Asbestos Mesothelioma

Week Adjourned: 1.24.14 – Apple, Truck Stop Fees, $27.5M for Asbestos

The week’s top class action lawsuits including Apple, Comdata truck stop fees, and asbestos mesothelioma hits a young victim.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Bad Apple! Tech giant Apple Inc, got slapped with a class action lawsuit this week, you may have seen it, alleging the company illegally collected and sold its customers’ personal information. Filed in Boston by plaintiffs Adam Christensen, Jeffrey Scolnick, and William Farrell, the Apple lawsuit alleges “Apple compelled its customers to provide their zip codes when making credit card transactions at Apple stores.” Here’s hoping they don’t get hacked!

This type of data collection is prohibited by state law which makes it unnecessary for customers to submit any personal identification information (PIN) that’s not directly necessary to the transaction. Apple collected the zip codes of their customers in violation of this statute, the plaintiffs argue, then sold that data to third-party companies for marketing purposes.

According to the Apple lawsuit, plaintiffs Adam Christensen, Jeffrey Scolnick, and William Farrell shopped for and purchased items from Apple retail stores in Massachusetts between 2012 and 2013. “To consummate each purchase, plaintiffs elected to use their credit card as their chosen form of payment,” the lawsuit states. “As a condition of using their credit cards, plaintiffs were required by Apple to enter personal identification information associated with the credit card, including their full and complete zip codes. Apple would not allow plaintiff to complete their purchases without supplying such information.”

“Apple is not required by credit card issuers to require this information from consumers,” the lawsuit claims, which suggests that Apple is in violation of state law.

The lawsuit notes that Apple acknowledges openly on their website that they reserve the right to “make certain personal information available to strategic partners that work with Apple to provide products and services, or that help Apple market to customers.” “First, Plaintiffs and the Class have been injured because they have received unwanted marketing materials from Apple as a result of having provided their zip codes when using credit cards at Apple. Second, Plaintiffs and the Class have been injured by Apple’s sale of Plaintiffs’ and the Class’ PII to third-parties, which was collected by Apple in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws chapter. 93 § 105(c).And third, Plaintiffs and the Class have been injured because Apple misappropriated their economically valuable PII without consideration,” the lawsuit states.

If the court agrees, Apple would be deemed responsible for committing what the state of Massachusetts considers an “unfair and deceptive trade practice.” The plaintiffs are reportedly asking Apple to pay $75 per violation, as well as interest on those damages, litigation expenses, attorneys’ fees, and “such other and further relief as may be just and proper.” Apple would also be required to stop collecting PINs across the state.

So—one to watch…

Top Settlements

Relief at the Truck Stop? A massive $130 million antitrust settlement made the books this week, potentially affecting some 4,000 independent truck stops and other retail fueling merchants. (That’s alota dosh!) The antitrust lawsuit is against Comdata Inc., the leading trucker fleet payment card issuer, and three national truck stop chains for a combined amount of $130 million plus valuable prospective relief in the form of enforceable changes to certain of Comdata’s allegedly anticompetitive business practices.

This lawsuit has been in the works since 2007!

The back story—Comdata operates a payment card network used by over-the-road truckers and fleets to purchase fuel and other items at truck stops and other retail fueling merchants. The lawsuit alleged that Comdata imposed anticompetitive provisions in its agreements with class members that artificially inflated the fees these truck stops and other retail fueling merchants paid when accepting the card for payment. The lawsuit also challenged allegedly anticompetitive arrangements among Comdata, its parent company Ceridian LLC, and three national truck stop chains: defendants TravelCenters of America LLC and its wholly owned subsidiaries, Pilot Travel Centers LLC and its predecessor Pilot Corporation, and Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc.

The Plaintiffs alleged that Comdata, with the assistance of its parent, Ceridian, engaged in anticompetitive behavior with the truck stop chains in which the chains agreed not to compete with Comdata in exchange for Comdata providing the chains with a transaction fee advantage versus their smaller, independent truck stop competitors. Plaintiffs alleged that this conduct insulated Comdata from competition, enhanced its market power, and led to independent truck stops’ paying artificially inflated transaction fees.

If its approved, these settlements would resolve all claims of the named Plaintiffs and the proposed class in exchange for aggregate payments from all defendants totaling $130 million plus a legally binding commitment from Comdata for prospective relief in the form of changes to certain allegedly anticompetitive contractual provisions in its merchant agreements. Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Class Counsel believe that this relief will promote competition among payment cards used by over-the-road fleets and truckers and lead to lower merchant fees for the independent truck stops.

FYI—the Comdata truck stop fee settlement approval process is expected to take several months. The named Plaintiffs and proposed Class representatives are Marchbanks Truck Service, Inc. d/b/a Bear Mountain Travel Stop, Gerald F. Krachey d/b/a Krachey’s BP South, and Walt Whitman Truck Stop, Inc.

Asbestos Settlement for Young Victim. This is sad, bittersweet Justice. Forty-year old John Panza, an English professor at Cuyahoga Community College and drummer with a popular Cleveland rock trio, Blaka Watra, has been awarded $27.5 million in settlement of his asbestos mesothelioma lawsuit. The settlement is reportedly the largest award of its kind ever in Ohio.

Panza was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2012, resulting from prolonged second-hand or take home exposure to clothing worn by his father, who picked up the asbestos dust at his job at the Eaton Airflex brake company. John Panza Sr., 52, died of lung cancer in 1994. He had worked at Airflex for 31 years, and previously served as president of the company’s union.

The asbestos brake pads were manufactured by the former National Friction Products Corp. John Jr. and his wife Jane, filed suit against Kelsey-Hayes Co., the Michigan-based successor to National Friction Products, and the lone remaining defendant at the time of the verdict, returned December 18, 2013.

