Class Action - Part 24

Week Adjourned: 9.20.13 – LinkedIn, Dish Network, BJ’s Wholesale Clubs

The week’s top class action lawsuit and settlement new for the week ending September 20, 2013. Top class action lawsuits include LinkedIn, Dish Network and BJ’s Wholesale Club.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Heads up for everyone who’s on LinkedIn (who isn’t?), they got hit with an Internet privacy class action lawsuit alleging the company hacked into its subscribers’ email accounts without consent, and harvested the email addresses. Surprise, surprise.

Filed by four LinkedIn users in the in US District Court in San Jose, the LinkedIn lawsuit contends “The hacking of the users’ email accounts and downloading of all email addresses associated with that user’s account is done without clearly notifying the user or obtaining his or her consent.”

The four plaintiffs do acknowledge that LinkedIn asked permission, however they allege the networking site never disclosed it would inundate the plaintiffs’ friends with email invitations. “LinkedIn’s own website contains hundreds of complaints regarding this practice,” the complaint states.

The plaintiffs are asking that LinkedIn be barred from the practice and turn over any revenue that results from it. The lawsuit is seeking class action status and unspecified damages.

Employees Dish-ed a Dirty Deal? They think so, at least according to an employment class action lawsuit they filed against Dish Network, and a satellite installation company, Dish Country, Inc., over allegations the companies are in violation of State and Federal wage and hour laws.

Here’s the skinny—filed on September 13, 2013 in Federal District Court, the lawsuit alleges that Dish Country, Inc. and Dish Network engaged in the practice of employee misclassification, in which Dish Country, Inc. would repeatedly and routinely misclassify their employees as “independent contractors” to avoid having to follow State and Federal labor laws. How original.

The Dish class action also alleges that defendants routinely made arbitrary illegal deductions from the employees paychecks; deprived employees of a 30 minute uninterrupted lunch break; failed to compensate employees for all hours worked; failed to provide employees with mandatory disclosures concerning their rate of pay; failed to provide employees with mandatory disclosures related to wage deductions; deprived employees of overtime; and wrongfully denied the misclassified employees from several ERISA benefit plans.

The class action lawsuit is filed on behalf of all non-exempt employees that worked as a misclassified satellite installation technician for Dish Country, Inc. Go Get’em!

Top Settlements

BJ’s Busted? So, while we’re on the subject of employment, unpaid wages and overtime and employee misclassification, I am pleased to inform you that a $2.7 million settlement has been reached in the unpaid wages and overtime class action lawsuit pending against BJ’s Wholesale Club Inc. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, BJ’s, one of the largest food retailers in the US, will compensate its employees who allege they weren’t fully paid for overtime.

The lawsuit, entitled, Gene Cintron, et al. v. BJ’s Wholesale Club Inc., Case No. 1:12-cv-11064, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleges BJ’s purposefully misclassified key managers, including loss prevention managers, asset protection managers and personnel managers, in order to avoid paying them overtime. The unpaid wages and overtime lawsuit was filed against BJ’s in June 2012. Specifically, the plaintiffs claim they were “required” to work in excess of 40 hours a week without overtime compensation. The plaintiffs allege this is in direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as well as state laws. According to the lawsuit, there are only a few of the positions at BJs which are exempt from overtime. The employees in this class action were incorrectly put in those categories as a means of avoiding overtime payments.

Plaintiffs are asking the judge to certify a proposed class of all BJ’s managers who worked for the company from July 19, 2009, until the present. They are also seeking certification of a sub-class of employees who worked in 15 states, including Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Virginia. Let’s hope this is a happily ever after kind of scenario…

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

Week Adjourned: 8.30.13 – Estee Lauder, HP, NFL

Top class action lawsuits for the week; top stories include Estee Lauder false advertising, HP defective products, and the NFL concussion settlement.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Legal Wrinkle for Estee Lauder? Estee Lauder has come under fire this week, for claiming it’s Advanced Night Repair skin care products can make you look younger… Bottom line, Donna Tomasino of New York has filed a consumer fraud class action lawsuit against the cosmetics company, alleging Lauder practices misleading advertising regarding its Advanced Night Repair skin care products suggesting that the products promote DNA repair and other anti-aging effects.

The Estee Lauder class action, entitled Donna Tomasino v. The Estee Lauder Cos. Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-04692, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, claims that Tomasino purchased Estee Lauder’s Advanced Night Repair Synchronized Recovery Complex and Advanced Night Repair Eye Synchronized Complex because of claims made by the company’s advertisements. However, Tomasino claims, there is no product testing to back up the alleged anti-aging claims.

“The clinical studies and other data that Estee Lauder represents as supportive of the claimed efficacy results are nothing more than a continuation of defendants’ misleading practices—each of the studies is designed to be used in the marketing materials to support the claimed efficacy and defendants know that consumers will not see the results these studies purportedly represent,” the lawsuit states.

