lawsuits - Part 5

Week Adjourned: 10.19.12 – Healthcare Workers, Madden NFL, Chantix

The weekly wrap on top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending October 19, 2012. This week’s top stories include Healthcare workers at Maxim Healthcare, Electronic Arts and NFL Madden games and the first Chantix settlement.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Overworked and Underpaid on Overtime. An overtime class action lawsuit has been filed against Maxim Healthcare Services Inc, by Jas

mine Lawrence, who was employed as a Home Health Aide by the defendant until October 2012.

In the unpaid overtime lawsuit, Lawrence alleges that Maxim Healthcare Services Inc, violated, and continues to violate, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (OMFWSA) because of its willful failure to compensate her and the class members at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Lawrence claims she regularly worked over 70 hours per week while employed by Maxim Healthcare and the majority of her time was spent performing general housekeeping duties as opposed to patient care.

Lawrence also alleges that she and the members of the putative class who are employed by the Defendant in Ohio are “employees” within the meaning of the OMFWSA.

Lawrence, the lead plaintiff in the employment class action, seeks to bring her claim for violation of the Fair labor Standards Act (FLSA) as a nation-wide collective action, and as a statewide class action based for violation of the OMFWSA.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc, is a Maryland corporation which, through hundreds of office locations nationwide, provides in-home personal care, management and/or treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. Lawrence and the class are represented by Ben Stewart of Stewart Law PLLC.

Top Settlements

And it’s a Touchdown! The Plaintiffs score a proposed $27 million settlement that’s been reached in a class action lawsuit pending against Electronic Arts. The Electronic Arts settlement, if approved, will apply to anyone who purchased a new copy of an EA Madden NFL, NCAA Football or Arena Football video game between 2005 and 2012 and is an eligible class member.

The backstory—in case you missed it—The Electronic Arts video game antitrust lawsuit was filed in 2008 entitled Pecover v. Electronic Arts, Inc., and alleged that EA violated antitrust and consumer protection lawsuits by holding exclusive license agreements with the NFL, NCAA and AFL to market branded football software. The lawsuit further alleged that the arrangement shut out competitors, enabling EA to charge 70 percent more for “Madden NFL.”

And the skinny on the proposed deal: Class Members of the EA football game class action settlement include all U.S. consumers who bought a new copy of an Electronic Arts’ Madden NFL, NCAA Football, or Arena Football video game for Xbox, Xbox 360, PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, GameCube, PC, or Wii, with a release date of January 1, 2005 to June 21, 2012.

If approved by the court at the February 7, 2013 Final Fairness Hearing, Settlement Class Members who submit timely and valid claim forms will receive the following CASH benefits:

If you are an eligible Settlement Class Member, your share of the net proceeds of the Settlement will be based upon the number of video game titles you purchased new, as well as the number of Settlement Class Members who submit valid claims.

Valid claims for the purchase of Madden NFL, NCAA Football, or Arena Football video games for the Xbox, PlayStation 2, PC, or GameCube platforms (“Sixth Generation Purchasers”) will be valued at $6.79 per new game purchased, up to a total of eight units ($54.32).

Valid claims for the purchase of Madden NFL, NCAA Football, or Arena Football video games for the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, or Wii platforms (“Seventh Generation Purchasers”) will be valued at $1.95 per new game purchased, up to a total of eight units ($15.60).

The only way to receive cash benefits from the EA antitrust settlement is to submit a Claim Form either online at EASportsLitigation.com or postmarked no later than March 5, 2013.

Let’s hope this settlement levels the playing field…

Here’s a Bittersweet Ending… A settlement has been reached in a lawsuit against Pfizer and its anti-smoking drug Chantix. The Pfizer Chantix settlement, the details of which remain confidential, was reached just prior to the case going to trial.

The lawsuit was brought by the widow of Mark Alan Whitely, from Minnesota, who allegedly killed himself in November 2007 as a result of taking the controversial drug. The lawsuit alleged that Pfizer failed to sufficiently warn that Chantix could increase the risk of suicide.

FYI—in July 2009, the FDA announced an update to Chantix (known generically as varenicline) warnings, alerting patients to the risk of serious mental health events linked to use of the smoking cessation drug. Pfizer, maker of Chantix, was required to put a Boxed Warning on the Chantix label, highlighting the risk of depressed mood, hostility and suicidal thoughts when using the medication. When the FDA made its announcement in 2009, it had received 98 crude reports of completed suicide associated with Chantix (a crude report means the FDA had not examined each report in depth to ensure there were no duplicates). It had a further 188 crude reports of suicide attempts.

The Whitely lawsuit is reportedly the first of some 2,500 Chantix cases that have been combined in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in Alabama for pretrial evidence-gathering and the first trials.

The consolidated cases are In re Chantix (Varenicline) Products Liability Litigation MDL 2092, 09-cv-2039 U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama (Florence). The consolidated cases are In re Chantix (Varenicline) Products Liability Litigation MDL 2092, 09-cv-2039 U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama (Florence).