The verdict breaks down the settlement as economic damages of $515,000 and $12 million in non-economic damages. The jury also awarded Jane Panza, who is just 37, $15 million for her loss of consortium claim, or the deprivation of the benefits of a family relationship due to her husband’s asbestos mesothelioma.

The eight-member jury attributed 60 percent of the liability to Kelsey-Hayes, finding that the company’s brake products were defective and primarily responsible for causing Panza’s cancer.

The Panza’s testimony was emotional, according to the judge. The couple went to high school and attended college together They have a 6-year-old daughter.

Prior to the trial, Panza underwent four separate surgeries and almost died, said John Mismas, one of Panza’s lawyers. Panza’s right lung was removed, and the invasive cancer is almost certain to eventually spread to his left lung, he said. “He’s going to die,” Mismas said.

Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. See you at the bar.

Week Adjourned: 8.23.13 – Diddy’s Bad Boy, Mission Tortilla Chips, Dow Asbestos

Diddy’s Bad Boy, Mission Tortilla Chips and Dow Asbestos top this week’s major headlines for class action lawsuit news. Read the latest Week Adjourned at LawyersandSettlements.com.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Rapper Sean (Diddy) Combs’ Record Co. Facing Bad Rap. This week a former intern filed a class action alleging Bad Boy Entertainment used her like a regular employee without proper compensation. Twenty-six year old Rashida Salaam filed her employment class action in Manhattan Federal Court, alleging Bad Boy and parent company Universal Music Group violated New York minimum-wage laws.

In her Bad Boy intern complaint, Salaam, a Brooklyn resident, alleges her bosses at Bad Boy had her answer phones, fetch coffee, book trips for Diddy and prepare expense reports. The lawsuit also claims Salaam’s fellow unpaid interns wrapped presents and decorated the office during holidays. The interns allegedly performed these and other tasks that would regularly be done by paid employees, having received no training.

Salaam alleges she interned at the Manhattan offices of Bad Boy Entertainment from January 2012 to May 2012, usually working three or four days a week, from 9 a.m. until 6 p.m. or later. According to the lawsuit, Salaam’s duties included “picking up lunch and coffee” and “running personal errands” for paid employees, which she claims was in line with a corporate policy to “minimize labor costs.”

Saleem is seeking back wages plus interest for the hours that she and her peers worked—an amount that will be determined at trial. The class action seeks to represent those similarly situated, which could be more than 500 people who interned at Bad Boy from August 2007.

Diddy is not implicated in the class action and did not manage Salaam personally. Salaam did receive a $40 a week travel stipend for her commute. Wow. Just think, assuming Salaam lives in NYC, that 40 bucks would get her 14.5 subway rides! Guess she was SOL if she had to cross the Hudson or East rivers…

Mission Tortilla Chips Non GMO Claim a Load of Corn? Maybe. A consumer fraud class action lawsuit was filed this week against Gruma Corp, the manufacturers of Mission Tortilla Chips, alleging the chips contain GMOs, contrary to the advertising claims that the product is all natural.

Nichole Griffith, who filed the tortilla chips lawsuit entitled, Mission Tortilla Chips Class Action Lawsuit is Griffith v. Gruma Corporation, Case No. 9:13-cv-80791, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleges that Gruma deliberately misleads customers by promising that its Mission tortilla chips are natural even though they are allegedly made with genetically modified corn.

Specifically, the lawsuit states “The product is simply not ‘All Natural,’ and it would be unreasonable for defendant to contend otherwise.” Additionally, “Genetically modified corn products contain genes and/or DNA that would not normally be in them, and that cannot be achieved through traditional crossbreeding, and are thus not natural, thereby causing the product to fail to be ‘all natural.’” Griffith alleges Gruma knew, or should have known, that its products contain genetically modified ingredients.

According to her lawsuit, Griffith claims that had she been aware that GMO corn was allegedly used in the production of Mission tortilla chips, she would not have purchased the products, and especially not at the premium price. Instead, the lawsuit contends that Griffiths relied on Gruma’s representations that the chips were “all natural” and she assumed that they did not contain GMO ingredients. Go get’em!

Top Settlements

Dow Chemical Liable in Asbestos Case. While this settlement is good news for the asbestos mesothelioma victim, such as it can be, the implications are shocking given what we know about the dangers of asbestos. The Dow Chemical Company was found liable on all counts in a civil asbestos lawsuit filed in Louisiana state court relating to its use of asbestos and allegedly causing cancer in its workers. The case was decided by a Plaquemine, Louisiana jury, which awarded $5.95 million in damages.

Dow Chemical’s Louisiana division is headquartered in Plaquemine, LA. The Dow Plaquemine Plant is the largest chemical plant in the petro-chemical industry rich state.

The lawsuit alleged that exposures to asbestos at Dow Chemical caused Sidney Mabile’s terminal asbestos cancer, mesothelioma. Mabile’s attorneys alleged in the suit that Dow has exposed thousands of workers to asbestos, and that Mabile is only one of hundreds of future asbestos cancer victims also exposed at Dow. Court documents revealed that Dow has continued to use tons of raw asbestos in its chemical manufacturing facilities throughout the world. Internal Dow documents showed that Dow lobbied to oppose the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed ban of asbestos. Court documents suggested that Dow performed a “cost per cancer” analysis and determined that it would cost Dow over $1.2 billion to switch all of its plants to non-asbestos processing methods.

Dow was successful in lobbying the Environmental Protection Agency to allow Dow to continue using raw asbestos in its United States chemical plants. Dow has continued to fight the ban of asbestos in other countries. The European Trade Union Confederation explains that an “[o]pposition to a blanket asbestos ban now seems to come only from Dow Chemicals.”

Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. Have a good one—see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 7.26.13 – Huggies Diapers, Mini Cooper, Major Asbestos Verdict

Top class action lawsuit wrap for the week ending July 26, 2013. Top lawsuits include Huggies Natural Diapers and Wipes, Mini Cooper defective auto claims, and the largest consolidated asbestos verdict in NY history.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Maybe Huggies Not So Tree-Hugging After All? ….Huggies maker, Kimberly-Clark Corp, is facing a consumer fraud class action over allegations the company promotes its disposable diapers and baby wipes as “natural” baby products, when they are not only environmentally unfriendly, but also contain dangerous toxins.

Filed by lead plaintiffs Dianna Jou and Jaynry Young, the Huggies diapers class action lawsuit, entitled Jou, et al. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., Case No. 13-cv-03075, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that Kimberly-Clark profits through misleading information about its Huggies baby wipes and diapers, by capitalizing on consumer demand for organic, environmentally friendly, natural products.

The lawsuit contends that Huggies diapers are made with potentially harmful ingredients and that Huggies Natural Wipes contain two chemicals that have been either banned or restricted in other countries because they are considered hazardous to human health.

Specifically, the class action lawsuit alleges Huggies Natural Wipes are made with methylisothiazolinone, a chemical, the plaintiffs maintain, is associated with skin toxicity, immune disruption and allergic reactions. The substance, which may also act as a neurotoxin, has been restricted for use in cosmetics in Japan and Canada, according to the complaint.

“That the products are not natural, yet marketed and distinguished primarily upon this characteristic, is sufficiently deceiving to the customer,” the Huggies lawsuit claims. “The fact that evidence tends to indicate that products’ contents, in current and past iterations, may be hazardous only highlights the defendant’s deception. “Further, the plaintiffs claim Huggies Natural Wipes also contain sodium methylparaben, a substance which allegedly acts as an endocrine disruptor, immune toxicant and allergen, and has been banned entirely in the European Union. According to the lawsuit, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration limits the use of parabens in food and drinks, and, in an Environmental Working Group report cited by the plaintiffs the substance can reportedly “strip skin of pigment.”

Additionally, the plaintiffs contend that Huggies Natural Diapers are not a great deal different from standard diaper products because while they contain organic cotton, it is used on the outside of the diapers, and therefore never actually comes into contact with the baby. Jou and Young also claim that the liners of the diapers also contain several of the same unnatural, potentially harmful ingredients used in the company’s standard diapers, including polypropylene and sodium polyacrylate, therefore, they are not environmentally friendly.

“Defendant’s prominent representations on the packaging for the products deceptively mislead consumers into believing that Kimberly-Clark offers two natural, environmentally sound, and relatively safer product alternatives to traditional offerings,” the plaintiffs said. “While superficial differences do exist, these immaterial changes do not come close to matching a consumer’s reasonable expectation resulting from the company’s advertised benefits.”

Jou and Young are suing on behalf of a class of consumers across the country who bought Huggies Natural Wipes or Natural Diapers since December 2006, asserting violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, the Environmental Marketing Claims Act, Unfair Competition Law and the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Top Settlements

Sadly, a Settlement for the Record Books. An asbestos verdict of $190 million has been awarded in a lawsuit brought by five men, three of whom are now deceased, who were exposed to asbestos-tainted products and equipment during their jobs as steamfitters, plumbers, and construction workers.

A panel of New York Supreme Court jurors found the two defendant companies had acted negligently and recklessly, then rendering a verdict worth a total of $190 million, the largest consolidated asbestos verdict in New York history. It is believed that the $60 million individual amounts two of the men received are the largest individual sums awarded in a New York asbestos case.

The jury found both defendants—boiler companies Cleaver Brooks and Burnham—negligent in having failed to warn about the dangers of the asbestos used in connection with their equipment. The verdict said both companies had acted with reckless disregard for human life.

All five of the plaintiffs were tradesmen from the New York tri-state area.

One man, from Toms River, NJ, worked in the 1950s and 1960s as a pipefitter in the Brooklyn Navy Yard. He was exposed to asbestos daily while fitting pipes into the salt-water distilling units aboard aircraft carriers like the USS Constellation and USS Independence.

Another, from Oyster Bay, NY, worked for nearly 30 years as a plumber, handling dozens of different types of products contaminated with asbestos.

A third, of Middle Village, NY, was also exposed to asbestos working as a plumber in Brooklyn, Queens, and Rockland County.

Another man, from Howard Beach, NY, was exposed to asbestos on the job as a painter and construction worker. He was involved with the removal and demolition of boilers containing asbestos-laden parts.

The final client, from Kent, CT, also worked with boilers and boiler parts in the course of his job as a steamfitter.

All five men developed asbestos mesothelioma as a result of asbestos exposure. Three have died of complications related to the disease.

The trial (Index Nos. 190008/12, 190026/12, 190200/12, 190183/12, 190184/12) was held in New York Supreme Court before Judge Joan Madden.

Mini Makes Good….A preliminary settlement of a defective automotive class action has been approved, potentially ending the lawsuit pending against BMW over allegations the German auto-maker concealed a defect in the transmission of its Mini Cooper cars. But there a couple of details that BMW needs to clear up before the settlement is granted final approval.

US District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, who is hearing the Mini Cooper complaint, (Aarons v. BMW of North America LLC, Case No. 11-cv-07667, in the US District Court for the Central District of California), has requested additional information about the class size and suggested some revisions to the existing preliminary settlement. However, if the Mini Cooper settlement is approved , thousands of Mini Cooper owners could be eligible to receive as much as $9,000 for vehicle repairs.