Tomasino also alleges Estee Lauder created the claims in its advertising campaign for the Advanced Night Repair products even though the company knows the advertising claims are false. And, because EL is allegedly motivated by profit, it deliberately misleads its customers into believing that the products have anti-aging effects so that they will spend a higher price for the Advanced Night Repair line of products.

“In sum, Estee Lauder dupes consumers with false and misleading promises of product results based on purported scientific discoveries that it knows it cannot deliver. Estee Lauder does so with one goal in mind, reaping enormous profits at the expense of consumers,” the Estee Lauder skin cream class action lawsuit states.

If your wrinkles haven’t disappeared with the use of these products, you may be interested in signing up.

HP Communication Breakdown? Also in consumer fraud spotlight this week—Hewlett Packard. Apparently their wireless printers are not good at communicating with computers. Filed in California federal court by plaintiff Vincent Ferranti, the HP defective products lawsuit, entitled Vincent Ferranti v. Hewlett Packard Co., Case No. 5:13-cv-03847, alleges that Ferranti purchased two HP wireless printers, both of which were found to contain faulty receivers, which negatively affected the printers in that they were unable to maintain consistent connections with the computers.

Ferranti further alleges users of HP wireless printers are forced to plug the printer into a computer in order to print something. “The HP printers’ wireless connectivity intermittently stops working for no reason,” the class action lawsuit states.

The HP printer lawsuit names HP’s Officejet Pro 8500 and 8600 Wireless All-in-One printers as defective, and states that HP either knew or should have been aware of the connectivity issue on or before April 2009. Ferranti further alleges HP “actively concealed” the defect from consumers and continues to sell these printers without warning consumers “that the printer’s wireless function was defective and would fail with normal use.”

The lawsuit seeks to represent a class of thousands of consumers who purchased or leased the HP Officejet Pro 8500 or 8600 Wireless All-in-One printers.

Top Settlements

Heads up NFL! (pardon the pun). A landmark settlement has been reached between 4,500 former football players, their families and the National Football League (NFL) this week, ending a deceptive business practices class action focusing on the impact of concussions on the brain.

“It’s been a struggle to get to this point, but today I will say I’m very proud that the NFL has decided to stand up for all the former players who are suffering from brain injuries,” Kevin Turner, a former NFL running back who has been diagnosed with ALS, said during a teleconference. “Today is so important for those who are…hurting. This will bring help for them today.”

The NFL concussion settlement, according to reports from CNN.com requires the NFL to pay $765 million to fund medical exams, concussion-related compensation, medical research for retired NFL players and their families, and litigation expenses.

The settlement, filed in US District Court in Philadelphia, is pending final court approval.

Former U.S. District Judge Layn Phillips, the mediator in the lawsuit, called the settlement “a historic agreement, one that will make sure that former NFL players who need and deserve compensation will receive it, and that will promote safety for players at all levels of football.”

“My hope is that any players or ex-players that are suffering, or begin to suffer, from symptoms of dementia, will be taken care of in a respectable manner through this settlement,” said Chris Dronett, one of the plaintiffs, whose husband Shane Dronett committed suicide in 2009 at age 38. Scientists found evidence of chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE, in Shane’s brain after his death, CNN.com reported.

The lawsuit alleged that the NFL led a deliberate misinformation campaign—primarily through its Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Committee—to deny scientific data being presented in the medical community about health risks associated with concussion. And, the lawsuit claimed, that misinformation, trickled down to players so that they were unaware of the real nature of the risks they were taking while playing football.

Included in the settlement is the establishment of a $675 million fund to compensate players who have suffered brain injury, or their families; a maximum of $75 million for retired players’ medical exams, which could be used to diagnose future neurodegenerative disease; and $10 million devoted to research and education. The funds will be dispersed over the next 20 years.

Well done, and not a moment too soon.

Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. Enjoy that 3-day weekend and we’ll 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: 8.16.13 – Campbell’s Soup, LA Fitness, Payday Loans

Top class actions for the week ending August 16, 2013. Top class action lawsuits and settlements include Campbell’s Soup, LA Fitness and payday loans.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Souped up Claims? Some unhealthy allegations were leveled at Campbell’s and The American Heart Association (AHA) this week. The two organizations are facing a consumer fraud class action lawsuit challenging the validity of the heart-healthy claims displayed on some Campbell’s soups.

The Campbell’s Soup lawsuit centers on the AHA’s “Heart-Check” certification and whether it rightfully conveys that certain types of Campbell’s soups have particular health benefits. The lawsuit alleges that the AHA allows Campbell’s and other companies, to use its “Heart-Check” label on products that run counter to its stated mission, to fight heart disease and stroke, in exchange for fees.

According to the AHA’s website, a product displaying the “Heart Check” certification must contain no more than 480 milligrams of sodium per serving. However, the website also states the definition of low sodium is 140 milligrams or less per serving.

According to the complaint, one can of Campbell’s “Healthy Request” condensed Chicken Noodle Soup, displaying the AHA’s “Heart Check” certification, is listed as having 410 milligrams of sodium per half-cup serving. However, there are two or more servings per can, meaning there would be at least 820 milligrams of sodium in a can, the plaintiffs allege.

