 11, 2025, and encountered multiple violations of
the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the
Commercial Property. He often visits the Commercial Property in
order to avail himself of the goods and services offered there, and
because it is approximately four miles from his residence and is
near other businesses and restaurants he frequents as a patron.
The Defendant owns, operates, and oversees the Commercial Property,
its general parking lot/or and parking spots specific to the
business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 553-3464
E-Mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com
aquezada@lawgmp.com
jacosta@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON
J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL 33155
Telephone: (305) 350-3103
E-Mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com
ramon@rjdiegolaw.com
SERVICES FOR THE AGED: Lutfieva Files Appeal in Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
GULCHEKHRA LUTFIEVA has filed an appeal in her lawsuit entitled
Gulchekhra Lutfieva, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated who were employed by Services for the
Aged, Inc. d/b/a JASACare, Association for Services For the Aged,
Inc. d/b/a JASA Home Care, JASA Corp., and any other related
entities, Plaintiff, v. Services for the Aged, Inc. et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 161213/2023, in the lower court of New York.
The Plaintiff filed this employment suit against the Defendants.
The appellate case is captioned Gulchekhra Lutfieva, et al. vs.
Services for the Aged, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-01508, in the
First Judicial Department of New York Appellate Division, filed on
March 12, 2025. [BN]
Defendants-Respondents SERVICES FOR THE AGED, INC., D/B/A JASACARE,
are represented by:
Kenneth H. Kirschner, Esq.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
390 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 918-3000
Facsimile: (212) 918-3100
Email: kenneth.kirschner@hoganlovells.com
SHADE STORE: Seeks More Time to Oppose Fitzgerald Class Cert Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEE FITZGERALD and
KATHERINE ADLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. THE SHADE STORE, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01435-RSM (W.D.
Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their
motion to extend the deadlines for the Parties' class certification
briefing by two days.
Case Event Deadline Amended
Deadline
Motion for Class March 24, 2025 March 26, 2025
Certification:
Opposition to Motion for April 28, 2025 April 30, 2025
Class Certification, and
Daubert Motions:
Reply in Support of Motion May 26, 2025 May 28, 2025
for Class Certification
and Opposition to Daubert
Motions:
Reply in Support of June 16, 2025 June 18, 2025
Daubert Motions
Shade Store is a home decoration products provider.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 19, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sJQ4Y8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Simon C. Franzini, Esq.
Martin Brenner, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: simon@dovel.com
martin@dovel.com
- and -
Wright A. Noel, Esq.
CARSON & NOEL, PLLC
20 Sixth Ave. NE
Issaquah WA 98027
Telephone: (425) 395-7786
Facsimile: (425) 837-5396
E-mail: wright@carsonnoel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Maren R. Norton, Esq.
James M. Shore, Esq.
Jenna M. Poligo, Esq.
STOEL RIVES LLP
600 University Street, Suite 3600
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 624-0900
Facsimile: (206) 386-7500
E-mail: maren.norton@stoel.com
jim.shore@stoel.com
jenna.poligo@stoel.com
- and -
Steven N. Feldman, Esq.
Shlomo Fellig, Esq.
Johanna Spellman, Esq.
Kevin Jakopchek, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
Telephone: (213) 485-1234
E-mail: steve.feldman@lw.com
shlomo.fellig@lw.com
johanna.spellman@lw.com
kevin.jakopchek@lw.com
SMART ERP SOLUTIONS: Finley Files Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smart ERP Solutions,
Inc. The case is styled as Deborah Finley, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Smart ERP Solutions,
Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-02637-DMR (C.D. Cal., March 18, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Smart ERP Solutions (SmartERP) -- https://www.smarterp.com/ -- is a
unique Enterprise Business application organization providing
innovative, cost-effective, and configurable solutions and services
for common business problems.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
280 South Beverly Drive, Penthouse
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (868) 252-0878
Fax: (707) 334-3727
Email: jnelson@milberg.com
SOUTHWEST COLLEGE: Bowers Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southwest College Of
Medical-Dental Assistants & Practical Nurses. The case is styled as
Guy Bowers, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated
employees v. Southwest College of Medical-Dental Assistants &
Practical Nurses, Case No. 25STCV07839 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., March 18, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Southwest College Of Medical-Dental Assistants & Practical Nurses
is a legal entity registered under the law of State Nevada.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan M. Genish, Esq.
BLACKSTONE LAW
8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442
Phone: 855-786-6355
Fax: 855-786-6356
Email: jgenish@blackstonepc.com
SPECIALTY INDUSTRIAL: Vargas Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL FERNANDEZ VARGAS, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPECIALTY INDUSTRIAL, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00214-SDD-SDJ (M.D. La., March 13,
2025) is a class action against the Defendant seeking to recover
unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff brings this suit as a collective action individually
and on behalf of all current or former laborers employed by
Defendant during the last three years who were not paid overtime
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours a week as required by
the FLSA.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a laborer from
approximately December, 2023 to December, 2024.
Specialty Industrial, LLC provides services such as sandblasting,
specialty coating application, scaffolding, insulation,
fireproofing, acid proofing and lead abatement.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip Bohrer, Esq.
Scott E. Brady, Esq.
BOHRER BRADY, LLC
8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Telephone: (225) 925-5297
Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
scott@bohrerbrady.com
- and -
Pablo Isaza, Esq.
SARDI ISAZA LAW, LC
10627 Hillary Court
Baton Rouge, LA 70810
Telephone: (225) 223-6300
Facsimile: (225) 960-2645
E-mail: pablo@sardi-isaza.com
SPS TECHNOLOGIES: Cottrell Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Aracelis Cottrell, individually, on behalf of
her child Ariel Cottrell, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SPS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No. 03657 was removed from
the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
March 19, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01462.