According to attorneys representing the plaintiffs, approximately 1,200 Mini Cooper owners had to have their transmissions replaced at BMW dealerships. However, many drivers took their Mini Coopers to a third-party facility for repair, and that number is not known.

The Mini Cooper lawsuit claims that the transmission defect, which can cause significant delays in acceleration, loss of forward propulsion and total transmission failure while driving, was concealed from Mini Cooper customers, by BMW. However, BMW, at the same time, allegedly issued bulletins to BMW dealerships acknowledging the defect. The transmission defects also included the failure of the transmission without warning. These failures and defects may have contributed to traffic accidents resulting in serious injury or death.

The plaintiffs further claim that in an effort to keep the prices of the Mini Coopers low, BMW sacrificed quality, thereby making cars of a substandard quality and putting consumers at risk.

Ok Folks, Have a safe and happy weekend—see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 4.5.13 – H&R Block, JP Morgan Chase, Asbestos

Just in time to send in those tax returns, H&R Block is hit with a class action lawsuit. That leads off our weekly top class action lawsuit and settlement news for the week ending April 5, 2013.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Just in Time for Taxes! Oops…talk about adding insult to injury…A consumer fraud class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of individuals who allege that their tax refunds were delayed due a tax return error by H&R Block.

“These individuals trusted and paid H&R Block to file their tax returns accurately so they could receive their refunds as soon as possible,” said Jordan L. Chaikin, a partner with Parker Waichman LLP, one of the law firms representing the plaintiffs. “However, H&R Block has made an error that has delayed thousands of people from receiving their tax refunds on time. Furthermore, consumers paid this company under the promise of a 100 percent guarantee for their services, yet they have not been justly compensated for this error.”

According to the H&R Block lawsuit filing, the Defendants erroneously and negligently prepared Form 8863 included with 600,000 tax returns. As a result, the suit alleges, tax refunds have been delayed up to six weeks past when they would have been paid. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that H&R Block has breached its contract. According to the allegations, H&R Block promised its customers a “100% Satisfaction Money Back Guarantee” which states that if the consumer is dissatisfied for any reason within 60 days, they are entitled to a refund for the full purchase price. Despite this promise, the lawsuit alleges, H&R Block has failed to offer compensation to the Plaintiffs or any putative class members for the error caused solely by the company and its subsidiaries.

The lawsuit points out that H&R Block has admitted to making an error on Form 8863 that has led to a delay in tax refunds. According to the Complaint, Form 8863 is used to claim tax credits for qualified expenses paid to post-secondary education institutions. According to the lawsuit’s allegations and a report in Kansas City Business Journal, H&R Block mistakenly left a mandatory field blank instead of answering “yes” or “no” for questions #22 through 26. The lawsuit alleges that the error had delayed tax returns of Plaintiffs and putative members beyond the 21 day turnaround represented by the Defendants.

The lawsuit was filed on March 29, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division (Case No.1:13-cv-00698-CAB). H&R Block, Inc, HRB Tax Group, Inc. and HRB Technology LLC have been named as Defendants.

Property Appraisers at JP Morgan Chase are Chasing their Unpaid Overtime. California Appraisers in the commercial lending division of JP Morgan Chase have filed an unpaid overtime class and collective action lawsuit, seeking to recover millions of dollars in unpaid wages based on the financial services giant’s practice of misclassifying these employees as “exempt” from overtime pay, among other violations of California and federal law.

Chase’s “Production Appraisers” complete form valuations of commercial and multi-unit residential properties based on well-defined criteria, allowing Chase to issue loans and refinancing secured by the properties. Chase’s “Review Appraisers” then proofread the appraisals based on Chase’s criteria.

The lawsuit, filed in the Los Angeles-based U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleges that Appraisers have unlawfully been deprived of overtime pay and meal and rest period premiums, itemized wage statements and certain reimbursements required under California law. The Appraisers allege that they are subject to detailed standards and internal guidelines for the production and review of each appraisal, placing the Appraisers squarely outside of the so-called “white collar” exemptions to the Fair Labor Standards Act and California wage and hour protections.

The California overtime lawsuit, filed by Long Beach residents Kenneth Lee and Mark Thompson, seeks to represent approximately 150 appraisers, who were or are classed as Administrators. Go get’em!

Top Settlements

Another large asbestos lawsuit settlement to report this week. A verdict was reached in March in the case of Michael Sutherland, a former drywaller diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer caused by asbestos. The Los Angeles Superior Court jury that heard the case returned its an asbestos verdict awarding $26.6 million to Michael and his wife Suszi.

Mike testified that he worked as a drywaller in northern San Diego County from 1967, while he was still attending Madison High School, through 1993—with frequent breaks for extended surfing trips to Hawaii and Mexico. He worked at countless residential and commercial jobsites during the construction “boom” that occurred in north county in the 1970s, the same time that cancer-causing asbestos was used in many construction products including joint compound, fire-rated drywall, caulk, stucco, roofing mastic and asbestos cement pipe.

“With all the trades working on top of each other trying to finish one job and move on to the next, it was always dusty,” Mike recalled, “It wasn’t until I became a lead maintenance mechanic at UC San Diego and attended a class on job safety in 2003 that I learned that so many of the materials used on the jobs back then contained asbestos.”

The Sutherlands’ case (LASC case # BC486980) was filed on June 20, 2012. Over 30 defendants were named in the case. Settlements were reached with a number of defendants prior to trial. Stucco manufacturer, Highland Stucco and Lime Products, Inc., the sole remaining defendant at trial, argued that other companies and even Mr. Sutherland himself were responsible for his exposure to asbestos. But the jury ultimately assessed blame on Highland for its role in subjecting Mr. Sutherland and other members of the public to its dangerous products.

