Asbestos

Week Adjourned: 10.31.14 – Trump U, Asbestos, Paper Carriers

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories include Trump University, Asbestos and Paper Carriers.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

You’re Fired! No wait—that’s the wrong show. This show is in fact a legal one—a consumer fraud class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) filed against Donald Trump. And it just got certified baby! by U.S. District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel.

The Trump U lawsuit alleges that through false claims Trump made regarding Trump University LLC, he would gain tens of millions of dollars from attendees who believed they would learn Trump’s real estate secrets. (isn’t Trump University an oxymoron?)

The judge decided that California businessman Art Cohen, the lead plaintiff in the racketeering class action, had provided sufficient evidence that the marketing of the allegedly fraudulent live events, including mailers with prominent pictures and quotes from Trump, as well as a coat of arms and educational language, resulted in thousands of people to pay to attend.

In the lawsuit, Cohen accuses Trump of failing to teach the students his investment secrets, failing to contribute in any meaningful way to the curriculum for the live events or choose the seminar instructors and mentors. Moreover, the New York State Education Department warned the defendant that using the name “University” was illegal without a license, while multiple attorneys general launched investigations into the deceptive practices, according to the complaint.

The lawsuit further alleges that Trump uniformly misled Cohen and the class that they would learn his real estate secrets through him and his handpicked professors at the elite Trump University, which is now named the Trump Entrepreneur Institute. Cohen alleges he attended a free seminar after receiving a “special invitation” in the mail, then paid almost $1,500 to attend a three-day real estate retreat, where he paid almost $35,000 more for additional training.

In his certification, Judge Curiel wrote, “Although [Trump] may yet show that plaintiff and the putative class members knew or should have known that defendant had devised a scheme to falsely market Trump University via mail or wire prior to October 2009, the court is satisfied that determination of defendant’s statute of limitations defense in this case will not defeat the predominance of common issues in this case.”

Judge Curiel also ruled that Cohen’s claims were typical of those among other proposed class members because plaintiff’s description of his experience with Trump University matched the allegations alleged on behalf of the putative class in his complaint.

The case is Art Cohen et al. v. Donald J. Trump, case number 3:13-cv-02519, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

Top Settlements

Asbestos Settlement Stands. Asbestos—the problem that will not die. But here’s a good result from a bad situation. An $18 million dollar asbestos settlement will stand, as ordered by the judges involved in the Izell case in California. The lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs Bobbie and Helen Izell alleging Bobbie developed mesothelioma from asbestos exposure to defendant Union Carbide’s products, resulting in his death.

Until 1985, Union Carbide was a supplier of asbestos to companies that made and marketed products for the construction industry. According to their lawsuit, Bobbie Izell owned a construction company and built about 200 homes in California between 1964 and 1994. While he did not work as a laborer or supervisor, the plaintiff alleges he often visited the jobsites.

At the time the lawsuit went to court, just five defendants remained, including Union Carbide. The trial took four weeks and the jury found for Izell, awarding the plaintiffs $30 million in compensatory damages and $18 million in punitive damages. The award consisted of $5 million in past and $10 million in future non-economic damages and $5 million in past and $10 million in future loss of consortium damages. The jury assigned 65 percent liability to Union Carbide. However, the award for compensatory damages was reduced by $24 million to $6 million.

Paper carriers taking checks to the bank! Read all about it! Yup—they won their employment lawsuit against the publishers of the now bankrupt North County News in San Diego. The $3.2 settlement ends claims against Lee Publications Inc, alleging the carriers they were misclassified and undercompensated as independent contractors, and unfairly dinged for missed or wet papers.

The lawsuit was filed in 2008 by plaintiffs seeking to represent roughly 800 home-delivery carriers who alleged the publisher treated them like employees but paid them like contractors. The lawsuit further claimed Lee personnel supervised, trained and otherwise treated them like employees but, in violation of California labor laws, denied them overtime, meal and rest breaks, and other employee benefits, according to their complaint.

According to the complaint, the company also docked its carriers up to $5 for each customer complaint about damaged, wet or “allegedly undelivered” papers, which, the plaintiffs argued was an attempt by Lee to make the plaintiffs unlawful insurers of the company’s merchandise. Allegedly, the carriers were given more papers than they had customers on their delivery route, and then Lee would deduct from their compensation the cost for each extra paper. Nice bunch to work for, not.

In the settlement, the class members will be eligible to receive shares in the $3.2 million fund, minus plaintiffs attorneys’ fees and costs, and $36,000 total for eight lead plaintiffs. Bet they’re celebrating this weekend.

Hokee Dokee—Time to adjourn for the week. Have a fab weekend—See you at the bar!

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

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

Top Class Action Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Class Action Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Breached the fiduciary duty owed to the timeshare owners

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

So—be interesting to see how this is resolved…

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Class Members in the Settlement are:

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

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

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

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

Week Adjourned: 3.8.13 – ADT, Hertz, Asbestos

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

Top Class Action Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Class Action Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok—that’s a wrap. See you at the bar.