“The AHA, for a fee, abandons its general, non-commercial dietary and nutritional guidelines,” the lawsuit states. The lawsuit states that the AHA’s “Heart Check’ mark is misleading in that people who see the mark think that the products displaying it, in this case Campbell’s soups, “possess some cardiovascular benefit not enjoyed by products that have not been certified by the AHA.” The only difference is that Campbell pays money for the certification, according to the suit.

It’s a salty tale indeed—and will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Been paying 1,000%-1,500% interest on Payday loans? Don’t know? Read on. A deceptive business practices class action lawsuit has been filed over FastLoan payday loans sold by the following banks: Bank of Albuquerque, Bank of Arizona, Bank of Arkansas, Bank of Kansas City, Bank of Oklahoma, Bank of Texas, and Colorado State Bank and Trust.

The payday loan lawsuit alleges that some customers of these banks who obtained “FastLoans” were charged annual percentage rates grossly in excess of the rates represented in the FastLoan agreements. FastLoans are similar to payday loans. The banks told consumers that the loans had an APR of 120% for a term of 30 days. Typically, however, the bank repays itself from the customer’s account in a much shorter time, resulting in APRs of well over 120%—and sometimes over 1,000% or 1,500%. The lawsuit alleges that the bank breached its FastLoan payday loan contract with its customers and that the FastLoans violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA), and state consumer protection laws. Money, money, money…how does that song go?

Top Settlements

A Settlement Fit for Approval? Very possibly. LA Fitness has reached a revised settlement in a consumer fraud class action lawsuit pending against it. The LA Fitness lawsuit claims the fitness company continued to charge New Jersey customers after they cancelled their gym memberships.

Sound familiar? This isn’t the only such lawsuit LA Fitness faced—we posted one filed in southern California, and another stating violations of Florida’s consumer protection laws.

If granted final court approval, the settlement will resolve the lawsuit entitled The Martina v. LA Fitness International LLC, Case No, 12-cv-02063. A final court hearing is scheduled for September 17, 2013.

Ok—back to this settlement: there are two proposed classes of plaintiffs affecting people who either cancelled their monthly dues membership with L.A. Fitness during the time period of February 28, 2006 through March 31 2012 OR who entered into a fitness service agreement with L.A. Fitness in the state of New Jersey during the period of February 28, 2006 through March 31 2012.

The Fitness Service Agreement Class is defined as “all Individuals: (a) who entered into a Fitness Service Agreement with L.A. Fitness in the State of New Jersey during the time period February 28, 2006 through March 31, 2012.”

Subject to final court approval, the parties have agreed to a settlement under which Class Members will receive either (a) ) two free individual personal training sessions of 25 minutes each with a certified personal trainer (not a master trainer) at any New Jersey L.A. Fitness facility, except a Signature Club location; or (b) a credit of One Hundred Dollars (the “$100 Credit”) to be applied toward the purchase of a new Monthly Dues Membership at any L.A. Fitness facility (and can be used to offset any initiation fee and/or initial dues as applicable).

The Membership Agreement Class is defined as “all Individuals: (a) who entered into Monthly Dues Membership Agreements with L.A. Fitness in the State of New Jersey, and (b) who paid for an additional month of dues after L.A. Fitness received and processed a Notice of Cancellation during the time period February 28, 2006 through March 31, 2012 (in addition to the application of pre-paid last month dues), and (c) the payment of the additional month of dues was not subsequently refunded.”

Subject to final court approval, the parties have agreed to a settlement under which Class Members will receive a 45 Day Access Pass to any L.A. Fitness facility in New Jersey, except Signature Club locations. Class Members may also receive a payment equal to one-third (1/3) of one month’s dues.

For complete details and to download claim forms, visit www.NJGymSettlement.com. The deadline to request these benefits and/or use them is September 17, 2014.

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

Week Adjourned: 8.9.13 – Walmart, Health Juice, Gentek Siding

The top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending August 9, 2013. Top stories include Walmart, Mona Vie and Gentek siding.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

What’s the Straight Talk, Walmart? Well, Walmart, it seems just cannot stay out of court. This time—a consumer fraud class action lawsuit alleging false and deceptive advertising has been filed against the world’s largest retailer and alleged co-conspirator StraightTalk.

The litany of alleged wrongs committed by the defendants include breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violations of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law and California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act. That’s all.

Among the goals of the class action is to get clarity on the limitations of the data service. Straight Talk representatives, it seems, have allegedly refused to explicitly define throttling points for data access, and many customers have complained about receiving inconsistent data service without using much data at all, while others are able to use gigabytes of data without much issue.

The plaintiffs are seeking certification of the proposed class, an order permanently enjoining defendants from their improper conduct, and a judgment awarding restitution, actual damages, exemplary damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs.

Mona Vie Super Juice a Super Scam? Yes—according to a consumer fraud class action lawsuit filed this week. The Mona Vie class action lawsuit claims that it’s no more than a multi-level marketing scheme to promote an expensive “super juice” (Mona Vie).