The Plaintiff alleges injuries and damages as a result of a fire
which occurred on February 17, 2025 at a facility operated by SPS
located at 301 Jenkintown, Pennsylvania (the "SPS Facility"). The
Complaint asserts claims by Plaintiff Aracelis Cottrell,
individually and on behalf of her child Ariel Cottrell, who
allegedly reside 0.3 miles from the SPS Facility. The Plaintiff
also brings a class action with the members of the class defined as
"all individuals and businesses who were impacted, injured, or
damaged by Defendants' fire and explosion on November 17, 2025,
including those who lived or operated a business proximate to
Defendants' complex." The Plaintiffs allege four counts of common
law claims against Defendant seeking, inter alia, compensatory
damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
injunctive relief.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Shoshana (Suzanne Ilene) Schiller, Esq.
Kathleen B. Campbell, Esq.
Danielle N. Bagwell, Esq.
MANKO, GOLD, KATCHER & FOX, LLP
Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 700
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Phone: 484-430-2347
Fax: 484-430-5711
Email: sschiller@mankogold.com
kcampbell@mankogold.com
dbagwell@mankogold.com
SPS TECHNOLOGIES: Jones Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Marlo Jones, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SPS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No.
02834 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County, to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on March 19, 2025, and assigned Case No.
2:25-cv-01456.
The Plaintiff alleges injuries and damages as a result of a fire
which occurred on February 17, 2025 at a facility operated by SPS
located at 301 Jenkintown, Pennsylvania (the "SPS Facility"). The
Complaint asserts claims by Plaintiff Marlo Jones, a natural person
who resides approximately 1.6 miles from the SPS Facility.
Plaintiff also brings a class action, with the members of the class
defined as "[a]ll Pennsylvania citizens who were impacted, injured,
or damaged by Defendant's fire and explosion on February 17, 2025,
including those who lived or operated a business proximate to
Defendant's facility."[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Shoshana (Suzanne Ilene) Schiller, Esq.
Kathleen B. Campbell, Esq.
Danielle N. Bagwell, Esq.
MANKO, GOLD, KATCHER & FOX, LLP
Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 700
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Phone: 484-430-2347
Fax: 484-430-5711
Email: sschiller@mankogold.com
kcampbell@mankogold.com
dbagwell@mankogold.com
SPS TECHNOLOGIES: Lenihan Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Lian Lenihan, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SPS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No.
00482 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County, to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on March 19, 2025, and assigned Case No.
2:25-cv-01465.
The Plaintiff alleges injuries and damages as a result of a fire
which occurred on February 17, 2025 at a facility operated by SPS
located at 301 Highland Avenue, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania (the "SPS
Facility"). The Complaint asserts claims by Plaintiff Lian Lenihan
who resides in Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, alleging that she has
suffered injuries and damages as a result of the fire."[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Shoshana (Suzanne Ilene) Schiller, Esq.
Kathleen B. Campbell, Esq.
Danielle N. Bagwell, Esq.
MANKO, GOLD, KATCHER & FOX, LLP
Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 700
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Phone: 484-430-2347
Fax: 484-430-5711
Email: sschiller@mankogold.com
kcampbell@mankogold.com
dbagwell@mankogold.com
SPS TECHNOLOGIES: Mckelvey Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Colleen Mckelvey, Kimberly and Mark
Druckenmiller, h/w, Haley Doyle, and Summitt Group LLC d/b/a The
Lightbridge Academy Of Glenside, P.A., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. SPS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC d/b/a PCC
FASTENERS – SPS JENKINTOWN, and JOHN DOES 1-100, Case No. 03845
was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on March 19, 2025, and assigned Case No.
2:25-cv-01455.
The Plaintiffs allege injuries and damages as a result of a fire
which occurred on February 17, 2025 at a facility operated by SPS
located at 301 Jenkintown, Pennsylvania (the "SPS Facility"). The
Complaint asserts claims by five individual plaintiffs: Summitt
Group LLC d/b/a The Lightbridge Academy of Glenside, PA
("Summitt"), which is a business allegedly located directly across
the street from the SPS Facility, and Colleen McKelvey, Kimberly
Druckenmiller, Mark Druckenmiller, and Haley Doyle, who are natural
persons allegedly residing within a half mile of the SPS
Facility.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Shoshana (Suzanne Ilene) Schiller, Esq.
Kathleen B. Campbell, Esq.
Danielle N. Bagwell, Esq.
MANKO, GOLD, KATCHER & FOX, LLP
Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 700
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Phone: 484-430-2347
Fax: 484-430-5711
Email: sschiller@mankogold.com
kcampbell@mankogold.com
dbagwell@mankogold.com
STAPLES CONTRACT: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to June 2
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAVIER FELIX,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee pursuant to the
Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), v. STAPLES CONTRACT &
COMMERCIAL LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:24-cv-01968-KK-SP (C.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order continuing the
Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class certification by 45
days from the currently scheduled date of Apr. 16, 2025 to June 2,
2025.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 20, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Xm7snq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bevin Allen Pike, Esq.
Daniel S. Jonathan, Esq.
Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
Shealene P. Mancuso, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
E-mail: Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com
Daniel.Jonathan@capstonelawyers.com
Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com
Shealene.Mancuso@capstonelawyers.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Tritia M. Murata, Esq.
David P. Zins, Esq.
Maya Harel, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 24th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566
Telephone: (213) 633-6800
Facsimile: (213) 633-6899
E-mail: TritiaMurata@dwt.com
DavidZins@dwt.com
MayaHarel@dwt.com
SUNFLOWER MEDICAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Mindeman Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID MINDEMAN, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUNFLOWER MEDICAL GROUP, P.A., Defendant,
Case No. 4:25-cv-00185-BP (W.D. Mo., March 14, 2025) is a class
action arising out of Defendant Sunflower's failure to properly
secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy
Plaintiff and other patients' sensitive personal identifiable
information that it had acquired and stored for its business
purposes.
Due to Defendant's data security failures which resulted in a data
breach, cybercriminals were able to target Defendant's computer
systems and exfiltrate highly sensitive and personally identifiable
information and protected health information of Plaintiff and Class
members. As a result of this Data Breach, the Private Information
of Plaintiff and Class members remains in the hands of those
cybercriminals.