And on that note—I’ll see you at the bar. Have a great weekend!

Week Adjourned: 10.12.12 – Meningitis, Nexium, Strip Club Dancers

The weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending October 12, 2012. Top stories include the Meningitis Outbreak, Nexium and Exotic Dancers.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Outbreak Turning into a Rash?—of lawsuits, that is. The first in what could be a string of fungal meningitis class actions was filed on Thursday against New England Compounding Pharmacy—the maker of the steroid injections suspected to be the cause of the multi-state meningitis outbreak.

The meningitis outbreak class action lawsuit entitled Barbe Puro v. New England Compounding Pharmacy Inc, U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, No. 12-2605, was filed in federal court in Minnesota.

According to the lawsuit, the victim, Barbe Puro, of Savage, MN, experienced headaches and nausea after receiving the steroid shots. Puro claims she suffered “bodily harm, emotional distress, and other personal injuries” after she received the steroid injection on September 17.

The contaminated steroid injections were recalled on September 26 by Framingham, MA based compounding pharmacy, New England Compounding Center (NECC). As many as 14,000 individuals may have received the tainted injections which were distributed to medical facilities across 23 states. To date, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has reported 14 deaths associated with the contaminated steroid.

The meningitis lawsuit proposes a class comprised of Minnesota residents who may have received tainted steroid injections since June of this year. According to the CDC, so far there have been three cases of fungal meningitis reported in Minnesota connected to the contaminated steroid injections.

Top Settlements

This might Help your Heartburn…A proposed settlement has been reached in a consumer fraud class action lawsuit against AstraZeneca alleging deceptive marketing practices around their anti-heartburn medication Nexium.

In the Nexium lawsuit, entitled Commonwealth Care Alliance v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals L.P., Docket No. 05-0269, the plaintiffs allege Astra Zeneca violated a Massachusetts state law by deceptively marketing the drug Nexium as superior to another drug, Prilosec or its generic version, omeprazole.

The lawsuit asks the Court to order AstraZeneca to pay restitution to purchasers for amounts they allegedly overpaid, to award money damages, or to grant other relief.

The terms of the proposed Nexium consumer fraud class action settlement have not been disclosed. However, the Court has certified a class of individuals and entities that purchased Nexium in Massachusetts (the“Class”). The Court has not made any finding or reached any conclusion as to whether AstraZeneca is liable to the Class.

You are a member of the Class if you have purchased Nexiumin Massachusetts since March 2001. If you purchased Nexium since March 2001 in Massachusetts, you may be eligible to receive money or benefits from the Lawsuit, if any are recovered. For more information on the status of this settlement visit massachusettsnexiumlitigation.com.

Good News at the Poles…I love this one. A $12.9 million settlement has been approved by a federal judge ending a three year long employment class action brought by exotic dancers who alleged the strip clubs they worked for denied them benefits by classifying the dancers as independent contractors.

The strip club dancer lawsuit alleged that the owners of the nightclubs, located in California, Kentucky, Idaho, Texas, Nevada and Florida, helped themselves to over half of the dancers’ tips, penalized them for not selling enough drinks to customers and made the dancers pay stage fees for dancing. The Spearmint Rhino nightclub is among the defendants.

Under the terms of the strip club settlement, the clubs will treat dancers as employees, partners or shareholders in their businesses, and in California, dancers will no longer have to cough up pay-to-perform fees. Dancers who do not make a written claim to the fund will not be paid; any remaining funds will go back to the strip clubs. The dancers who were named plaintiffs in the class action will receive incentive fees for the time and “professional and personal risk” they incurred by being named in the lawsuit.

And on that note—I’ll see you at the bar (no, not the strip joint). Have a great weekend!

Week Adjourned: 10.5.12 – Suave Haircare, Discover Card, Bank of America

The weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending October 5, 2012. Top stories include Suave haircare, Discover credit card and Bank of America.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Will Sauve/Unilever Smooth their Way out of This? Unilever, the parent company of Suave, got hit with a defective product class action lawsuit this week over allegations its now defunct Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit actually ruins your hair. I guess you can’t smooth what you don’t have!

The Suave class action lawsuit was filed by 14 women who all allege they suffered permanent hair damage as a result of using the product. Tonja Millet, one of the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit, claims the product melted her hair, made it sticky and impossible to comb. Now, that doesn’t really jive with the product advertising, which one Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit commercial reportedly claimed “…transforms frizzy, unmanageable hair into hair that’s sleeker and easier to style.”

After using the product, Millet said it kinked her hair instead of straightening it. When she called the product’s consumer hotline to complain, she was told that she had likely used the Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit incorrectly. (Ummm. Should it be on the market in that case?) When she went to her salon a few days later, Millet’s stylist told her that her hair had been chemically melted. As a result, Millet had 10 inches cut off her hair. Talk about a “bad hair day.”