Filed in federal court by lead plaintiff Lisa Pontrelli, the lawsuit states “The Mona Vie juice scam is the newest creation of noted multi-level marketing scheme architect, and prior ‘super juice’ creator, Dallin Larsen, after his last venture was halted by the Food and Drug Administration because of false and misleading advertising.” Dallin Larsen is not a named defendant in the complaint but his companies are, namely Mona Vie Inc. and Mona Vie LLC, both of South Jordan, Utah.

“Mona Vie’s story is almost identical to that of Royal Tongan Limu—another ‘super juice’ product with too-good-to-be-true alleged health benefits,” the complaint reads.

Larsen created both products, which are based on an exotic ‘superfood’. Marketing for both products is based on claims that they provide outlandish health benefits when consumed, including curing cancer and diabetes. Both Royal Tongan Limu and Mona Vie were allegedly sold by untrained ‘distributors’ extolling the unproven health benefits to unwitting customers.

“The propaganda created through the Mona Vie scheme is false and misleading about the nature of and benefits attributable to consuming Mona Vie juice. The propaganda is an essential component of the scheme because the perpetuation of the belief that Mona Vie juice will cure or treat whatever health problems a consumer might have is the main reason defendants are able to charge the wrongfully inflated price of approximately $45 for a 25 ounce bottle,” according to the lawsuit.

Further, the Mona Vie lawsuit claims that the independent distributors, as an essential part of the scam.”Defendants and their ‘independent distributors’ sales force work together in a symbolic fashion to sell as much wrongfully overpriced Mona Vie juice as possible,” the lawsuit states.

“Defendants know that their co-conspirator ‘independent distributors’ generate false and misleading advertising about the health benefits of Mona Vie juice, but do not stop them because such advertisements generate sales of Mona Vie juice. The most insidious form of this false and misleading advertising are the testimonials where individuals attribute miraculous medical breakthroughs to their individual chronic health condition to drinking Mona Vie juice. Defendants, of course, taught their ‘independent distributors’ how to generate such testimonials by themselves hiring individuals of modest celebrity to make their own misleading testimonials.”

The lawsuit alleges the class has been defrauded by paying “outrageously inflated” prices for products that fail to deliver the promised “substantial prophylactic, healing, therapeutic and curative powers for an almost limitless universe of diseases and conditions.” Pontrelli is seeking an injunction and punitive damages for fraud, consumer fraud and unjust enrichment.

Top Settlements

Gentek Siding Steel Peel Case Settles. Gentek, makers of exterior siding that suffers from “steel peel” (that’s certainly confidence inducing), will have to honor its warrantees, as ordered by US District Court Judge Benita Y. Pearson, in a Final Order, approving a defective products class action settlement against the building products company.

The lawsuit, entitled Eliason, et al. v. Gentek Building Products, Inc., et al., Case No.: 1:10-cv-02093-BYP, alleged the siding manufactured and sold by Gentek is defectively designed and manufactured in such a way that it will prematurely fail, causing damage to consumer homes.

The Gentek siding lawsuit was filed on behalf of a number of Plaintiffs who alleged that the exterior siding manufactured by Gentek is defective and fails within the warranty period. The manufacturer’s warranty is supposed to cover cracking, chipping, flaking, peeling or splitting for the life of the purchaser. The warranty is in effect for 50 years from the original installation in the case that the property is sold to a new owner.

According to the lawsuit, the siding peels, cracks and chips are within the warranty period. Furthermore, the lawsuit alleged that Gentek failed to honor its warranty. The Plaintiffs claim that instead of repairing, replacing or refinishing the siding as promised, Gentek only offers a small amount of money as compensation or offer to repaint the affected area only. The lawsuit claimed that the sum of money offered was inadequate to reverse the damage, and that repainting only the affected area would only lead to future repairs because it did not address the underlying problem. How helpful.

According to the Judge’s Order, for settlement purposes, the class in this litigation was certified to be all persons, organizations, municipalities, corporations and entities that own property, whether commercial or residential, on which Gentek Steel Siding was applied during the period January 1, 1991 through March 15, 2013, that are covered by a Gentek Steel Siding warranty and which siding experienced Steel Peel.

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

Week Adjourned: 8.2.13 – Apple Store, Pfizer, Chester Career College

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending August 2, 2013. Top lawsuits include Apple employees claiming wage and hour violations, Pfizer Rapamune Off Label marketing fines and Chester Career College settling consumer fraud charges.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Bad Apple! It seems Apple may be entering the ever-growing list of wage and hour offenders. This week, a class action lawsuit was filed against the tech giant, alleging that Apple store staff are not paid for the time they spend undergoing bag searches, as required by the company’s policy.