“I was surprised to learn at trial just how much asbestos was in stucco,” Mike stated, “even though I rarely worked hands-on with the stuff, I was exposed to dust when the bags were dumped into large mixers and when we had to scrape off areas of over-spray that came into the homes through windows and doors.”

Mike is grateful for the jury’s award and for the hard work of his legal team, but would gladly trade it for the return of his health. Prior to his diagnosis in May 2012, Mike enjoyed his job at UCSD and had no plans of retiring. He also continued to indulge his life-long passion for surfing, hitting the waves on the iconic surf breaks of north county San Diego two or more times a week.

Ok—that’s a wrap. See you at that bar…

Week Adjourned: 3.15.13 – Timeshares, Asbestos, AT&T

The weekly wrap on top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending March 15, 2013. Top class action stories include timeshares, AT&T and another large asbestos settlement.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Owners call “Time Out” on Timeshare! Owners are calling out Celebration World Resort’s Timeshare deceptive practices. Yep—a deceptive practices class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of timeshare owners at Festiva’s Orlando Resort, formerly known as Celebration World Resort, alleging that the resort’s developers and managers have engaged in unfair and deceptive practices in the sale of timeshare upgrades and reservation point allocation.

The resort timeshare class action lawsuit, Reeves, et al. v. Zealandia Holding Company Inc., et al., cause no. 13-CA-866-MF, was filed March 1 in the 9th Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, in Osceola County.

Here’s the skinny: According to the class action lawsuit, beginning in 2004, approximately 900 parties purchased timeshare interests in Celebration World Resort Owners Association, located in Kissimmee, FL, from B.L. Vacation Ownership Inc. Between 2008 and 2011, representatives of B.L. Vacation Ownership sold upgrades to existing timeshare owners that would increase the number of points they had to apply to timeshare reservations.

After the homeowners purchased the upgrades, B.L. Vacations sold the resort to Festiva Hospitality Group, now known as Zealandia Holding Co., and the resort’s name was changed to Festiva’s Orlando Resort. After the sale, the lawsuit alleges, the reservation point system was changed and the upgrades that had been purchased by the timeshare owners were not honored. Nice.

The lawsuit names the Orlando Homeowners Association, B.L. Vacation Ownership Inc., Zealandia Holding Co. and its subsidiary and affiliate companies, and RCI LLC as defendants. The suit alleges that one or more of the defendants:

Violated the resort’s declaration of covenants by improperly reallocating reservation points

Violated the resort’s declaration of covenants for failing to give proper notice of the reallocation

Breached the fiduciary duty owed to the timeshare owners

Violated Section 721.18(5) of Florida’s timeshare law

So—be interesting to see how this is resolved…

Top Settlements

Another Big Asbestos Settlement this week. A construction worker who, is not named, and who developed a highly aggressive cancer after his exposure to asbestos, has resolved his lawsuit against the defendant companies for $7.5 million prior to trial. The plaintiff brought suit against several of the companies that manufactured the materials. The defendants severally denied liability.

Heads up all you construction workers out there: In the 1970s and 1980s, the plaintiff was a construction worker helping install underground water and sewer lines beneath the Sacramento Valley city of Chico. His job involved working with pipes made from a concrete-asbestos compound, which he would cut with a gasoline-powered saw. The cutting generated an enormous amount of cement-asbestos dust, which left the plaintiff covered head to toe by the end of the day. The plaintiff was later diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma, an aggressive form of cancer, also rare except where attributable to asbestos exposure.

The plaintiff filed suit in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, seeking damages on a defective product liability action. The plaintiff sought recovery of medical expenses, lost wages, and non-economic recovery. The defendants named were several companies who manufactured, sold or delivered the asbestos-containing pipes the plaintiff worked with, including Parex USA, Westburne Supply, John K. Bice Co., Los Angeles Rubber, Hajoca Corp., Hanson Permanente Cement, Keenan, Properties, J-M Manufacturing, Certainteed Corp., Ferguson Enterprises, Grinnell Corp., Amcord, Ameron International and Calportland.

One Ringy Dingy—for anyone out there who received pre-recorded messages from AT&T: There is a proposed Settlement in a class action pending in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington. The class action lawsuit concerns the alleged failure by AT&T Corp. to comply with the law in its delivery of a pre-recorded telephone message between July 30, 2008, and May 29, 2012.

If you received the pre-recorded message during that time you may be eligible to receive a payment from the AT&T class action Settlement.

This lawsuit alleges that AT&T Corp. did not comply with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) and the Washington Automatic Dialing and Announcing Devices Act (“WADAD”) in its program to deliver the following pre-recorded message (the “Calling Program”) between July 30, 2008, and May 29, 2012:

“Hi this is AT&T calling with an important message regarding your recent long distance calling. This call is to alert you that someone in your household recently made one or more international calls which will appear on your next AT&T bill at a non-discounted rate. Thank you for using AT&T. Our number is 800-235-9920.”

No judgment has been made, and AT&T Corp. has not agreed with the allegations or admitted any wrongdoing, but the parties have agreed to resolve the lawsuit with a Settlement that would provide payment to Class Members.

Class Members in the Settlement are:

All persons within the United States who between July 30, 2008, and May 29, 2012 received a telephone call pursuant to the Calling Program who had not selected AT&T Corp. as their presubscribed long distance carrier at the time of the call, plus all California residents who received a call under the Calling Program and were on AT&T’s internal do-not-call list at the time they received the call.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and received a pre-recorded message as identified above, you may be eligible to receive (a) a cash sum of $135 if you were NOT a resident of the State of Washington at the time you received the pre-recorded message, or (b) a cash sum of $270 if you were a resident of the State of Washington at the time you received the pre-recorded message.