In addition, the Defendant failed to properly monitor the computer
network and systems that housed the Private Information. Had
Defendant properly monitored its computer network and systems, it
would have discovered the massive intrusion sooner rather than
allowing cybercriminals almost a month of unimpeded access to the
PII and PHI of Plaintiff and Class members, says the suit.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant
seeking redress for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for:
(i) negligence, (ii) negligence per se, (iii) breach of contract,
(iv) breach of implied contract, (v) breach of fiduciary duty; (vi)
unjust enrichment; (vii) invasion of privacy; and (viii)
declaratory and injunctive relief.
Sunflower Medical Group, P.A. is an organization that provides
medical treatment to individuals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John F. Garvey, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
701 Market Street, Suite 1510
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 390-6750
E-mai: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Liberato P. Verderame, Esq.
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street, Suite N300
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (215) 867-2399
E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com
lverderame@edelson-law.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
E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
TAKEDA PHARMA: Seeks to File Sur-reply in Opposition to Class Cert
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FWK Holdings LLC et al v.
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd. et al. (RE AMITIZA ANTITRUST
LITIGATION), Case No. 1:21-cv-11057-MJJ (D. Mass.), Takeda ask the
Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file a
sur-reply in support of its opposition to end-payor plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.
Takeda requests that the Court grant this motion for leave to file
a fifteen page sur-reply by, the later of, (1) fourteen days after
this Court's ruling on this motion, or (2) April 10, 2025.
Takeda is an R&D-driven global biopharmaceutical company.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 19, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oyiwu3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Fred A. Kelly, Jr., Esq.
Joshua S. Barlow, Esq.
Andre Geverola, Esq.
Laura Shores, Esq.
Wallace Wu, Esq.
Assad Rajani, Esq.
Katie J.L. Scott, Esq.
Ada Añon, Esq.
Michael Sapiro, Esq.
Matthew Wilk, Esq.
Sam Sullivan, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
200 Clarendon Street
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 351-8052
E-mail: fkelly@haugpartners.com
jbarlow@haugpartners.com
andre.geverola@arnoldporter.com
laura.shores@arnoldporter.com
wallace.wu@arnoldporter.com
assad.rajani@arnoldporter.com
katie.scott@arnoldporter.com
ada.anon@arnoldporter.com
michael.saipro@arnoldporter.com
matthew.wilk@arnoldporter.com
sam.sullivan@arnoldporter.com
- and -
Michael F. Brockmeyer, Esq.
Ralph E. Labaton, Esq.
David Shotlander, Esq.
Aakruti Vakharia, Esq.
HAUG PARTNERS LLP
1667 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 292-1530
Facsimile: (202) 292-1531
E-mail: mbrockmeyer@haugpartners.com
rlabaton@haugpartners.com
dshotlander@haugpartners.com
avakharia@haugpartners.com
TASTEBUD CONCEPTS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Espinal Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
FRANGIE ESPINAL, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TASTEBUD CONCEPTS INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-02116 (S.D.N.Y., March 13, 2025) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://modernbreadandbagel.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
March 5, 2025, in an attempt to purchase 1/2-Dozen Plain Bagels
from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the
Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied
Plaintiff 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. She 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.
Tastebud Concepts Inc. operates the Modern Bread and Bagel online
retail store, as well as the Modern Bread and Bagel interactive
Website and physical retail bakeries and advertises, markets, and
operates in the State of New York and throughout the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 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
TERRAZA COURT: Poswal Sues Over Failure to Pay Hours Worked
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ma. Angelyza Aquino Poswal, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TERRAZA COURT SENIOR LIVING LLC; and
DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 25STCV07812 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., March 18, 2025), is brought against the Defendants'
failure to provide compliant meal breaks, failure to provide
complaint rest breaks, failure to pay all hours worked, failure to
pay all overtime owed all in violation of the Wage Statement,
Unfair Competition and the Private Attorneys General Act.
The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with compliant meal
breaks because Plaintiff worked through meal breaks due to heavy
workload. Further, time record reflects having taken meal breaks
when none were actually taken. Despite not being provided with
compliant meal breaks, Defendant did not pay premium pay for these
missed breaks at Plaintiffs regular rate Of pay. Defendant failed
to provide Plaintiff with compliant rest breaks because rest breaks
were not provided.
Despite not being provided with compliant rest breaks, Defendant
did not pay premium pay for these missed breaks at Plaintiffs
regular rate of pay. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff for all
hours worked because recorded work time does not reflect actual
hours worked. Further, time record reflects having taken meal
breaks when none were actually taken.
The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff all overtime owed because
Plaintiffs usually worked 8 hours in a day and 40 hours in a week
and thus any unpaid time was necessarily overtime. The Defendants
failed to provide Plaintiff with accurate wage statements because
the wage statements issued to Plaintiff did not accurately list
total wages owed and hours worked, among other things, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants since August 4, 2024.
Terraza Court Senior Living LLC is a California Limited Liability
Company with its principal place of business located in Los Angeles
County, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Ginzburg, Esq.
FRONTIER LAW CENTER
23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 1084
Calabasas, CA 91302
Phone: (818) 914-3433
Facsimile: (818) 914-3433
Email: dan@frontierlawcenter.com
TMX FINANCE: Kolstedt Seeks Initial OK of Proposed Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAVANNAH KOLSTEDT, et.al.,
v. TMX FINANCE CORPORTE SERVICES, INC. Case No.
4:23-cv-00076-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
(a) preliminarily certifying the Settlement Class, appointing
Settlement Class Representatives for the Settlement Class,
and appointing Class Counsel as counsel for the Settlement
Class;
(b) preliminarily approving the proposed settlement as
appearing sufficiently fair, adequate, and reasonable to
warrant the issuance of the Class Notice;
(c) approving the proposed notice plan as meeting the
requirements of Rule 23 and due process; and
(d) granting any related relief.
The Defendants have reviewed this filing and do not oppose this
motion. All definitions herein are the same as in the Settlement
Agreement, Exhibit 1.