Apple has a policy of requiring its retail store employees to undergo two mandatory bag searches per day. Two former Apple store employees from New York and Los Angeles filed a complaint in San Francisco federal court on Thursday regarding this policy. They allege they had to stand in lines up to 30 minutes long every day for store managers to check their bags and ensure they weren’t smuggling home stolen goods. The Apple unpaid wages lawsuit claims that the cumulative time employees spend having these bag searches done totals dozens of hours of unpaid wages, roughly $1,500 per year.

“Apple has engaged and continues to engage in illegal and improper wage practices that have deprived Apple Hourly Employees throughout the United States of millions of dollars in wages and overtime compensation,” the complaint reads.

“These practices include requiring Apple Hourly Employees to wait in line and undergo two off-the-clock security bag searches and clearance checks when they leave for their meal breaks and after they have clocked out at the end of their shifts.”

According to the complaint, Apple’s retail stores employ some 42,400 people in 13 countries. The retail outlets generated net sales of $156.5 billion in 2012. Most hourly workers make between minimum wage and $18.75 per hour and work 40 hours per week.

Amanda Frlekin and Dean Pelle, the two former employees who filed the wage and hour lawsuit, worked as “specialists,” essentially an in-store customer support position. The Apple lawsuit describes the bag searches as “required but uncompensated security checks,” claiming that Apple violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and New York labor law, and California labor law.

Top Settlements

Off-label Drug Marketing Saga Continues—this week, it’s news that Pfizer will have to pony up $491 million to settle criminal and civil charges relating to its off-label marketing of Rapamune. The US Justice Department had claimed the drug company marketed the kidney-transplant drug for patients who received non-kidney organ transplants.

The Justice Department began its investigation over four years ago, and Pfizer inherited the probe when it bought Wyeth in 2009.

According to the Justice Department, Wyeth trained sales reps to push Rapamune for unapproved uses and offered bonuses to persuade them to flog the drug for patients it wasn’t cleared to treat. “This was a systemic, corporate effort to seek profit over safety,” U.S. Attorney Sanford Coats said in a statement. “Companies that ignore compliance with FDA regulations will face criminal prosecution and stiff penalties.”

Under the Pfizer Rapamune settlement agreement, Pfizer’s Wyeth division pleaded guilty to a criminal misbranding violation under the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act. The deal includes a criminal fine of $157.58 million and asset forfeiture amounting to $76 million, or $233.5 million total. Civil payments to the government and states add another $257.4 million, for a total of $490.9 million. Okee dokee…

Looks like Chester Career College hit the Learning Curve on this one—at a cost of $5 million. That’s the settlement that was just approved ending a financial consumer fraud class action lawsuit pending against the college, formerly known as Richmond School of Health and Technology. The lawsuit alleged that the for-profit college practices predatory lending practices affecting thousands of students, primarily African American students, while offering sub-par education.

The back story—Chester Career College purportedly offers classes leading to careers in nursing, massage therapy and other medical-related fields, and specifically targeted inner city students with ads on hip-hop stations and other media aimed at their demographic. According to the lawsuit, the college enrolled “almost exclusively” students who qualified for federal financial aid, primarily in the form of student loans.

The Chester Career College settlement, approved by US District Judge John A. Gibney, will also see the school reimburse more than 4,000 students and for attorneys’ fees and requires Chester Career College to institute changes that will provide prospective students with “much more transparency” before they enroll. Further, the settlement also provides for continued tracking of students and career placement “to strengthen the school” and its educational mission as it moves forward.

Here’s the skinny—the settlement covers students enrolled at the school from July 2004 through February 2013. Students who qualify for claims will receive settlement notices by mail. Any money left unclaimed from the remaining funds in the escrow account after one year will be donated to nonprofit organizations dedicated to assisting the economically disadvantaged.

Ok folks, 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: 7.19.13 – MyFord, Lac-Megantic, Nissan

The weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits & settlements. Top stories include MyFord Touch, MyLincoln Touch, MyMercury Touch, Nissan battery warranties and the Lac-Megantic train crash.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

MyGosh, MyFord Touch ain’t Working! Well, that’s what the plaintiffs in a proposed class action lawsuit filed this week are alleging. Specifically, that Ford Motor Company’s MyFord Touch, MyLincoln Touch and MyMercury Touch touchscreen systems are defective, often freezing, failing to respond to voice and touch commands and failing to connect to mobile phones.

The MyFord class action, filed in the U.S. District Court for Central California, includes a long list of problems with the system, and details Ford’s failed attempts at correcting the system through system updates and other fixes.

The systems, introduced by Ford in 2011, promised owners of Ford, Lincoln and Mercury vehicles with the ability to seamlessly operate audio controls, use a GPS navigation system, control climate systems and operate a Bluetooth-enabled device through the system.

“In theory, MyFord Touch is a brilliant idea and worth the premium that Ford charged its customers for the system,” said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman and one of the attorneys who filed the lawsuit. “In reality, the system is fundamentally flawed, failing to reliably provide functionality, amounting to an inconvenience at best, and a serious safety issue at worst.”