The Court will determine whether to approve the Settlement at a Fairness Hearing scheduled to take place on March 8, 2013.

Ok—that’s a wrap. See you at the bar. Happy weekend everyone!

Week Adjourned: 3.8.13 – ADT, Hertz, Asbestos

ADT hit with early termination fee class action lawsuit to top our weekly wrap of class action lawsuits and settlements. Other big stories involve Hertz and alleged overcharging on sales tax and a major asbestos settlement.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

ADT Billing Practices Setting Off Alarms…Oh yes, my friends. This week an unfair business practices class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against ADT, LLC d/b/a ADT Security Services (“ADT”) on behalf of all consumers who purchased ADT home monitoring services. That’s a lot of folks, I’m betting.

The proposed class consists of two groups of consumers: (1) all current or former consumer subscribers of ADT who have been charged an early termination fee or are subject to being charged an early termination fee (also called an Early Termination Fee or Early Cancellation Fee, collectively “ETF”, and comprising the “ETF class”); and (2) all current or former consumer subscribers of ADT whose rates were increased or are subject to increase by ADT without prior notice while in the initial contract period or during subsequent contractual extensions.

This ADT class action is intended to redress ADT’s wrongful practice of imposing early termination fees, the lynchpin of ADT’s “never let them go” strategy. Early termination fees are unlawful penalties used simply as an anti-competitive device and do not compensate ADT for any true costs of breach. These penalties, which are unilaterally imposed by ADT “even when ADT fails to perform the services promised” also violate the consumer protection statutes of California and Illinois and similar laws nationwide.

The early termination penalty is extracted under circumstances which cannot be justified, when ADT has failed to perform the very services that form the basis of ADT’s obligation. The penalty is also extracted from customers who contracted with ADT to simply monitor a system that was previously installed, requiring no equipment to be installed and resulting in a windfall to ADT upon termination. By charging the early termination fee ADT gets paid for years of monitoring without doing any monitoring to earn those fees.

In addition, Plaintiffs seek redress for ADT’s pattern of unilaterally increasing alarm monitoring fees while consumers are under contract for lesser fees. These increases are implemented without adequate prior notice and without providing the appropriate and required disclosures necessary to ensure that customers consent to these increases in advance. ADT relies on small boilerplate text neither signed nor highlighted for customers to claim its “right” to unilaterally increase fees.

In addition, California residents who received restitution as a result of a settlement of similar charges against ADT made by the Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office, may still be entitled to recovery under this lawsuit.

Taxing Situation at the Car Rental…And while we’re on the subject—which happens to be the most popular category on LawyersandSettlements.com—consumer fraud—a class action lawsuit was filed against Hertz Rent-A-Car this week by customers who allege the car rental company overcharges on sales tax. Really?

Specifically, the Hertz class action lawsuit, entitled Frederick Cohen et al v. The Hertz Corporation, et al., Case No. 13-cv-01205, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, claims Hertz is in violation of New York state law, as well as other states, by charging sales tax on a pre-discount rental cost, that is charging tax before customer coupons and discounts are applied. Filed by Senior Partner Alan S. Ripka, of the national law firm of Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, the lawsuit contends that, if true, this allegedly unlawful practice may have cost Hertz’s customers millions of dollars.

“New York and other states have passed legislation and regulations disallowing this predatory behavior and to protect the public from this unscrupulous business practice that attempts to overcharge customers under the veil of the tax code,” the plaintiff’s lawyers said in a statement about the proposed class action lawsuit. The consumer fraud class action lawsuit names The Hertz Corporation, Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. and Hertz Investors Inc, as defendants.

The lawsuit seeks Hertz’s compliance with these laws and regulations and the return of all improperly charged costs and fees to Class Members.

Top Class Action Settlements

$35 Million Asbestos Verdict. On March 1st, a $35 million verdict was returned in an asbestos personal injury lawsuit brought by Ivo John Peraica, an asbestos removal worker who died in December from cancer caused by asbestos. The New York Supreme Court jury that heard Peraica’s case returned its verdict Friday, awarding the multi-million dollar settlement to the Croatian-born worker.

Peraica, of Queens, worked for eight years for New York-area contractors removing asbestos insulation from boilers, pumps, and other equipment. He died from complications related to mesothelioma, a cancer whose only known cause is exposure to toxic asbestos fibers.

The asbestos lawsuit claimed that Peraica’s disease was caused by years of inhaling the asbestos dust stirred up each time he stripped asbestos insulation from the equipment at his jobsites—equipment which, according to testimony, was devoid of any warnings about the dangers of asbestos.

The sole defendant at the time of the verdict—industrial products manufacturer Crane Co.—argued that other companies and even Peraica himself were responsible for his exposure to asbestos, but the jury ultimately heaped blame on the Stamford, CT-based company, saying it had acted with reckless disregard for consumers’ safety.

Peraica, a Local 12 Heat and Frost Insulators union member, worked removing asbestos for almost a decade: from the week he moved his family to New York from Croatia in 1978 until he stopped doing asbestos removal work in 1986. Peraica’s widow, Milica, survives him, as do three daughters, one of whom testified at trial to her father’s pain and suffering.

Peraica was unable to testify in person, but before he died on December 28, provided four days’ worth of deposition testimony that was read into evidence.

Ok—that’s a wrap. See you at the bar.

Week Adjourned: 12.14.12 – NHL & MBL, Norcold, Asbestos

The weekly wrap of class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending December 14, 2012. Top stories include NHL, MBL, Norcold and asbestos litigation.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

It’s face-off time! …for the NHL, MBL and broadcasters Comcast and DirecTV. This week, an antitrust class action lawsuit against the National Hockey League and company, got the green light to move forward.