The Settlement Class is defined as follows:
"All residents of the United States whose Personal
Information was accessed, stolen, impacted, or compromised
as a result of the Data Breach as identified in the Class
List."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) TMX, any Entity
in which TMX has a controlling interest, and TMX's
officers, directors, legal representatives, successors,
subsidiaries, and assigns; (ii) any judge, justice, or
judicial officer presiding over the Action and the members
of their immediate families and judicial staff; and (iii)
any individual who timely and validly opts out of the
Settlement.
The Settlement Class includes approximately 4.8 million
individuals nationwide.
On Nov. 29, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Class
Action Complaint alleging that Defendants implemented inadequate
data security measures and controls, resulting in the Data Breach.
TMX is an American company that provides consumer loans and payday
loans through its subsidiaries.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 19, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RVoI0C at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rebecca Franklin Harris, Esq.
FRANKLIN LAW, LLC
2250 East Victory Drive, Suite 102
Savannah, GA 31404
Telephone: (912) 335-3305
E-mail: rebecca@franklinlawllc.com
- and -
MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
4279 Roswell Road, Suite 208-108
Atlanta, GA 30342
Telephone: (678) 642-2503
E-mail: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com
- and -
Kelly Iverson, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
E-mail: kelly@lcllp.com
- and -
Amy Keller, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: akeller@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Thomas A. Withers, Esq.
WITHERS LAW FIRM, P.C.
8 East Liberty Street
Savannah, GA 31401
Telephone: (912) 447-8400
E-mail: twithers@witherslawfirmpc.com
TRANSAK USA: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Pearson Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHANE PEARSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSAK USA LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-21146 (S.D. Fla., March 11, 2025) is a class action against
Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
Plaintiff's and at least 23,113 Class Members' personally
identifiable information including full names, driver's license,
and date of birth.
On or about September 23, 2024, hackers targeted and accessed
Defendant's network systems and stole Plaintiff's and Class
Members' sensitive, confidential private information stored
therein, causing widespread injuries to Plaintiff and Class
members.
The Defendant breached these duties owed to Plaintiff and Class
Members by failing to safeguard their private information it
collected and maintained, including by failing to implement
industry standards for data security to protect against, detect,
and stop cyberattacks, which failures allowed criminal hackers to
access and steal private information from Defendant's care.
To recover from Defendant for these harms, Plaintiff, on his own
behalf and on behalf of the Class, brings claims for
negligence/negligence per se, breach of third-party contract,
invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment, to address Defendant's
inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiff's and Class Members' private
information in its care.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former clients of
Defendant, who were and are required to entrust Defendant with
their sensitive, non-public private information.
Transak USA LLC is a financial technology company providing
fiat-to-crypto payment gateway solutions and facilitating
transactions between traditional currencies and
cryptocurrencies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A.
West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 332-4200
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
TRINITY PETROLEUM: Langdon Files Suit in D. Colorado
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trinity Petroleum
Management, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Riley Langdon,
Stephen Kyle Voss, Whitney Paige Putnam, individually and on behalf
of those similarly situated v. Trinity Petroleum Management, LLC,
Rimrock Resource Operating, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00966-CYC (D.
Colo., March 26, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Trinity Petroleum Management -- http://www.trinitymgt.com/--
provides tailored outsourcing services for the oil and gas
industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William B. Federman, Esq.
Kennedy M. Brian, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma, OK 73120
Phone: (405) 235-1560
Fax: (405) 239-2112
Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com
kpb@federmanlaw.com
TWITTER INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Carolina Due April 24
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROLINA BERNAL STRIFLING
and WILLOW WREN TURKAL, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. TWITTER, INC., and X CORP., Case No.
4:22-cv-07739-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order to extend schedule pertaining to class certification as
follows:
-- The Plaintiffs will submit their motion for class
certification and expert disclosures relating to class
certification on or before April 24, 2025;
-- The Defendants will submit their opposition to class
certification and class certification expert disclosures on or
before May 27, 2025;
-- The cut-off for class certification expert discovery will be
June 10, 2025;
-- The Plaintiffs will submit their reply in support of their
class certification motion on or before June 17, 2025
Twitter provides online social networking and microblogging
service.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 19, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=htAAwi at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Thomas Fowler, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
tfowler@llrlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Eric Meckley, Esq.
Brian D. Berry, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
00 South Grand Ave., 22nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
Telephone: (213) 612-2500
E-mail: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com
brian.berry@morganlewis.com
ULTRA CLEAN: Schweiger Sues Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------
OFIR SCHWEIGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ULTRA CLEAN HOLDINGS, INC., JAMES
SCHOLHAMER, and SHERI SAVAGE, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-02768
(N.D. Cal., March 24, 2025) is a federal securities class action on
behalf of the Plaintiff and all investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Ultra Clean securities between May 6, 2024 to
February 24, 2025, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws.
According to the complaint, the Defendants provided investors with
material information concerning the elevated demand from Chinese
original equipment manufacturers and in the general Chinese
domestic market for Ultra Clean's products throughout the fiscal
year 2024. The Defendants' statements included, among other things,
reports of increased demand for the Company's products and services
in the domestic Chinese market and reports of increased revenue,
including revenue doubling with no signs of slowing down, due to
the elevated demand in China for Ultra Clean's products and
services. The Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive
statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating
materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing
material adverse facts concerning the true state of the demand for
Ultra Clean's products and services in the domestic Chinese market,
says the suit.
On February 24, 2025, Ultra Clean published fourth quarter and full
year 2024 fiscal results and hosted an associated earnings call,
where the Company's executives revealed that Ultra Clean was facing
"demand softness" in China. In particular, Ultra Clean was facing
decreased demand in China due to extended qualification timelines
and inventory absorption.
Investors and analysts reacted immediately to these revelations.
The price of Ultra Clean's common stock declined dramatically. From
a closing market price of $36.06 per share on February 24, 2025,
Ultra Clean's stock price fell to $25.90 per share on February 25,
2025, a decline of over 28% in the span a single day, the suit
alleges.
Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc. is a developer and supplier of
subsystems, components, parts, and ultra high purity cleaning and
analytical services primarily for the semiconductor industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam M. Apton, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
1160 Battery Street East, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 373-1671
E-mail: aapton@zlk.com
UNITED PARCEL: Saechao Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as MANDY SAECHAO, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED
PARCEL SERVICE, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant,
Case No. 25CV018423, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Alameda to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on March 10,
2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-02431 to the
proceeding.
In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges seven purported causes of
action for: (1) failure to pay minimum wages, (ii) failure to pay
all overtime and double time wages under the California Labor Code;
(iii) meal period liability under the California Labor Code; (iv)
rest break liability under the California Labor Code; (v) failure
to furnish timely and accurate wage statements in violation of
California Labor Code; (vi) failure to pay all wages due at
separation in violation of California Labor Code; and (vii) unfair
competition under the California Business & Professions Code.
United Parcel Service, Inc. is an American multinational shipping &
receiving and supply chain management company.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Elizabeth A. Brown, Esq.
Jennifer Svanfeldt, Esq.
Ryan C. King, Esq.
GBG LLP
601 Montgomery Street, Suite 840
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 603-5000
Facsimile: (415) 840-7210
E-mail: lisabrown@gbgllp.com
jensvanfeldt@gbgllp.com
ryanking@gbgllp.com
UNITED STATES RAILROAD: Logan Sues Over Unauthorized Tax Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES LOGAN, SR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD,
Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00238-O (N.D. Tex., March 11, 2025) is
a class action against the Defendant for breach of fiduciary duty,
unlawful agency action, and permanent injunction under the Railroad
Retirement Act.
The Plaintiff and similarly situated railroad retirees seek
declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as restitution from the
Defendant after they have been subjected for years to an
unauthorized tax on the portion of their Tier II retirement
benefits representing their after-tax payroll contributions into
the Tier II system.
The Defendant did not effectively disclose to Plaintiff Logan the
tax consequences or relevant tax scheme applicable to his Tier II
benefits. Despite hiring a qualified and experienced tax
professional to prepare his taxes, Plaintiff Logan was nonetheless
unlawfully taxed on amounts representing his contributions into the
Tier II system due to the Defendant's unlawful action and breaches
of fiduciary duty, says the suit.
United States Railroad Retirement Board is an independent federal
agency in the Executive Branch charged with administering the
Railroad Retirement Act.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles S. Siegel, Esq.
Leslie C. MacLean, Esq.
Taryn E. Ourso, Esq.
WATERS KRAUS PAUL & SIEGEL
3141 Hood Street, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 357-6244
Facsimile: (214) 357-7252
E-mail: siegel@waterskraus.com
lmaclean@waterskraus.com
tourso@waterskraus.com
- and -
Brant C. Martin, Esq.
Colin P. Benton, Esq.
WICK PHILLIPS GOULD & MARTIN, LLP
100 Throckmorton Street, Suite 1500
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Telephone: (817) 332-7788
Facsimile: (817) 332-7789
E-mail: brant.martin@wickphillips.com
colin.benton@wickphillips.com
- and -
Jeffrey D. Lerner, Esq.
THE DOVE FIRM
524 E. Lamar Boulevard, Suite 230
Arlington, TX 76011
Telephone: (817) 462-0006
Facsimile: (817) 462-0027
E-mail: jeff.lerner@thedovefirm.com
- and -
John R. (Scotty) MacLean, III, Esq.
MACLEAN LAW FIRM
4916 Camp Bowie Boulevard, Suite 100
Fort Worth, TX 76107
Telephone: (817) 529-1000
Facsimile: (817) 698-9401
E-mail: smaclean@macleanfirm.com
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Odom Sports Hits Inadequate Data Security
-------------------------------------------------------------
Odom Sports Medicine P.A. d/b/a Odom Health & Wellness, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, UnitedHealthCare Services, Inc.,
Optum Insight, Change Healthcare Inc., Change Healthcare
Operations, LLC, Change Healthcare Solutions, LLC, Change
Healthcare Holdings, Inc., Change Healthcare Technologies, LLC, and
Change Healthcare Pharmacy Solutions, Inc., Optum, Inc., Optum
Financial, Inc., Optum Bank, and Optum Pay, Defendants, Case No.
0:25-cv-00949 (D. Minn., March 14, 2025) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence; negligence per se; breach of
contract; unjust enrichment; interference with prospective economic
advantage, business relationship, or expectancy; negligent
omission; negligent misrepresentation; public nuisance; violation
of the Minnesota Protection of Consumer Fraud Act; and declaratory
judgment.
The Change Health Defendants control the largest healthcare payment
platform in United States, referred here as the "Change Platform,"
providing, among other things, a claims processing service that is
used by healthcare providers and pharmacies to submit claims to
insurance companies and receive reimbursement for services
performed.
To operate the Change Platform, Change Health Defendants transact
in and store huge volumes of confidential information including
highly sensitive and confidential patient information including
full names, phone numbers, addresses, Social Security numbers,
emails, and payment information, referred to personally identifying
information.
In February 2024, as a direct result of Change Health Defendants'
failure to employ even rudimentary cybersecurity precautions to
authenticate the identities of people logging in to their networks,
Change Health Defendants' systems were compromised in the largest
health care ransomware attack in history. In the aftermath of the
ransomware attack, Change Health Defendants' systems were left in
gross disrepair. Change Health Defendants had no viable backup
plans or systems. And in a largely futile effort to prevent further
collapse of its systems, Change Health Defendants elected to take
the remaining systems -- including the Change Platform -- offline
completely, rendering it useless to Providers, says the suit.
As a result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff and other providers
have suffered and will continue to suffer substantial harm. The
event pushed many providers to the brink of closure (and forced
some providers to close altogether). To survive, providers
necessarily incurred extra costs to make up for unpaid claims and
in an attempt to submit claims without the Change Platform, the
suit asserts.