Lac-Mégantic Crash Leads to Lawsuit. Sadly, among the biggest news stories this week, on both sides of the US-Canadian border, is the devastation caused by a runaway Montreal, Maine & Atlantic train that slammed into the small Quebec township of Lac Magentic, killing some 50 people and obliterating the town center in an inferno fueled by the train’s cargo of crude oil.

Not surprisingly, on Monday, two residents of Lac-Mégantic filed a train crash class action lawsuit against the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic railway, company chairman Edward Burkhardt and president Robert Grindrod.

On Thursday, July 18, the class action proceeding (motion for authorization) was amended to include further defendants, World Fuel Services Corp., Dakota Plains Holdings, Irving Oil Limited, and their subsidiaries. World Fuel Services is a publicly traded US corporation and Irving Oil is one of Canada’s largest oil companies.

The claims made against the newly added defendants include the allegation that they failed to ensure that the highly flammable contents of the DOT-111 tankers that derailed in Lac-Mégantic’s downtown area in the early morning hours of July 6, 2013 were properly contained and safely transported. The Motion to authorize was amended to reflect the fact that the liability for the accident is spread across a broader network of involved corporations. As the facts develop additional entities may be implicated.

The Lac-Mégantic class action is being pursued to ensure that the victims of the July 6, 2013 derailment and all those affected obtain compensation for their substantial losses. The proposed representative plaintiffs are Guy Ouellet, whose partner, Diane Bizier, died in the explosion and Yannick Gagné, the owner of the popular restaurant, Musi-Café, which was destroyed as a result of the derailment and ensuing explosions.

A team of class action lawyers has been assembled to assist the Lac-Mégantic community to litigate the action, and consists of Lac-Mégantic lawyer Daniel E. Larochelle, Consumer Law Group Inc. in Montreal, Rochon Genova LLP of Toronto and Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP of New York and San Francisco.

Top Settlements

Nissan Turning over a New Leaf? A proposed $10 million settlement has been reached in a defective automotive class action lawsuit pending against automaker Nissan. The lawsuit alleged that the Nissan Leaf suffered from a thermal management defect, that its lithium-ion battery loses capacity over time at an excessive rate when operated in a high temperature environment and that the vehicle does not have the driving range represented by Nissan.

The terms of the Nissan settlement involve Nissan agreeing to expand battery warranties for approximately 18,588 current and former owners of the 2011-2012 Nissan Leaf throughout the US. Additionally, Nissan will extend the Leaf warranty to add battery capacity loss to its existing limited warranty for up to 60 months or 60,000 miles, requiring Nissan to repair the battery to at least 70 percent of its full capacity, and if repair is not possible, to replace the pack with a newly manufactured or reconditioned one.

All class members will be automatically included in the settlement unless they choose to opt out and Nissan will mail notice of the new warranty once the agreement is finalized.

The case is Klee at al. v. Nissan North America Inc. et al., case number in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Ok folks, have a safe and happy weekend—see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 7.12.13 – Ford, BofA Mortgages, Ticketmaster

The top class actions and settlements for the week ending July 12, 2013. This week’s highlights include Ford hybrids, Bank of America loan modifications and Ticketmaster Entertainment Rewards program.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Heads-up all you Ford Hybrid owners. A defective automotive class action lawsuit has been filed against Ford alleging the car manufacturer’s hybrid sedans can shut down without warning. Not good!

Specifically, the Ford Hybrid class action claims that because of a flaw in the engine-cooling systems, two of Ford’s hybrid sedans can shut down without warning while traveling at highway speeds. The lawsuit further claims that Ford has known of the defects since 2005 based on pre-release testing data, consumer complaints, warranty reimbursement rates and data from Ford dealerships.

The Ford lawsuit claims the defects are present in the 2005 through 2008 models of the Ford Escape Hybrid and the 2006 through 2008 models of the Mercury Mariner. These models were the first hybrid crossovers to be released by a US car manufacturer.

The backstory: Filed by lead plaintiff Jean MacDonald, the lawsuit, entitled MacDonald v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. 3:13-cv-02988, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges MacDonald purchased a new 2007 Ford Escape hybrid from a California dealership and put more than 43,000 miles on it without incident. Then, in December 2012, the car’s “Stop Safely Now” light went on and the vehicle went powerless in the middle of the freeway.

A dealership determined the vehicle there was a malfunction of a cooling pump associated with the MECS, and replaced it at a cost of $767. The MECS (Motor Electric Cooling System) is used in the Ford hybrids to diffuse the heat generated by the hybrid vehicles’ battery-powered motor component. The MECS releases hot air into the atmosphere. To prevent the vehicles from sustaining damage from the heat, the vehicles are designed to shut down whenever the MECS becomes inoperative.

According to the lawsuit, Ford’s MECS coolant pumps are “substantially certain” to fail suddenly and without warning, causing the vehicle to shut down immediately. Because the engine shutdown can occur while the vehicle is traveling at highway speeds, drivers may find themselves in an extremely dangerous situation.