Unilever pulled the Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit from stores after receiving a greater than expected number of complaints. (What was the expected number?) The kit has since been discontinued. But apparently the story ain’t over.

Top Settlements

Were you “Discovered?” Did you buy into what you thought were free credit card services promoted by Discover Bank between December 1, 2007 and August 31, 2011? If so, you may be interested to learn that the bank has agreed to pay $200 million to settle consumer fraud allegations brought by federal investigators concerning credit card add-ons that consumers were led to believe were free.

After a one year investigation into the telemarketing and sales tactics used by Discover agents, federal investigators found that consumers were misled credit (otherwise known as consumer fraud) into paying for credit card services including credit score tracking, payment protection, identity theft protection and wallet protection.

The $200 million Discover credit card settlement is in addition to a class action lawsuit settlement of $10.5 million agreed last year by Discover, and a $2 million settlement agreed this year with the Minnesota Attorney General, both of which alleged deceptive marketing practices.

Eligibility for refund would include customers who were charged for one or more of these products between December 1, 2007 and August 31, 2011, and based on the products they purchased and how long they held them. Customers will reportedly be notified directly by Discover Bank.

Additionally, all consumers will receive at least 90 days’ worth of fees paid, minus any refunds they have already received. As many as two million customers will receive full refunds of all of the fees they paid.

In addition to the $200 million refund to consumers, Discover will pay a $14 million civil penalty.

To find out more about the settlement, visit the Discover Card Product Settlement at consumerfinance.gov/pressreleases/discover-consent-order/

Boffo BoFA Settlement. And the big story this week—Bank of America Corp (BoFA) has reached a preliminary settlement in a securities class action lawsuit, which will see BoFA shelling out $2.43 billion to end claims it was not forthcoming with financial information about Merrill Lynch & Co to the banks shareholders, prior to BoFA buying the securities house. (Just what does compel banks to tell the truth—or does that responsibility fall solely to the people who bring lawsuits against them? I digress.)

The BoFA settlement backstory, short version: BoFA agreed to buy Merrill Lynch in 2008, at the height of the financial crisis, however it tried to scrap the deal just weeks after signing but was unsuccessful. Merrill Lynch generated more than US$15 billion of losses and its executives agreed to award employees up to US$5.8 billion of bonuses, according to a report by Reuters.

In December 2008, BoFA’s shareholders approved the Merrill Lynch deal, but once the merger was complete, there was a dramatic drop in BoFA share value, and investors subsequently sued, alleging Merrill’s losses and bonuses should have been disclosed before the vote.

And on that note—I’ll see you at the bar. Have a great weekend!

Week Adjourned: 9.14.12 – Chipotle Receipts, Family Dollar, Katrina Victims

The weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week of September 14, 2012.

Top Lawsuits

Rounding Error? Here’s a new twist on an old theme—can you guess? (yup—consumer fraud). But then necessity is the mother of invention—as they say. A federal consumer fraud class action lawsuit was just filed against the restaurant chain Chipotle, alleging their recently introduced practice of rounding up and down on total amounts on customer receipts not only nickel and dimes customers, but also violates various contract, unfair competition and state consumer protection laws.

Apparently the powers-that-be decided that rounding out the totals on customer receipts would alleviate the need for counting out pennies and small change, thereby reducing line-ups. Now that’s creative! I wonder if that would work with the IRS?

The Chipotle receipt rounding lawsuit is filed on behalf of anyone in California who purchased a gargantuan burrito or other item from any of the chain’s state locations between August 30, 2008 and the present.

The lawsuit seeks a court order to stop Chipotle from engaging in its allegedly “deceptive practices” and requests that damages to be paid to all affected class members.

Top Settlements

Family Dollar to Pay its Family of Employees—unpaid overtime, that is. A preliminary settlement has been reached in the unpaid overtime class action pending against the retailer Family Dollar. The lawsuit is brought by over 1,700 New York store managers who allege they are owed overtime wages.

I find it amazing that nearly every week we report on at least one unpaid overtime class action lawsuit—either in this blog or on our site and our Facebook page. Just so we’re crystal clear on what unpaid overtime is—legally—if you work more than 40 hours per week, you are entitled to overtime pay. Overtime laws contained in the United States Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) provide minimum wage, overtime, and child labor standards. Overtime rules ensure that employees who are denied overtime pay can file an overtime lawsuit.

The Family Dollar settlement has yet to be finalized and approved in court, but the existing agreement involves the discount retailer making a maximum payment it of $14 million. Get this—Family Dollar has over 7,400 stores throughout the U.S.

Here’s one a long time in coming. This week, Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp agreed to pay $61 million to settle long-running insurance lawsuits stemming from insurance claims made after hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

For all of us whose short-term memories have gone south—way south—Katrina hit New Orleans and surrounding areas on August 29, 2005. As for Rita? She struck in September 2005, and caused $12 billion in damage on the US Gulf Coast.

