Wrongful Death Allegations Claim TikTok Directed Kids to Dangerous Content

Parents of a 10-year-old who died after attempting to participate in a "blackout challenge" seen on TikTok filed a wrongful death lawsuit citing TikTok should have known their platform was directing children to harmful content.

The Case: Anderson v. TikTok Inc

The Court: US District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia)

The Case No.: 22-cv-01849

The Plaintiff: Anderson v. TikTok Inc

In 2021, a ten-year-old was found hanging from a purse strap in a closet of her Pennsylvania home. Following her child's death, the mother filed a wrongful death lawsuit alleging that TikTok recommended the "blackout challenge" video to the child on her TikTok account's "For You Page."

The Defendant: Anderson v. TikTok Inc

Versions of the Blackout Challenge have been posted across various platforms encouraging viewers to record themselves choking to the point of passing out. The "challenge" has been blamed for the deaths of multiple children in recent years, with additional wrongful death lawsuits with similar allegations against TikTok pending in federal courts in Oakland and Los Angeles.

The Case: Anderson v. TikTok Inc

The judge ruled that TikTok was not liable for the child's death who watched a blackout challenge video. According to US District Judge Paul Diamond's ruling, even if TikTok recommended the video on the child's For You Page, federal law shielded TikTok from liability in Nylah Anderson's death. Judge Diamond said TikTok couldn't be sued for wrongful death due to sharing a blackout challenge video on their platform because promoting a video to a user is shielded from liability under Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act. Section 230 was added to the 1996 law to protect online content providers from being buried under massive litigation due to user-posted content shared on their online platforms. The plaintiffs disagreed with the judge's interpretation of Section 230, arguing that it was not intended to allow social platforms to send dangerous content to children. The Andersons intend to continue advocating for increased protection for children from the dangers presented by the social media industry.

If you have questions about filing a California wrongful death lawsuit, don't hesitate to contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Hayward, California Resident Alleged Uber Driver Caused Traumatic Brain Injury

Last month a California traumatic brain injury lawsuit filed in Alameda Superior Court was resolved when the two parties agreed to a settlement.

The Case: Sanchez v. Hamzat

The Court: Alameda Superior Court

The Case No.: 22CV007178

The Plaintiff: Sanchez v. Hamzat

The plaintiff in the case, Sanchez, and his 15-year-old brother were skating around the neighborhood on motorized longboards in Hayward, California on February 22, 2020, when an Uber driver hit them. According to the plaintiffs, the incident occurred at an intersection with a green light. One of the plaintiffs, Sanchez, sustained a traumatic brain injury and a fractured ankle. The injuries required multiple surgeries. Sanchez’s 15-year-old brother was traumatized by the incident, having seen his older brother be run over by the vehicle. The police found the two brothers at fault because they were not in the crosswalk. The plaintiff was scheduled to start a new job as a TSA agent at SFO only days after the incident occurred, but his injuries left him unable to work. The traumatic brain injury lawsuit was filed in Alameda Superior Court on February 17, 2022.

The Defendant: Sanchez v. Hamzat

The defendant in the case, Hamzat, was the Uber driver allegedly responsible for the incident. The defendant argues that the plaintiffs are at fault because they were in the intersection, the light was red, they were not wearing bike helmets (as required by California Vehicle Code Section 21292), and they did not use a lamp (as required by California Vehicle Code Section 21293).

The Case: Sanchez v. Hamzat

Despite a police report that indicated the plaintiffs were at fault, their legal counsel argued that they were in the vehicle lane in compliance with California Vehicle Code Section 21294. The law states electric motorized longboards can use the vehicle lane when the posted speed limit is 30mph or less. During the case, evidence indicated that the plaintiffs entered the intersection during a green light, and it turned red before they could exit the intersection. The plaintiffs also argued that the defendant was in a hurry, which caused him to violate the law by failing to yield to the plaintiffs who were already in the intersection (California Vehicle Code Section 21800(a)). On February 17, 2023, the two parties resolved the case when they agreed to a settlement.

If you have questions about how to file a California traumatic brain injury lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Former Dollar General Store Employee Claims Age & Disability Discrimination

The case Galarsa v. Dolgen California LLC involved a dispute between a former employee, Galarsa, and her former employer, Dolgen California LLC, a retail company that operates Dollar General stores in California.

The Case: Galarsa v. Dolgen Cal., LLC

The Court: California Court of Appeals, Fifth District

The Case No.: F082404 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2021)

The Plaintiff: Galarsa v. Dolgen Cal., LLC

Galarsa, the plaintiff in the case, claimed she was wrongfully terminated from her job and discriminated against based on her age and disability. Dolgen California LLC hired Galarsa in 2008 as a store manager and later promoted her to district manager. In 2014, she was diagnosed with a medical condition that required her to take medical leave for several months. Upon her return to work, she got a demotion from district manager to store manager, resulting in reduced pay and benefits. Galarsa alleged that her demotion was a form of discrimination based on her age and disability and that her subsequent termination was in retaliation for her complaints about the demotion.