“The coolant pump causes unsafe conditions in the class vehicles, including but not limited to abrupt losses of acceleration, inability to manoeuvre the vehicle due to reduced speed, slowed steering, and in certain cases, complete vehicle failure,” the lawsuit states. This sudden engine failure can leave a driver stranded in the middle of a busy highway if a shoulder cannot be reached before the vehicle comes to a complete stop.

“Defendant knew about and concealed the coolant pump defect present in every class vehicle, along with the attendant dangerous safety and driveability problems, from plaintiff and class members, at the time of sale, lease and repair,” the Ford complaint states.

In bulletins issued by Ford, the company issued instructions on how Ford mechanics were to replace the allegedly defective coolant pump with a nondefective model, but the carmaker has allegedly told consumers that they are on the hook for the costs of a new system rather than repairing it under warranty.

“Instead of repairing the defect in the MECS coolant system, Ford either refused to acknowledge their existence, or performed ineffectual repairs that simply masked the effect,” according to the lawsuit.

The Ford class action lawsuit seeks to represent a nationwide class of buyers and lessees of the allegedly defective Escape and Mariner models, as well as a subclass of California-based customers under the state’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Bank of America—at it again? If you hold a BoFA mortgage, read this: A consumer banking deceptive practices class action lawsuit has been filed alleging that Bank of America (NYSE:BAC) created and headed an illegal enterprise designed to defraud homeowners seeking loan modifications as part of the government’s Home Affordable Modification Program, or “HAMP.”

The BofA loan modification class action, filed in US District Court in Colorado on July 10, alleges that Bank of America masterminded a scheme which allowed it to deny help it had promised to give thousands of its customers in exchange for $45 billion it took in bailout funds.

“We believe that Bank of America gamed the system, perpetrating a fraud on both its customers and American taxpayers,” said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman and one of the attorneys who filed the lawsuit. “BofA promised that it would work with homeowners to modify their mortgages under the HAMP program. Instead it took $45 billion in taxpayer money and fought as hard as it could to avoid granting modifications, squeezing every last dollar from its customers and wrongfully foreclosing thousands of people’s homes in the process.”

The lawsuit alleges that Bank of America employed contractors, including co-defendant Urban Lending Solutions (“Urban”), who repeatedly lied to Bank of America’s customers. For instance, the suit claims that Urban employees answered the phone, “Bank of America – Office of the President,” when they did not work directly for Bank of America.

Former employees, according to the complaint, have confirmed that Bank of America instructed its employees to delay modifications, claim that it had not received paperwork and payments when it had received them, and declined modifications en masse in periods known internally as “blitzes.”

The complaint also alleges that Bank of America went to great lengths to keep its employees silent about these issues. According to the BofA class action, employees who questioned the ethics of declining modifications for fraudulent reasons, or of lying to customers, were subject to discipline including termination.

The lawsuit claims that Bank of America is guilty of violating the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO. It asks for damages to be awarded to a proposed class defined as:

“All individuals whose home mortgage loans have been serviced by BOA and who, since April 13, 2009, (1) applied to BOA for a HAMP loan modification, (2) fulfilled an FHA Trial Period Plan Agreement or any other trial-payment agreement that was not issued pursuant to SD-09 (form 3156), (3) sent documents to, or received documents or other communications from, Urban employees in connection with their attempts to modify their home mortgage, and (4) did not receive, within 30 days after making all required trial payments, a permanent loan modification that complied with HAMP rules.”

Top Settlements

This one’s on Ticketmaster! A proposed settlement has been reached in the Ticketmaster consumer fraud class action lawsuit which alleges the company deceptively enrolled website visitors into an “Entertainment Rewards” program.

The Ticketmaster lawsuit, entitled John Mancini, et al. v. Ticketmaster, et al., Case No. 7-cv-01459 DSF, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, alleges that Defendants enrolled customers of Ticketmaster.com into the “Entertainment Rewards” program through a process that was likely to deceive reasonable consumers. In particular, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants did not adequately disclose that customers were being enrolled in an online coupon service and that they would be charged a monthly fee for that service, typically $9, on the credit or debit card they used at Ticketmaster.com.

Plaintiffs further allege that the vast majority of enrollees who were charged for the Entertainment Rewards program did not use the program or otherwise benefit from it. Excluding customers who have previously obtained a full refund, Plaintiffs allege that there are approximately 1,120,000 such customers and that the total paid by these customers (net of partial refunds) for membership in Entertainment Rewards was approximately $85 million. Plaintiffs assert violations of California and federal law.

Class Members eligible for part of the Ticketmaster settlement include all US residents who: made a purchase on Ticketmaster.com between September 27, 2004 and June 9, 2009: were enrolled in the “Entertainment Rewards” discount coupon program via a process that included Ticketmaster’s transfer of their credit or debit card information to Entertainment Publications, Inc,: were subsequently charged for their membership in the Entertainment Rewards program: did not receive a full refund of amounts charged, and as of May 8, 2013, have not printed any coupon or applied for any cashback award in connection with the Entertainment Rewards program.