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated is an American multinational
for-profit company providing health insurance and health care
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
Amanda M. Williams, Esq.
David A. Goodwin, Esq.
Mary M. Nikolai, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
awilliams@gustafsongluek.com
dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
mnikolai@gustafsongluek.com
USA WASTE: Parties Must Confer and File Joint Status Report
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Arellano v. USA Waste of
California, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-02205 (E.D. Cal., Filed Dec. 12,
2022), the Hon. Judge Carolyn K. Delaney entered an order as
follows:
The deadline for Plaintiff to file a Motion for Class Certification
has expired without the filing of such a motion.
Within 30 days from the date of this order, the parties shall meet
and confer and file a further Joint Status Report addressing the
subjects listed in Local Rule 240(a) to assist the court in setting
a further scheduling order for the case, the Court says.
The nature of suit states Civil Rights – Employment.
The Defendant is a waste management company.[CC]
WALMART INC: Adams Files Mislabeling Suit Over Biotin Gummies
-------------------------------------------------------------
RAGENA ADAMS and BRADEN PRICE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WALMART, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 4:25-cv-02452 (N.D. Cal., March 11, 2025) is an action
brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all other similarly
situated consumers in the United States, alleging Defendant's
violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair
Competition Law, and False Advertising Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant deceptively labels its
Equate Hair, Skin & Nails 2,500 mcg Biotin Gummies by
misrepresenting the dosage amount of each gummy. Specifically, the
Product's front label prominently advertises a certain dosage
amount: "2,500 mcg biotin." The front label also advertises the
number of gummies in the Product as 90 gummies. Reasonable
consumers are therefore led to believe that each gummy contains the
advertised dosage amount: 2,500 mcg of biotin in each gummy.
The truth, however, is that each gummy does not contain the
advertised dosage amount. Instead, consumers must ingest two
gummies to achieve the advertised dosage. As a result, consumers
grossly overpay for the Product, receiving only half of the
advertised value while paying the full purchase price, alleges the
suit.
Walmart, Inc. operates discount stores, supercenters, and
neighborhood markets.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lilach H. Klein, Esq.
Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (866) 276-7637
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
E-mail: lilach@crosnerlegal.com
mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com
zach@crosnerlegal.com
WALMART INC: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Golikov Suit to 9th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
WALMART INC. is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit
entitled Edie Golikov, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Walmart Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-08211, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.
On Dec. 30, 2024, the Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended
Class Action Complaint against Walmart asserting claims for
violations of California's False Advertising Law and Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.
On Jan. 9, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class.
On Jan. 10, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
case.
On Feb. 27, 2025, Judge R. Gary Klausner entered an Order granting
the Plaintiff's motion to certify class. The Court certified a Rule
23(b)(2) injunction subclass and a Rule 23(b)(3) damages subclass
comprising "all persons who, while in the state of California and
within the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased [the
Product]." On the same day, the Court granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss in part. The Court dismissed the Plaintiff's
request for punitive damages.
The appellate case is captioned Golikov v. Walmart Inc., Case No.
25-1685, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, filed on March 14, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent EDIE GOLIKOV, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Richard Elgar Lyon, III, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Defendant-Petitioner WALMART INC. is represented by:
James Sigel, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP
50 California Street, 23rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
- and –
Jacob Harper, Esq.
Daniel Leigh, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP
350 S. Grand Avenue, 27th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
- and –
Joseph Elie-Meyers, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP
865 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90017
WATERMARK RETIREMENT: Class Settlement in DeCarlo Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Joseph DeCarlo; on his own
behalf, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. Watermark
Retirement Communities, LLC; and Does 1 - 100, Case No.
2:23-cv-01659-DSF-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale Fischer
entered an order granting motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement:
1. The Court preliminarily approves the parties' settlement as
set forth in the Settlement Stipulation, preliminarily
grants class certification for the Settlement Class as
defined above, and approves the Class Representative and
Class Counsel to act on behalf of the Settlement Class.
The Settlement Class consists of:
"all persons who resided at one of the Watermark California
Communities at any time during the Settlement Class Period
who contracted with and paid money to Watermark pursuant to
a Residency Agreement, and whose claims are not subject to
arbitration because: (1) neither the Resident nor
Resident’s
Responsible Party (as defined in the Residency Agreement)
agreed to or accepted an arbitration provision in writing;
or (2) if arbitration was initially accepted, the Resident
or Resident’s Responsible Party rescinded acceptance within
the 30-day period prescribed in the Residency Agreement.
Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) Watermark and any
Watermark officer, director, or employee; (ii) any
Settlement Class Member (or their legal successors) who
submits a valid and timely Request for Exclusion; and (iii)
the judge to whom this Action is assigned and any members of
such judge's immediate family.
2. The Court approves, as to form and content, the proposed
long form and summary form of Class Notice.
3. The Court approves the designation of CPT Group, Inc.,
(herein "Settlement Administrator") to serve as the
settlement administrator for the settlement. The Settlement
Administrator shall disseminate Class Notice, supervise and
carry out the notice procedure and other administrative
functions, shall respond to Settlement Class Member
inquiries, and perform such other duties as set forth in the
Settlement Stipulation and this Order under the direction
and supervision of the Court.
4. The Court will hold a final approval hearing on July 21,
2025, at 1:30 p.m.
Watermark Retirement is a senior living community operator.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Dq1FEb at no extra
charge.[CC]
WEBSTER FIVE CENTS: Vincent Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Webster Five Cents
Savings Bank. The case is styled as Brian Vincent, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Webster Five Cents
Savings Bank, Case No. 2585CV00387 (Mass. Super. Ct., Worcester
Cty., March 19, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Contract / Business Cases."
Webster Five -- https://www.web5.com/ -- is a FDIC-insured savings
bank that offers a range of products and services for personal and
business banking.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael S. Appel, Esq.