The settlement will include caps of $4,500 per claim, $150,000 for court costs and $750,000 for administrative expenses.

This settlement follows a $104 million judgment paid by Citizens and will benefit over 18,500 policyholders who sued over slow adjustment claims stemming from hurricane damage. This settlement is meant to cover plaintiffs who weren’t initially covered in July’s settlement.

According to the Associated Press, Citizens CEO Richard Robertson said one lawsuit involves 7,800 claimants and up to 12,000 in the other.

That’s it for this week—See you at the bar, perhaps?

Week Adjourned: 9.7.12 – Olive Garden, Red Lobster, Chase, eBooks

An unpaid overtime class action lawsuit has been filed against all restaurant chains owned by Darden Restaurants, including The Capital Grille, Longhorn Steakhouse, Olive Garden and Red Lobster. Read more in our weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week of September 7, 2012.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

We want you to work but we don’t want to pay you… sound familiar? An unpaid overtime class action lawsuit has been filed against all restaurant chains owned by Darden Restaurants, including The Capital Grille, Longhorn Steakhouse, Olive Garden and Red Lobster.

The Darden Restaurants lawsuit was filed on behalf of Amanda Mathis, a Florida resident and former server at several Longhorn Steakhouse locations, and James Hamilton, a Virginia resident and former Olive Garden server in Georgia. In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege that servers such as themselves were paid less than the minimum wage and were not compensated for time they were required to work off the clock.

The overtime pay lawsuit contends that Darden violated the Fair labor Standards Act by paying many of its servers below the applicable minimum wage, which can be as low as $2.13 an hour for tipped work and $7.25 an hour for non-tipped work. It also alleges that servers were required to work off the clock at the beginning and end of their shifts. Isn’t that called “volunteering”?

The proposed class seeks to represent current and former servers employed between August 2009 and the present. Darden is considered the world’s largest full-service restaurant group, with almost 170,000 employees.

Top Settlements

Chase chastised to the tune of $100 million…in settlement monies for improper loan and APR Rates. Preliminary court approval was granted this week, in a credit card class action lawsuit brought against Chase Bank over allegations that its loan and APR rates were increased improperly.

Specifically, the lawsuit, brought by Chase credit cardholders, claimed those customers accepted promotional loan offers whereby the loan was subject to a fixed interest rate (APR) until the loan balance was paid off in full. In November 2008 and June 2009, Chase sent some of these cardholders a “Change in Terms” notice, raising their minimum monthly payment from 2% to 5% of their outstanding account balance and, in some cases, applying a $10 monthly fee to their account.

Who Is Included in the Chase Credit Card Class Action?

The “class” for this lawsuit includes all persons or entities in the United States who entered into a loan agreement with Chase, whereby Chase promised a fixed APR until the loan balance was paid in full, and (i) whose minimum monthly payment was increased by Chase to 5% of the outstanding balance, or (ii) who were notified by Chase of a minimum payment increase and subsequently closed their account or agreed to an alternative change in terms offered by Chase.

How Will Chase Credit Card Class Action Settlement Payments Be Determined?

If the Settlement becomes effective, Class Members will be sent a settlement check by the Settlement Administrator in the amount of their individual share of the Settlement Fund available for distribution. Each Class Member’s share will be comprised of: (i) a $25.00 base payment; plus (ii) for most, but not all, Class Members, an additional payment intended to give the most compensation to those Class Members most affected by the Change in Terms, taking into account, among other things, the amount of the initial transaction fees paid for their fixed rate promotional loans (if there is no record of a transaction fee, an average transaction fee will be used), how much of the promotional balances were paid back before the Change in Terms occurred, how long the promotional loans were in the Class Member’s account before the Change in Terms, and whether and when the promotional balances were restored to their original terms after the Change in Terms were announced. A limited number of persons were notified of the change in terms but, for example, did not have balances at the time the change in terms took effect, and will not receive an additional payment (these Class Members will still receive the $25.00 base payment).

For more information, visit ChaseMinPaymentLawsuit.com.

Refunds on eBooks? Are you in line for some dosh? Check it out. A $69 million settlement has been reached in a lawsuit brought by US states and territories against Hachette, HarperCollins and Simon & Schuster over ebook pricing. According to Publishers Weekly, if the agreement for the eBook pricing lawsuit receives court approval, Hachette will pay $31,711,425, HarperCollins will pay $19,575,246, and Simon & Schuster will pay $17,752,480. The consumer fraud agreement includes fees and other costs to be paid by the publishers.

The eBook class action lawsuit centered around agreements made between publishers and Apple to move away from the industry’s traditional wholesale-retail model, in which retailers set the price of ebooks, to an agency model, in which the ebook stores served as agents that earned a percentage of each sale, allowing publishers to decide how much their ebooks would cost. Publishers who wanted to sell with Apple moved to a similar model with Amazon.