Eligible class members will receive a cash refund of the amounts they paid for membership in the Entertainment Rewards program (other than amounts that have already been refunded), up to a maximum of $30, however this is dependent on the number of successful claims filed.

A final hearing is set for July 29, 2013, and if approved, the settlement will resolve the lawsuit against Ticketmaster, Entertainment Publications, Inc. and IAC/InterActiveCorp (“Defendants”) brought by several Ticketmaster customers (“Plaintiffs”).

Complete information and claim forms are available at www.EntertainmentRewardsSettlement.com.

Ok folks, Have a great weekend—see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 7.5.13 – Kendra Wilkinson AbCuts, BofA, BP Bad Gas

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. This week, top stories include Kendra Wilkinson and AbCuts diet supplements, Bank of America debt collection harassment, and BP contaminated gas.

Top Lawsuits

The Girls Next Door are in trouble—well—one of them at any rate. Kendra Wilkinson, the former star of “The Girls Next Door” and “Kendra,” is facing a consumer fraud class action lawsuit over allegations she advertised a fat loss supplement that is ineffective and possibly dangerous to people’s health. The other named defendants are marketer Corr-Jensen Inc, and nutritional supplement retailer GNC Corp.

Adam Karhu filed the Kendra Wilkinson weight loss lawsuit, alleging the diet supplement “Ab Cuts” (Abdominal Cuts) fat loss supplement was advertised by Wilkinson as “a health supplement, not a diet pill,” which was false and misleading. Ok people, really? In what universe does the name Ab Cuts sound like a health supplement?

Entitled Karhu v. Corr-Jensen Labs Inc. et al., Case No. 13-cv-03583, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the lawsuit specifically claims that Wilkinson promotes Ab Cuts on her website and through Facebook and Twitter, in addition to appearing on almost all product promotions, including appearances on talk show appearances and in celebrity magazines. According to the lawsuit, Wilkinson makes paid appearances at GNC stores across the country, claiming that Ab Cuts is her “I-Cheat-Every-Day Diet.” Note to Kendra: careful what you say…this lawsuit may give new meaning to “cheat”…)

The Ab Cuts product line has 11 different dietary supplement products all made with the same active ingredient, conjugated linoleic acid (“CLA”). According to the product advertising, CLA promotes fat and weight loss. But—according to the lawsuit, the science just ain’t there. In fact, the complaint alleges that CLA may actually increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and hypertension. That sounds healthy!

Putative members of the Kendra Wilkinson diet lawsuit include anyone in the US who bought Ab Cuts, excluding people who purchased the products for resale. The AbCuts lawsuit alleges breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, and for violation of New York’s consumer protection laws.

Bank of America (BoFA) got nailed this week, with a debt collection harassment class action lawsuit alleging America’s biggest bank is in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. Add this to the list of possible legal digressions.

Filed by Broward County resident Marc Katz, the lawsuit, entitled, Marc Katz v. Bank of America NA, case number 0:13-cv-61372, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florid, alleges BoFA uses automated dialers to call the cell phones of people who have debt with the bank. That would certainly raise your blood pressure.

Specifically, Katz claims that in 2010 BoFA launched a mortgage foreclosure action against him in Florida state court. The bank then continued to call his cellphone using automated dialing systems in an effort to try and collect the purported debt. This occurred even after the bank was told to contact Katz’s attorney for anything related to the foreclosure action, according to the lawsuit.

“Despite receipt of a letter of representation, and its inherent cease communication directive, defendant’s continued collection efforts involved the placement of auto-dialed calls and/or recorded messages to the cellular telephones of allegedly delinquent consumers,” the debt collection harassment class action lawsuit states.

Further, Katz claims that when he answered the calls a machine-operated voice would advise him to “please hold for the next available representative,” forcing him to wait and listen to music or “dead air” before an actual person came on the line, the lawsuit states. “Defendant’s persistent and unlawful calling campaign was carried out with the intent to abuse and harass the plaintiff,” the lawsuit claims.

Heads up—the lawsuit has been filed on behalf of a putative class consisting of all individuals in Florida who were the subject of Bank of America’s debt collection activities related to their residential property in Florida and who were represented by counsel with respect to said debt and still received pre-recorded or auto-dialed calls on their cellphones from the bank over the past four years.

Top Settlements

Did you buy dodgy gas from BP? If so, you may be in line for some cash. The petrochemical giant (BP Products North America Inc), reached a $7 million defective product settlement concerning allegations it sold contaminated gasoline. Contaminated gasoline? Don’t get me started.

According to a statement issued on the settlement, the BP contaminated gas lawsuit was filed after BP recalled approximately 4.7 million gallons of contaminated gasoline, which it distributed from its Whiting, Indiana, refinery to more than 575 retail outlets in Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin and Ohio.

Various problems, ranging from engine issues to damaged fuel systems, resulted from the use of the contaminated gasoline, affecting thousands of customers. According to the statement, people who are eligible for a portion of the settlement will be notified in the near future…

Ok folks, Happy July 4 Weekend! See you at the bar!