What’s the beef? Well, the plaintiffs allege the defendants have created a monopoly over sports broadcasts that forces consumers to pay high prices to watch games. Brought on behalf of telecast subscribers, the NHL & MBL lawsuit claims the defendants used anti-competitive practices in order to control the broadcasting market, enabling them to charge inflated prices for sports telecasts. Doesn’t sound improbable.

Specifically, the lawsuit, entitled, Laumann et al. v. National Hockey League et al., Case No. 12-cv-01817 states “The defendants have accomplished this elimination of competition by agreeing to divide the live-game video presentation market into exclusive territories, which are protected by anti-competitive blackouts [that don’t allow certain games in certain markets to air].” Be interesting to see who scores in this one!

Own a Norcold refrigerator for your boat or RV? You might be interested to know that some very frustrated brethren in California and Florida have filed a defective products class action lawsuit against the company. The Norcold lawsuit alleges the manufacturers of Norcold brand gas absorption refrigerators, used in RVs and boats, knowingly sold defective refrigerators that posed a serious fire risk but hid that information from the public and federal regulators.

Eligibility? The class action lawsuit seeks relief on behalf of all persons who purchased or owned RVs or boats in California and Florida equipped with three models of Norcold-brand gas absorption refrigerators. The complaint names Norcold, Inc., Thetford Corporation and Dyson-Kissner-Moran Corporation (DKM) as defendants.

The lawsuit alleges that since 1999, Norcold’s refrigerators have caused at least 2,000 fires (2000!) resulting in millions of dollars in property damage, personal injury and death. The refrigerators contain flammable gases under high pressure, including hydrogen. The gases are heated by electricity or propane to circulate and provide the refrigeration effect. Fires are caused when defects in the refrigerator design release the flammable gases, which can then explosively ignite and spread quickly through the refrigerator compartment and into the passenger area of the RV.

The Norcold lawsuit alleges that the companies knew of the potential fire hazard associated with its refrigerators, but rather than eliminate the design and manufacturing defects or provide an adequate warning of the potential safety risks to users of the product they tried to conceal and minimize these dangers through a series of limited manufacturer-initiated product safety recalls through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), beginning in 2000.

In each product safety recall, Norcold represented that there was a single failure modality in a limited portion of their product population. They provided a retrofit that would fix that defect, rendering the refrigerators safe to use. But in truth, the lawsuit alleges, the refrigerators had a number of different failures that were common to all of the product lines, information that was never adequately disclosed to NHTSA or users of the product, nor remedied by the retrofit campaigns. Further it’s alleged that the devices provided by the companies to “fix” the defects were not only ineffective to remedy the propensity of the refrigerators to cause fires, but were designed, when triggered, to render the refrigerators inoperable and unrepairable, requiring users to purchase new refrigerators that contained the same design and manufacturing defects as the originals, and which had the same propensity to cause fires.

Top Settlements

Two asbestos settlements …to report this week. The first, involves a 68-year old man who worked as a painter and handyman from the early 1960s until his diagnosis of asbestos mesothelioma. He was been awarded $8,465,738 in settlement of his asbestos lawsuit.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged his exposure to asbestos resulted from working with asbestos-containing products manufactured and supplied by the defendants, Union Carbide and CalPortland. Specifically, the lawsuit claimed that the joint compound and the plastic cement the plaintiff worked with contained asbestos.

Recently diagnosed with pleural malignant asbestos mesothelioma, the plaintiff subsequently underwent an extrapleural pneumonectomy. He and his wife brought suit against the various defendants alleging that the defendants were negligent in failing to warn of the dangers of asbestos contained in their products or sold to others to place in their products.

At the conclusion of the 37-day trial the jury returned its verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. The jury determined that defendants CalPortland and Union Carbide were responsible.

The second asbestos lawsuit settlement involves the family of a former employee at the GM Powertrain facility in the town of Tonawanda. The husband and father died of asbestos disease, and his family, who brought the GM asbestos lawsuit, were awarded $3 million by the jury hearing the case.

Gerald Suttner, formerly of Tonawanda, worked at the GM facility repairing valves manufactured by Crane Co. The job involved removing asbestos gaskets, which created asbestos dust Suttner would have inhaled. He did this from 1964 to 1979, when he retired.

Diagnosed in October 2010, Mr. Suttner died just one year later, from pleural mesothelioma, a form of cancer that is caused by asbestos. He was 77.

During the trial, lawyers for the Suttner family called expert witnesses who testified that there is no such thing as safe asbestos exposure and assured the jury that Suttner’s exposure is what led to his diagnosis. The dangers of asbestos have been known since the early 1900s, and the lawyers made the case that Crane was aware of these dangers since the 1930s. “But the company continued to use asbestos well into the late 1980s without placing warnings on its products,” the law firm’s statement reads.

And on that note, I’ll see you at the bar.

Week Adjourned: 11.11.11

The weekly wrap up of Class Action Lawsuits and Settlements for the week ending November 11, 2011.

Top Class Actions

We’re Mad about Madoff! Still. Again. No kidding. Only this time someone’s naming a bank. Two former Bernard L. Madoff investors have filed a proposed consumer fraud class-action lawsuit against JP Morgan Chase & Co, claiming the banking giant was complicit in aiding Madoff in orchestrating the Ponzi scheme that robbed investors of more than $65 billion.

The lawsuit comes after a similar suit filed by the trustee appointed to represent Madoff’s victims was dismissed. The court ruled that the case filed by Irving Picard lacked standing, holding those claims belonged exclusively by the victims of Madoff’s fraud.