The settlement translates, at least to consumers, into refunds for ebooks purchased between April 1, 2010, and May 21, 2012, that had been priced according to the agency model.

According to report in the LA Times publishers will $1.32 for each bestselling title purchased by a consumers, 32 cents for books that were less than a year old but not bestsellers, and 25 cents for older e-books.

Refunds will appear in e-book buyers’ online accounts on iTunes, Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Readers who purchased e-books through Google or Sony’s storefronts will receive a check, and others can opt to. They can also opt not to receive any rebate at all.

That’s it for this week…See you—well, you know where.

Week Adjourned: 7.20.12 – Yoplait Greek, MC/Visa, Goldman Sachs

The weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements, for the week ending July 20, 2012; top stories this week include Yoplait Greek yogurt, Mastercard, Visa, and Goldman Sachs.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

How Greek is your Yogurt? In fact, is your yogurt even yogurt? If you’ve been buying Yoplait Greek yogurt from General Mills, there’s a consumer fraud class action lawsuit that alleges the giant food processor has been misrepresenting the product as being Greek and yogurt.

“Yoplait Greek does not comply with the standard of identity of yogurt,” the lawsuit states. “Indeed, Yoplait Greek contains Milk Protein Concentrate (“MPC”) which is not among the permissible ingredients of yogurt, non-fat yogurt, and low-fat yogurt (collectively “yogurt”) as set forth under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.”

The Yoplait Greek yogurt class action lawsuit also states “The use of MPC is financially advantageous to defendants.” It allows General Mills to manufacture more product at lower cost, and that’s why they use it in the production of the yogurt.”

If this leaves you stuck for breakfast options—may I recommend last night’s leftovers…

Top Settlements

Card Sharks Caught. This is one for all you conspiracy theorists out there—it’s pay day! A preliminary $7.2 billion settlement has been agreed by credit card giants MasterCard Inc, and Visa Inc, making it the largest antitrust settlement in US history.

The MasterCard Visa settlement, if approved, would resolve lawsuits brought as far back as 2005 by retailers who allege the credit card companies fixed debit and credit card swipe fees. Swipe fees are a small percentage of the purchase price and are taken by the credit card companies on every transaction made using their cards.

According to the terms of the settlement, filed in federal court in New York, Visa will pay $4.03 billion and MasterCard will pay $2.02 billion to a class of merchants, including small businesses and stores.

Additionally, both Visa and MasterCard will also agree to cut swipe fees by 10 basis points (0.1 percent) for eight months, which amounts to an additional $1.2 billion in relief for merchants.

The settlement also allows merchants and stores to impose a “checkout fee” to pass onto consumers, which is limited by a cap. It’s your lucky day!

Also included in the proposed settlement are credit card issuers such as JPMorgan Chase, Capital One, and Bank of America. Time to switch to the dark side…

Sachs Sacked. Remember 2008—(how could you forget, right?) The collapse of the financial world as we knew it—and the institutions such as Goldman Sachs who were in part responsible? Well, in 2009 The Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi filed a securities class action against the financial institution, alleging New Century Financial Corp, which originated a Goldman Sachs $698 million mortgage-backed securities offering, failed to adhere to its underwriting standards and overstated the value of the collateral backing the loans.

The fund claimed Goldman Sachs didn’t conduct proper due diligence when it bought the loans in 2005. If I’m not mistaken, that was the crux of the entire meltdown—lack of due diligence—on everyone’s part.

This week, a preliminary Goldman Sachs securities class action settlement was announced.

The lawyer representing the retirement fund told U.S. District Judge Harold Baer in a letter made public that both sides had accepted a settlement proposed by a mediator. Details of the agreement weren’t disclosed, according to a report by Bloomberg Businessweek.

The case is Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi v. Goldman Sachs Group Inc., 09-cv-01110, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

Ok—That’s a wrap. Happy Friday! See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 7.13.12 – Hyundai Elantra, Wells Fargo, ABM Security

The weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending July 13, 2012. Top class actions include Hyundai Elantra, Wells Fargo and ABM Security Services.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

More mileage out of its customers than its cars? Maybe. At least the folks who filed a consumer fraud class action lawsuit against Hyundi Motor America think so.

The Hyundai Elantra class action lawsuit alleges that Hyundai deceived customers regarding gas mileage claims for the Elantra. The lawsuit, filed in Sacramento Superior Court, alleges that Hyundi’s ad for the Elantra was misleading because it included the phrase “The 40 mile per gallon Elantra.” The class action lawsuits, filed by Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca, LLP, also claims Hyundai attempted to manipulate customers who are concerned about escalating gas prices and fuel economy.

The lawsuit further alleges that while the Elantra may average 40 mpg during ideal highway driving conditions, it does not achieve that same figure under most other driving scenarios.