The Defendant: Galarsa v. Dolgen Cal., LLC

Dolgen California LLC argued that Galarsa was terminated for failing to meet the company's performance expectations and that her demotion resulted from her inability to perform her job duties.

The Case: Galarsa v. Dolgen Cal., LLC

The case went to trial, and the jury found in favor of Galarsa, awarding her over $1.7 million in damages for lost wages, emotional distress, and punitive damages. Dolgen California LLC appealed the decision, arguing that the evidence did not support the jury's verdict and that the damages awarded were excessive. However, the appellate court upheld the jury's verdict, stating that there was sufficient evidence to support Galarsa's claims of discrimination and retaliation and that the damages awarded were reasonable, given the circumstances seen in the case documents. Galarsa v. Dolgen California LLC serves as a reminder to employers of the importance of avoiding discrimination based on age and disability and the potential consequences of retaliating against employees who raise concerns about discriminatory practices.

If you have questions about how to file a California age discrimination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Traumatic Brain Injury Lawsuit Claims Stanford Failed to Provide Proper Medical Care

One of the athletes in Stanford’s NCAA volleyball program claims she was not provided proper medical care in a traumatic brain injury lawsuit.

The Case: Hayley Hodson v. Stanford University, NCAA, etc.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 22STCV36533

The Plaintiff: Hayley Hodson v. Stanford University, NCAA, etc.

The plaintiff in the case, Hayley Hodson, was the star player for Stanford’s women’s volleyball team in 2015. Hodson claims that as a result of Stanford’s actions and lack of action, she sustained brain injuries that affected her game on the volleyball court and her day-to-day life off the court.

The Defendant: Hayley Hodson v. Stanford University, NCAA, etc.

The defendants in the case are mainly Stanford University and NCAA. Stanford University ran an NCAA volleyball program in which the plaintiff was a star player in 2015. The NCAA, or National Collegiate Athletic Association, is an unincorporated association of private and public colleges and universities designed to govern collegiate athletics.

The Case: Hayley Hodson v. Stanford University

In 2015, Hodson allegedly showed signs of a brain injury following a forceful hit to the head during a Stanford women’s volleyball team practice. Hodson described her symptoms as migraines, changes in vision, exhaustion, mood swings, and fatigue, all brain injury symptoms. Stanford coaches and trainers were present at the time of the injury. They allegedly failed to provide necessary treatment, leaving Hodson to cope with untreated brain injuries for a significant amount of time. Instead, Hodson was instructed to continue performing in multiple drills and to play in a tournament (just two days after the initial injury). Coaching staff insisted she continues training and even took a flight to attend a game (exposing her untreated brain injury to a pressurized cabin in-flight). Hodson sustained a second injury during a game within two weeks of the initial injury. She wasn’t even pulled from the game to be checked by the team trainers. She barely remembers the rest of the match and states that it was the last time she played well. Following that season’s final loss, Hodson’s health spiraled; her ability to perform athletically failed, she couldn’t sleep, she lost her appetite, she couldn’t study or seem to learn anything new, and she had anxiety about being alone. After years of suffering and struggling, physicians diagnosed Hodson with post-concussion syndrome. In addition to damages for pain, suffering, and lost volleyball income, Hodson’s lawsuit seeks to require the NCAA to include brain injury warning labels on volleyballs; train college coaches and trainers to identify and provide appropriate treatment for brain injuries; and monitor and discipline any coaches or athletic trainers who fail to do so.

If you have questions about how to file a California traumatic brain injury lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced traumatic brain injury attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

California Class Action Lawsuit Alleges TriCom Networks, Inc. Failed to Provide Required Meal and Rest Breaks

In a recently filed California class action lawsuit, California employees allege TriCom Networks, Inc., their employer, violated the labor code.

The Case: Coleman Bud Mathews IV v. TriCom Networks, Inc.

The Court: San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 37-2023-00001267-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Coleman Bud Mathews IV v. TriCom Networks, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Coleman Bud Mathews IV, started working for TriCom Networks, Inc. in December 2021. He was employed there as an hourly, non-exempt employee through May 2022. During his time with TriCom Networks, Inc., Mathews claims that the company’s policy and standard practices regarding the payment of minimum wage, the calculation and payment of overtime, and required meal breaks and rest periods violated employment law. Mathews filed a class action.

The Defendant: Coleman Bud Mathews IV v. TriCom Networks, Inc.