KETTERER BROWNE AND ASSOCIATES LLC
336 South Main St.
Bel Air, MD 21014
Phone: (855)522-5297
WELCH FOODS: Tate Files Mislabeling Suit Over Grape Juice Product
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LAKEMA TATE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WELCH FOODS INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-10596-WGY (D. Mass., March 12, 2025) aims to hold Welch
Foods Inc. responsible for misleadingly marketing its Welch's 100%
Grape Juice, White Grape without disclosing that they contain
artificial preservative Potassium Metabisulfite.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's products prominently
state: "100% Grape Juice" and "White Grape" on the front label,
surrounded by pictures of what appear to be fresh, natural white
grapes on the vine, and a statement "No Sugar Added," reinforcing
the message that the products are composed of only natural
ingredients one could anticipate in a "100% Juice" product.
However, the products contain an artificial preservative, making
the front labeling false and deceptive, and greatly devaluing the
price and willingness that consumers would be willing to pay for
the Products if they knew the truth. The products are also
misbranded and misleading under relevant state regulations for
juice products labeled as 100% juice, says the suit.
Plaintiff Tate is an individual residing in Los Angeles,
California. Several times within the past year (and in years
prior), the Plaintiff purchased Welch's 100% Grape Juice, White
Grape from multiple retail locations near her home in Los Angeles,
California.
Welch Foods Inc., commonly known as Welch's, is an American
company, headquartered in Concord, Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
SMITH KRIVOSHEY, P.C.
867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor #1520
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 377-7404
E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com
- and -
Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC
166 Geary Str STE 1500-1507
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 839-7077
Facsimile: (888) 410-0415
E-mail: yeremey@skclassactions.com
WELLS FARGO: Sealing Bids in Mortgage Case Provisionally OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Wells Fargo Mortgage Discrimination
Litigation, Case No. 3:22-cv-00990 (N.D. Cal., Filed Feb. 17,
2022), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order that the
pending sealing requests on the docket are provisionally granted,
subject to further consideration by the Court as circumstances
warrant.
-- The class certification motion and related motions are under
submission, and the Court will decide them taking into
consideration the experts' testimony at the concurrent expert
proceeding.
-- As the Court previously indicated, the Court intends to take up
the summary judgment and merits Rule 702 motions, after
resolving class certification. Motion hearings and remaining
pre-trial and trial dates will be set by the Court as
warranted.
The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Housing/Accommodations.
Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services company
with a significant global presence.[CC]
WEXFORD HEALTH: Wins Summary Judgment v. Bryant
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES BRYANT, ALFRED
JOHNSON, and BRIAN D. CURTIS, v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC., Case
No. 2:18-cv-02192-SLD-EIL (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Sara Darrow
entered an order as follows:
1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate all
remaining Plaintiffs and Defendants other than those listed
in the caption of this case based upon the Court's Sept. 30,
2022, Order denying class certification and deconsolidating
the various cases.
2. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted.
3. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter
judgment in Defendant's favor and against Plaintiffs. All
other pending motions are denied as moot, and this case is
terminated. All deadlines and settings on the Court's
calendar are vacated. This case is closed.
4. If they wish to appeal this judgment, the Plaintiffs must
file a notice of appeal with this Court within 30 days of
the entry of judgment.
5. If they wish to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, the
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis
must identify the issue(s) that they will present on appeal
in order to assist the Court in determining whether the
appeal is taken in good faith.
6. If they choose to appeal, the Plaintiffs will be liable for
the $605.00 appellate filing fee regardless of the outcome
of the appeal.
Wexford Health is an American healthcare services company.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZP65Lk at no extra
charge.[CC]
WICHITA, KS: Clingerman Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RENEE CLINGERMAN, by and
through THOMAS CLINGERMAN, Guardian and Next Friend; JOSHUA
WILLIAMS, by and through KRISTIN ROTH, Guardian and Next Friend;
MARTE A THOMAS, by and through TARA DAVIS, Guardian, Conservator,
and Next Friend; individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS, Case No.
2:23-cv-02435-JWB-TJJ (D. Kan.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order certifying class action and appointing class
counsel.
The class is defined as:
"All criminal defendants between the dates of January 2017
to August 2023 in Wichita Municipal Court for whom
prosecutors, defense counsel, and/or Municipal Court judges
raised a bona fide doubt about competency, who were then
denied a competency determination by the Court, and given
only the choice of trial or a change of plea.
a. In addition, a first sub-class of individuals ("Sub-Class
1") is defined as:
"Jailed Sub-Class": "All individuals in the above-named
Plaintiff class who were housed in a county jail
pretrial."
b. A second sub-class of individuals ("Sub-Class 2") is
defined as:
"Non Jailed Sub-Class": "All persons, who were not jailed
pretrial."
Excluded from this class is any defendant for whom counsel
independently obtained a competency assessment prior to the
defendant standing trial or entering a plea.
Guardians and Next Friend Thomas Clingerman, Kristin Roth, and Tara
Davis are appointed as class representatives; and
Mark T. Schoenhofer and Kurt P. Kerns are appointed as class
counsel.
The case challenges the City of Wichita's constitutional failure to
timely establish procedures for judges to evaluate whether an
accused in municipal court was competent to stand trial.
The Defendant City of Wichita wholly ignored its constitutional
obligation to protect its citizens' rights altogether, asserts the
Court
Wichita is a city in south-central Kansas.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 19, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K9aEsc at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark T. Schoenhofer, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MARK T. SCHOENHOFER, LLC
1631 E. 1st Street
Wichita, KS 67214
Telephone: (316) 262-5400
Facsimile: (316) 262-1787
E-mail: mydefensefirst@yahoo.com
- and -
Kurt P. Kerns, Esq.
KERNS LAW GROUP
328 Main Wichita, KS 67202
Telephone: (316) 265-5511
Facsimile: (316) 265-4433
E-mail: kurtkens@kernslawgroup.com
WICHITA, KS: Seeks to Exclude Expert O'Rourke's Testimony
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RENEE CLINGERMAN, by and
through THOMAS CLINGERMAN, Guardian and Next Friend, JOSHUA
WILLIAMS, by and through KRISTIN ROTH, Guardian and Next Friend;
MARTE A. THOMAS, by and through TARA DAVIS, Guardian, Conservator,
and Next Friend, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS, Case No.