Hyundai’s advertisements for the 2011 and 2012 Elantra models caused tens of thousands of California drivers to purchase the vehicle under false pretenses, the plaintiffs allege.

The lawsuit seeks to stop Hyundai from illegally using gas mileage numbers in its advertising of the Elantra without government-mandated disclosures and asks for damages on behalf of California residents who purchased or leased 2011 and 2012 Elantras.

Top Settlements

Wells Fargo hits the bottom of the well… A $175 million settlement has been agreed by Wells Fargo in a discrimination action brought against the nation’s largest residential home mortgage originator by the Department of Justice (DOJ).

The DOJ alleged Wells Fargo manipulated African-American and Hispanic borrowers into taking on more costly subprime loans or charging them higher fees than those issued to comparable white borrowers. More than 30,000 minority borrowers were affected between 2004 and 2009, the Justice Department said. Unbelievable!

“If you were African-American or Latino, you were more likely to be placed in a subprime loan or pay more for your mortgage loan, even though you were qualified and deserved better treatment,” Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez said in a statement.

“This is a case about real people—African-American and Latino—who suffered real harm as a result of Wells Fargo’s discriminatory lending practices.”

As an example, in 2007 a typical African-American wholesale borrower in Chicago seeking a $300,000 loan from Wells Fargo paid nearly $3,000 more in fees than a similarly qualified white applicant, the Justice Department said.

Wells Fargo has denied the government’s allegations, saying it agreed to settle the case “solely for the purpose of avoiding contested litigation.”

If the settlement receives final court approval, as part of the agreement, Wells Fargo will pay $125 million in compensation to victims of discrimination, and $50 million in down-payment assistance to borrowers in affected communities, CNN Money reports.

Cha-Ching! An $89.7 million settlement has been awarded by a California state judge to 15,000 former and present security guards of ABM Security Services Inc, who filed an unpaid wages class action lawsuit concerning rest breaks.

The ABM Security Services class action lawsuit, entitled Jennifer Augustus vs. American Commercial Social Security Services et al, was filed in July 2005. It alleged the guards were given “on-duty” breaks during which they were required to keep their cellphones or pagers on.

In his ruling, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge John S. Wiley said the company “balks at the notion that the employer must relieve workers of all duties for the rest break to be legally valid,” said in his ruling. “Put simply, if you are on call, you are not on break. That has been the law for many years.” Way to go!

Ok—That’s a wrap. Time for ‘tinis…see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 7.7.12 – Simply Orange, US Bank, Rite Aid

The weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week of July 7, 2012. Top stories this week include class action lawsuits involving Simply Orange, US Bank, Rite Aid

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Putting the Squeeze on Coca-Cola. Well, maybe. Seems something’s going on down at the grove. First it was Tropicana, now Coke’s Simply Orange has been hit with a federal consumer fraud class action lawsuit this week over allegations it falsely advertises the Simply Orange orange juice as all pure and natural, when the juice is actually heavily processed and flavored.

Filed by Nezzie Rose Christina, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Simply Orange class action lawsuit claims that Coca-Cola has been falsely stating that the Simply Orange orange juice is “100% Purse Squeezed Orange Juice” and is “a pure, natural orange juice with a taste that’s the next best thing to fresh-squeezed.”

Well, you don’t have to be a chemist to squeeze an orange at home, compare the juice you get from that with what comes out of your grocer’s freezer, and see a difference—now do you?

So the Simply Orange class action lawsuit claims that Coca-Cola is deceptively promoting Simply Orange in order to take advantage of consumers’ preference for natural products and their willingness to pay a premium price for those products. “Mass marketed orange juice such as Simply Orange cannot be fresh squeezed as fresh squeezed orange juice is unstable and has a short shelf-life,” the lawsuit states.

The class action lawsuit alleges unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, fraudulent concealment, and violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, and is asking for the return of the purchase price of the juice, plus interest, expenses, and attorney’s fees. This could be a juicy one! (Ok, ok—that’s bad, I know).

Top Settlements

Something to Bank on. One by one—it seems the banks are falling in line. Finally and at last. This week—it was US Bank—who agreed to pay $55 million to settle class action lawsuits that accused the bank of improperly manipulating its customers’ debit card transactions in order to generate excess overdraft fee revenues. The lawsuits, part of multi-district litigation involving more than 30 different banks entitled In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, are pending before U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King in Miami.

The US Bank class action lawsuits claim that the bank’s internal computer system re-sequenced the actual order of its customers’ debit card and ATM transactions, by posting them in highest-to-lowest dollar amount rather than in the actual order in which they were initiated by customers and authorized by the bank. According to the lawsuits, U.S. Bank’s practice resulted in its customers being charged substantially more in overdraft fees than if the debit card and ATM transactions had been posted in the order in which they were initiated and authorized.

FYI—US Bank is not the first bank involved in this multi-district litigation to settle similar claims. In addition to a $410 million settlement with Bank of America approved last year, settlements with JPMorgan Chase Bank ($110 million), Citizens Bank ($137.5 million), TD Bank ($62 million) and PNC Bank ($90 million) have been announced in recent months.