The defendant in the case, TriCom Networks, Inc., is a California that employed the plaintiff during the class period. According to the class action lawsuit, TriCom Networks allegedly violated various California Labor Codes.

The Allegations: Coleman Bud Mathews IV v. TriCom Networks, Inc.

The allegations included in the class action fall under California Labor Code Sections §§ s 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802. The California employer allegedly failed to:

1. pay minimum wages

2. pay overtime wages

3. provide employees with required rest periods and meal breaks

4. reimburse employees for required business expenses

5. provide accurate itemized wage statements*

*According to California Labor Code Section 226, employers must provide workers with an accurate itemized wage statement (in writing) that includes the employee’s gross wages earned, total hours worked, piece rate, and the number of piece-rate units earned (if applicable), any deductions taken, net wages, the dates specifying the pay period, the employee’s name, the last four digits of the employee’s social security number or employee id number, the employer’s name and address, hourly rates of pay (any that are in effect and applicable to the current pay period) and the numbers of hours paid at each hourly rate for the employee.

The Case: Coleman Bud Mathews IV v. TriCom Networks, Inc.

The plaintiff claims that during the time spent employed by TriCom Networks, Inc., meal break violations, rest period violations, unreimbursed business expenses, wage statement violations, off-the-clock work resulting in minimum wage and overtime pay violations, unlawful rounding practices, timekeeping manipulation, etc. resulted in losses for the plaintiff and others in similar situations with the company. The class action seeks compensation for these losses.

If you have questions about how to file a California overtime lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wage and hour attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Jeronimo Logistics LLC Faces a Wage and Hour Lawsuit

A recent California lawsuit alleges that Jeronimo Logistics LLC violated California Labor Code by failing to pay employees for all their hours worked.

The Case: John Bruns v. Jeronimo Logistics LLC

The Court: Orange County Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 30-2023-01300011-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiff: John Bruns v. Jeronimo Logistics LLC

The plaintiff in the case, John Bruns, was employed by Jeronimo Logistics LLC from August 2021 to December 2021. Bruns received his last paycheck in January 2022. During his time with the company, Bruns was classified as a non-exempt, hourly employee entitled to the legally required meal and rest periods, minimum, and overtime wages due for all hours worked.

The Defendant: John Bruns v. Jeronimo Logistics LLC

The defendant in the case, Jeronimo Logistics LLC, provides logistics and freight transportation for customers throughout California, including the County of Orange. They provide trucking, delivery services, messenger services, courier services, fulfillment services, and warehousing.

The Case: John Bruns v. Jeronimo Logistics LLC

The plaintiff, John Bruns, filed the California class action on behalf of himself and a California class to seek compensation for the losses they allegedly incurred during the specified class period due to Jeronimo Logistics LLC’s standard policy and business practices. The company reportedly implemented unlawful, unfair, and deceptive business practices by retaining employees’ wages due (in violation of both minimum wage requirements and overtime pay requirements), failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failing to provide required meal breaks and rest periods, and failing to reimburse employees for required work expenses.

If you have questions about how to file a California overtime lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wage and hour attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Burton Restaurants, LLC is Facing Allegations that They Failed to Provide Accurate Wage Statements

According to employment law, employers must provide employees with accurate, itemized wage statements. In a recently filed California employment law complaint, employees allege Burton Restaurants, LLC failed to comply with this requirement.

The Case: Whitfield & Valdez v. Burton Restaurants, LLC & High Performance Hospitality, LLC

The Court: San Diego County Superior Court

The Case No.: 37-2023-00001045-CU-OE-CTL

The Plaintiff: Whitfield & Valdez v. Burton Restaurants, LLC

The plaintiffs in the case, Whitfield and Valdez, filed a class action lawsuit against Burton Restaurants, LLC. In the class action, the plaintiffs allege that the company violated the California Labor Code.

The Defendant: Whitfield & Valdez v. Burton Restaurants, LLC

The defendants in the case, Burton Restaurants, LLC, and High Performance Hospitality, LLC, are identified as joint employers by the plaintiff for the purposes of this class action. According to the class action complaint, the defendants allegedly failed to pay minimum wages, failed to pay overtime wages, failed to provide meal and rest periods required by employment law, failed to provide employees with required accurate, itemized wage statements, failed to reimburse employees for required expenses, and failed to provide employees with wages when they were due. The allegations violated numerous California Labor Codes, including §§ 201-204, 226, 226.7, 233, 246, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s).

The Case: Whitfield & Valdez v. Burton Restaurants, LLC

The lawsuit against Burton Restaurants, LLC is pending in the San Diego County Superior Court.

If you have questions about how to file a California wage and hour lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced wage and hour attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.