2:23-cv-02435-JWB-TJJ (D. Kan.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order to exclude the Plaintiffs' class certification
expert Anthony O'Rourke pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), Fed.
R. Evid. 702 and related authorities.
O'Rourke is not qualified to opine on the issues for which the
Plaintiffs have offered him as an expert, his testimony and report
are irrelevant and unreliable and risk more harm than help to the
trier of fact and should be excluded, asserts the Defendant.
The Williams, Thomas, and Clingerman actions all assert the City,
by and through the City Manager, City Attorney, Municipal Court
administrators, and Municipal Court judges, violated the Due
Process Clause of the Constitution. These actions allege the
Municipal Court failed to provide competency hearings when there
were bona fide doubts about the competence of these plaintiffs.
Wichita is a city in south-central Kansas.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 20, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yA51lg at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Charles E. Branson, Esq.
David R. Cooper, Esq.
Timothy A. O'Keefe, Esq.
FISHER, PATTERSON, SAYLER & SMITH, LLP
3550 S.W. 5th Street
Topeka, KS 66606
Telephone: (785) 232-7761
Facsimile: (785) 232-6604
E-mail: dcooper@fpsslaw.com
cbranson@fpsslaw.com
tokeefe@fpsslaw.com
- and -
Jennifer L. Magaña, Esq.
Sharon L. Dickgrafe, Esq.
Wichita Gov
City Hall-13th Floor
455 North Main
Wichita, KS 67202
Telephone: (316) 268-4681
Facsimile: (316) 268-4335
E-mail: sdickgrafe@wichita.gov
YARDI SYSTEMS: LaFleur Appeals Suit Dismissal to 6th Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA LAFLEUR, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing the lawsuit entitled Patricia LaFleur, et al., on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Yardi Systems, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01262, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
seeks statutory damages, an injunction, and other relief from Yardi
for violations of the Ohio Right of Publicity Statute (ORPS) and
Ohio common law.
On Sept. 16, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, which Judge Pamela A. Barker granted on
Feb. 11, 2025. The Court held that the Plaintiffs failed to allege
a commercial value to their names and, instead, have alleged only
an incidental use of their names. Therefore, the Plaintiffs failed
to state a claim under the ORPS and Ohio common law upon which
relief can be granted, so the Court does not reach the Defendant's
First Amendment defenses. The Court dismissed the case with
prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned Patricia LaFleur, et al. v. Yardi
Systems, Inc., Case No. 25-3172, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on March 14, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants PATRICIA LAFLEUR, et al., on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Glenn Lorne Hara, Esq.
ANDERSON & WANCA
3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500760
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Telephone: (847) 368-1500
Defendant-Appellee YARDI SYSTEMS, INC. is represented by:
Ryan Watstein, Esq.
WATSTEIN TEREPKA
1055 Howell Mill Road, Eighth Floor
Atlanta, GA 30318
Telephone: (404) 782-0695
YAZAM INC: Pope Suit Seeks to Certify Consumer Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL POPE, et al. v.
YAZAM INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-03540-CJN (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to enter an order to:
(1) certify the proposed class under FED. R. CIV. P. 23
("Class") consisting of:
"all Empower passenger-consumers who through the Empower
app have booked and taken rides beginning or ending in the
District of Columbia during the time Empower has operated
here";
(2) require the Defendant Empower to produce a list of every
Class member, including the last known address, telephone
number, and email address for each individual Class member;
(3) approve the form and content of, and direct the
distribution of, the proposed Notice, attached hereto as
Exhibit 1; and
(4) appoint Regan Zambri Long PLLC and Klaproth Law PLLC to
serve as Class Counsel.
Accordingly, each of the named Plaintiffs requested, took, and paid
for rides through the Empower app that began and/or ended in the
District of Columbia. At the time of those rides, the Plaintiffs
believed Defendant Empower to be a legally operating rideshare
company, vetted and regulated by the District of Columbia. Had the
Plaintiffs known Empower was operating illegally, knowingly
flouting these requirements, they never would have booked rides
through the Empower app.
In February 2024, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
squarely and firmly rejected Empower's argument that it is not a
rideshare company.
In July 2024, the District of Columbia brought suit against Empower
in Superior Court for its continued failure to comply with OAH’s
cease-and-desist order.
Yazam provides investment banking services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 19, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LghHey at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Patrick M. Regan, Esq.
Christopher J. Regan, Esq.
Emily C. Lagan, Esq.
REGAN ZAMBRI LONG PLLC
1919 M Street, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 463-3030
Facsimile: (202) 463-0667
E-mail: pregan@reganfirm.com
cregan@reganfirm.com
elagan@reganfirm.com
- and -
Brendan J. Klaproth, Esq.
KLAPROTH LAW PLLC
2300 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 100A
Washington, DC 2007
Telephone: (202) 618-2344
Facsimile: (202) 618-4636
E-mail: bklaproth@klaprothlaw.com
YSDM INC: Trevino Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALONDRA ROJAS TREVINO, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. YSDM, INC., SRAH BAKERY, INC. AND TZVI
GOLDSTEIN, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01406 (E.D.N.Y., March 12,
2025) is an action brought by the Defendants pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law seeking to recover
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime and other monies.
The Plaintiff seeks money damages against Defendants' unlawful
actions, including payment of wages, payment of overtime, spread of
hours payments, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees
and costs as permitted in accordance with the FLSA and NYLL.
The Plaintiff, a resident of New York State, was employed by
Defendants from January 2024 through October 2, 2024. She was
employed in the bakery department making pastries, cakes, and other
desserts.
YSDM, Inc. is a New York corporation that owns and operates Srah
Bakery/Strauss Bakery.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey E. Goldman, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY E. GOLDMAN
260 Madison Ave., 15th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 983-8999
E-mail: Jeff@JGoldmanLaw.com
*********
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 ***