Employee Rites? Here’s one for the little guy! An unpaid overtime class action lawsuit brought against Rite Aid Corp by its employees, looks likely to be settled, as the company has agreed to pay up to $20.9 million in a settlement of the federal class action.

The Rite Aid class action lawsuit was brought in December 2008, by a store manager from Georgia, who alleged violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act, specifically, that she was denied overtime payment.

The settlement combines 13 cases from various federal court districts in which Rite Aid assistant store managers and co-managers alleged they put in more than 40 hours of work some weeks, but were denied overtime because the company classified them as supervisors. According to the Rite Aid class action lawsuit, the workers’ duties did not include store or department management, and workers lacked the authority to hire or fire or directly supervise other employees.

The class action settlement was recently approved by US District Judge John E. Jones III. The settlement could affect 6,100 people in 31 states.

Ok—That’s a wrap. Happy Friday—see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 6.29.12 – Jergens, PNC Bank, Asbestos Mesothelioma

The weekly wrap of class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending June 29, 2012.

Top Lawsuits

Were you a soft touch for Jergens Skin Firming Daily Toning Moisturizer? Kao USA, the makers of the moisturizer that does everything except take the garbage out, is facing a consumer fraud class action lawsuit over allegations that perhaps it was overstating the benefits of the product. Now, there’s a surprise.

The federal lawsuit alleges “Kao makes erroneous claims in the packaging, labeling, marketing, advertising and promotion for the Product, such as falsely asserting that it is ‘clinically proven to reduce the appearance of cellulite,’ that it will tighten a user’s skin, and produce improved resiliency, elasticity, and firmness.” The Jergens class action lawsuit also states that these claims are “erroneous, false and misleading to a reasonable consumer.”

“Kao’s Product sales were based upon this false promise and misleading advertisements targeting vulnerable consumers which cause, and continues to cause, consumers to pay a price premium for the Product,” the lawsuit claims. “Plaintiff and other purchasers of the Product have suffered injury in fact and have lost money as a result of Kao’s false misrepresentations. Plaintiff purchased the Product because of the claims made by Defendant, and would not have purchased the product if she had known that this advertising was false.”

The lead Plaintiff claims she relied on the misleading statements on the product’s bottle in her decision to purchase the $6 product. She is seeking damages and equitable relief for a proposed Class of all California residents who purchased Jergens Skin Firming Daily Toning Moisturizer for personal use. Sign me up!

Top Settlements

Cha-Ching…the penny drops on PNC Bank. They agreed this week to pay $90 million in the settlement of a class action lawsuit accusing the bank of improperly manipulating its customers’ debit card transactions in order to generate excess overdraft fees revenues. No comment.

The PNC Bank lawsuit, part of multi-district litigation involving more than 30 different banks entitled In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, is pending before U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King in Miami.

The lawsuit claims that PNC Bank’s internal computer system re-sequenced the actual order of its customers’ debit card and ATM transactions, by posting them in highest-to-lowest dollar amount rather than in the actual order in which they were initiated by customers and authorized by the bank. According to the lawsuit, PNC Bank’s practice resulted in its customers being charged substantially more in overdraft fees than if the debit card and ATM transactions had been posted in the order in which they were initiated and authorized.

PNC Bank is not the first bank involved in this multi-district litigation to settle similar claims. In addition to a $410 million settlement with Bank of America approved last year, settlements with JPMorgan Chase Bank, Citizens Bank and TD Bank have been announced in recent months.

Asbestos Settlement. On a bittersweet note, Bobbie Izell, who worked in construction in the 1960s and 1970s, and his wife have been awarded $48 million by a California court in settlement of their asbestos mesothelioma lawsuit.

The lawsuit named Union Carbide and a number of other defendants including Riverside Cement and California Portland Cement Company as defendants.

Izell developed mesothelioma during his 30 year career as a cement contractor in the construction industry. He built thousands of homes, commercial buildings, and churches, many of which contained asbestos. Izell also bought and renovated properties and many of the products he used for the renovation contained asbestos. Consequently, between 1947 and 1980, Izell suffered consistent exposure to the carcinogen.

The asbestos lawsuit was filed by Izell and his wife shortly after Izell was diagnosed with asbestos mesothelioma. According to media reports, during the trial Union Carbide argued that Calidria, which is the type of asbestos they manufactured, does or did not cause cancer. However, evidence was produced in the form of corporate memos which revealed that Union Carbide staff and physicians were aware the material was making works ill, but this information was not made public.

Ok—That’s a wrap. See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 6.22.12 – Adidas, LinkedIn, Paxil False Advertising

A weekly wrap of top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending June 22, 2012. This week’s top stories include Adidas, LinkedIn, Paxil False Advertising

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Barefoot Blues? Adidas is facing a potential consumer fraud class action lawsuit. Filed this week, the lawsuit alleges that Adidas adiPure training shoes, which capitalize on the “barefoot running” fitness craze, are falsely marketed.