Among the allegations leveled in the lawsuit, investors charge that JP Morgan operated as Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC’s (BLMIS) primary banker for more than 20 years, and were faced with many indications that the fund was nothing more than a Ponzi scheme.

The lawsuit details that since 1986, all the money BLMIS collected from unwitting investors passed through JP Morgan in an account known as the 703 Account, where BLMIS co-mingled funds from investors.

The lawsuit contends that JP Morgan should have known that BLMIS’s activities were grossly inconsistent with those of an investment firm through a number of signs of impropriety.

JP Morgan, for example, was required to review a filing submitted by BLMIS to the SEC known as the Financial and Operational Combined Uniform Single Reports or FOCUS. That report, the lawsuit states, contained glaring irregularities that JP Morgan should have reported to the SEC, including factual omissions and errors, such as failing to report any commission revenue.

Beginning in 2006 JP Morgan sold structured investment products related to BLMIS feeder funds to its clients, profiting on those transactions as well. In the course of structuring those products, JP Morgan performed due-diligence on BLMIS and became suspicious that the BLMIS was a fraud but did not report its findings, the lawsuit alleges, but did redeem $145 million from BLMIS and $276 million from BLMIS feeder funds in 2008.

The lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Stephen and Leyla Hill, investors who incurred losses in BLMIS. It claims JP Morgan had knowing participation in a breach of trust, aided and abetted fraud, aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duty, aided and abetted conversion and received unjust enrichment. The suit seeks damages for the plaintiffs.

Top Settlements

Big Banks paying Big Bucks: But are the bucks big enough? A $410 million settlement was approved this week—you may have seen it splashed all over the news—by a federal judge in Miami, ending an overdraft fees class action lawsuit against Bank of America (BoFA) that claimed the bank charged excessive overdraft fees.

Only thing is there are reportedly more than 13 million current and former customers who will be affected by the decision, customers who used debit cards over the past 10 years. Some reports suggest that most of the plaintiffs will likely only receive a fraction of the overdraft fees they paid. Ummm.

The lawsuit alleged that BoFA processed its debit card and check payments in such a way as to incur more customer overdrafts and consequently more fees. BoFA insists that its system was proper, despite the settlement. The settlement includes an estimated $123 million in legal fees for plaintiff’s lawyers…

Another bittersweet asbestos settlement this week. The widow of a man who died from peritoneal mesothelioma cancer has been awarded a settlement—a “substantial” sum—amount not publicly disclosed as compensation for loss of her husband, to put it bluntly. The settlement, negotiated on behalf of Mrs. Veraldo, was obtained midway through trial.

Mrs. Veraldo sued as executrix of the estate of her late husband, Randy Veraldo. He was 52 when he died in 2009, seven months after being diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma cancer, court records show.

Mr. Veraldo was a parts handler at a Teterboro, N.J., warehouse from 1978-85. The job required him to unpack clutch plates delivered on a near-daily basis from various suppliers. The clutch plates were said to contain asbestos, a mineral once widely used in the U.S. as a cheap insulating material until it was found to cause mesothelioma cancer.

Ok—That’s enough for this week. See you at the bar. And on this Veterans Day, a toast to all veterans, living and gone, the world over.

Week Adjourned: 8.27.10

Top Class Actions

Care Doesn’t Discriminate? You would think that healthcare might be the one environment in which race would not be the priority. Not so, apparently. One of San Francisco’s biggest hospitals, Sutter Health’s California Pacific Medical Center (CPMC), which also operates St. Luke’s Hospital, is facing a class action over allegations that it is engaged in systematic discrimination against the hiring of Filipino registered nurses. The suit, brought by the California Nurses Association (CNA), alleges contract violations in a systematic policy of discrimination.

The CNA held a press conference over the matter during which former nursing supervisors and nurses of CPMC spoke out about the discrimination they themselves had faced. The CNA have also made public data from a review they conducted which show that in early 2008 there was a major demographic shift among the nurses being hired at St Luke’s. “Before February 2008, 65% of St Luke’s RNs were Filipino. After February 2008, only 10% of RNs hired were Filipino,” the press releases states.

“St. Luke’s and CPMC RNs, many of them Filipino, have been outspoken in defense of their patients, and in opposition to Sutter and CPMC’s plans to reduce services to the largely lower income, minority community depending on St. Luke’s from SOMA to the Excelsior,” said CNA Co-president Zenei Cortez, RN.

“Rather than respond to the concerns of the community, CPMC and Sutter have chosen instead to retaliate by carrying out a punitive, illegal, and immoral campaign of discrimination,” said Continue reading “Week Adjourned: 8.27.10”

Week Adjourned: 10.30.09

Bit of irony, no? The Age of the Overtime Class Action…

Top Class Actions

Wells, It’s Official… Wells Fargo is now facing a wages and overtime class action filed by technical support staff who allege that they were not paid for time worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The suit covers all network engineers, operating systems engineers, information security analysts, technical service specialists, systems support analysts, web engineers, web support engineers, web systems engineers, operating systems analysts (level 2), systems QA analysts (levels 2 or 3), computer operations analysts (levels 3 or 4), database administrators (levels 2 or 3), and applications systems engineers (level 3) who worked for Wells Fargo as exempt employees at any time during the past three years anywhere in the United States. It is estimated that about 3,000 employees are eligible to participate in the unpaid overtime class action.

Eligible employees have 75 days to join the lawsuit.

BOA Constricting Overtime Pay? And then there’s Bank of America: A lawsuit was filed this week on behalf of telephone-dedicated employees for unpaid wages and overtime worked at company call centers across the country. The lawsuit was filed as a collective action, which Continue reading “Week Adjourned: 10.30.09”