Filed by plaintiff Joseph Rocco, from New York, the adiPure class action lawsuit claims Rocco bought a $90 pair of adiPure shoes that did not deliver the increased training efficiency and decreased risk of injury promised in advertisements.

Instead, the lawsuit claims, the shoes actually increase the risk for bruising and foot damage, due to their decreased padding and other structural differences from more traditional running shoes, the lawsuit states. Rocco said he and other customers were never warned about the potential hazards and that, as a result, he suffered compound fractures after training in the shoes. Yikes!

The lawsuit seeks to certify a class of everyone who purchased adiPure shoes since they were launched in August 2011. Rocco is seeking a refund for the shoes, as well as statutory damages.

Password Compromised? LinkedIn Corp is facing an internet privacy class action lawsuit resulting from a recent hacking that compromised some 6.5 million registered users’ passwords, which reportedly is less than 5 percent of LinkedIn’s user base.

The LinkedIn lawsuit was filed by Katie Szpyrka, who has been a registered account holder with LinkedIn since 2010, and who paid $26.95 per month to upgrade to a “premium” LinkedIn account.

The lawsuit claims LinkedIn “failed to properly safeguard its users’ digitally stored personally identifiable information including email addresses, passwords, and login credentials.” The lawsuit also states, “Through its Privacy Policy, LinkedIn promises its users that ‘all information that [they] provide [to LinkedIn] will be protected with industry standard protocols and technology. In direct contradiction to this promise, LinkedIn failed to comply with basic industry standards by maintaining millions of users’ PII in its servers’ databases in a weak encryption format, and without implementing other crucial security measures.” This, the suit alleges, is in violation of the company’s user agreement and privacy policy.

Top Settlements

Paxil False Advertising Settlement. Were you adversely affected by Paxil? A preliminary settlement has been reached in a Paxil class action lawsuit, and if approved, will provide money to California residents who were 18 years old or older and who paid for any portion of the price of the prescription antidepressant while living in California from January 14, 1999 through January 1, 2003, and who qualify under the settlement (these people are called “Class Members”).

If you’re included, you may ask for a payment, or you can exclude yourself from, or object to, the settlement. The Superior Court for the State of California will have a hearing to decide whether to approve the settlement so that payments can be issued.

The lawsuit claims that GlaxoSmithKline falsely advertised and promoted Paxil as being non-habit forming or non-addictive and that GlaxoSmithKline’s advertisements and promotional materials failed to disclose the risk of symptoms from stopping or discontinuing Paxil. GlaxoSmithKline denies each of these allegations.

What Can I Get from the Paxil Settlement?

The Paxil settlement provides monetary compensation as follows: a full refund of the actual Out-of-Pocket Expenses of claimants who purchased Paxil during the Class Period and who have valid documentary Proof of Purchase, provided that the total amount of payments to claimants with documented Proof of Purchase cannot exceed $8,500,000.00.

For claimants without Proof of Purchase, GlaxoSmithKline shall pay actual Out-of-Pocket Expenses up to $80.00 per claimant, provided that the total amount paid to claimants without Proof of Purchase cannot exceed $500,000.00. GlaxoSmithKline will also: (1) make a charitable contribution of $1,000,000.00 to be shared equally by four California mental health charities; (2) agree to certain limits on any future advertising for Paxil; and (3) include certain information about Paxil on its corporate website.

How Can I File a Paxil Settlement Claim?

You must complete the Claim Form, which you can obtain at CApaxilclassaction.com, and mail it no later than October 10, 2012 to the address on the form. Whether you receive a payment and the amount you get depends on whether you have a valid claim, how much Paxil you paid for, whether or not you have valid Proof of Purchase, and how many valid claims are filed.

How to Opt Out of or Object to the Paxil Settlement

If you don’t want a payment from the Paxil settlement, or if you don’t want to be legally bound by the settlement, you must exclude yourself by October 10, 2012, or you won’t be able to sue, or continue to sue, GlaxoSmithKline about the legal claims in this case. If you exclude yourself, you cannot get a payment from this settlement. If you stay in the settlement, you may choose to object to it, if you do so by October 10, 2012. You may both object and still participate in the settlement and receive money. The detailed notice explains how to exclude yourself or object.

The Court will hold a hearing in this case, called Grair, et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline, Inc., Case No. BC 288536, to consider whether to approve the settlement and a request by the lawyers representing the Class for fees and expenses. You may ask to appear and speak at the hearing, but you don’t have to.

For more information, go to A detailed notice is available at CApaxilclassaction.com or write to the Paxil Settlement Administratorc/o GCG, P.O. Box 9839Dublin, OH 43017-5739.

Ok –That’s a wrap. See you at the bar!