Week Adjourned: 11.11.11

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

Top Class Actions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Week Adjourned: 9.30.11

This week’s wrap on Class Action lawsuits and Settlements, September 30, 2011

Top Class Actions

NCAA Concussion Lawsuit Filed. Again. It’s about time! Two former college football players who suffer from the residual effects of head injuries filed an class-action lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), accusing the governing body of neglecting to protect student-athletes from concussions and their aftermath.

The class action lawsuit accuses the NCAA of turning a blind eye to coaches who teach players to use their heads for tackling, failing to establish a NCAA-wide system for screening head injuries and shirking its financial obligations to injured student-athletes who need medical treatment after they’ve left college.

The case alleges that despite a mounting body of scientific evidence linking concussions to depression, dementia and early-onset Alzheimer’s, among a host of other medical problems, the NCAA has failed to enforce the safety measures it introduced in the 1970s. The lawsuit further claims that NCAA football coaches continue to encourage players to use tackling methods that promote head trauma, including helmet-to-helmet hits. The harshest penalty ever imposed on coaches who teach this tactic was a letter of reprimand, according to the complaint.

The lead plaintiffs in the suit are former University of Central Arkansas wide receiver Derek K. Owens and former Northwestern University offensive lineman Alex Rucks, who say their lives have been fundamentally altered as the result of brain trauma that could have been prevented.

Owens, 22, was hit in the head from behind while taking part in a voluntary practice the summer before his freshman season. According to the complaint, Owens never received medical attention from the team despite feeling dizzy, having difficulty seeing and being unable to drive home. The 2008 incident was the first of numerous head injuries for Owens, who was named Arkansas’ Top Offensive Player and one of the state’s top Scholar-Athletes his senior year of high school.

The second week of his first season, a linebacker knocked Owens unconscious in practice, according to the lawsuit. UCA’s trainers told Owens’ roommates he had a “severe concussion” and to wake him up every couple of hours. He sat out for several weeks until he was cleared to return to the practice team. During a 2010 game, Owens was returning a punt when he was leveled by an opposing player, who later called the play “the highlight of his career,” according to a story in the Tulsa World. Owens experienced memory loss, headaches, an inability to concentrate, anxiety and depression. His grades plummeted despite his once-sterling academic record. In May of 2011, he dropped out of school and football as a result of the debilitating effects of repeated head trauma.

Rucks, who played at Northwestern from 2004 to 2008, was never formally diagnosed with a brain injury, but suffered numerous blows to his head that led to symptoms consistent with a concussion. The NCAA never tested or followed-up with Rucks to determine whether he’d been concussed, or if he was experiencing post-concussion syndrome, the lawsuit alleges.

Since his playing days, Owens has suffered from the symptoms of post-concussion syndrome, including the loss of concentration and memory, according to the complaint.

The lawsuit alleges the NCAA never encouraged football players to report or complain about their physical well-being, nor does it educate players about head-injury prevention or the telltale symptoms of a concussion.

The lawsuit, a class action, seeks to represent current or former NCAA football players who have medical or team records indicating they sustained a concussion(s) or suffered concussion-like symptoms while playing football at an NCAA school, and who have, since ending their NCAA careers, developed chronic headaches, dizziness, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease or other physical and mental problems as a result of the concussion and have incurred medical expenses from such injuries.

All class members would be notified that they may require frequent medical monitoring. NCAA-wide return-to-play guidelines would be established. The NCAA would mandate that team physicians learn to detect concussions and sub-concussions, as well as determining when a player is at an increased risk of harm. It also seeks to redress the intangible losses suffered by these class members.

Top Settlements

Asbestos Mesothelioma Lawsuit Settlement. Another asbestos settlement to report this week. A jury in Orleans Parish Civil District Court has ruled that three companies are liable for $7.55 million in damages for exposing former employee Thomas Kenney to asbestos. Kenny has been diagnosed with malignant asbestos mesothelioma.

Mr. Kenney sued Rexam Beverage Can Co., John Crane Inc and Haveg Inc, among others, claiming that he was exposed to asbestos while working in a canning factory and a refinery in the 60s and 70s. The jury hearing his case found John Crane, Rexam and Haveg liable for Kenny’s asbestos exposure and Rexam liable for the dangerous levels of asbestos, which was located in its canning factory in New Orleans’ Mid-City neighborhood. The old canning factory has since been refurbished and converted into an apartment complex.

Reebok to Atone for its Toning Shoes Claims: While the jury may be out on whether or not these shoes actually do tone your butt and abs, the Federal Trade Commission isn’t wasting time making up its mind. Reebok has agreed to pay $25M to settle charges brought by the Federal Trade Commission alleging that the athletic shoe manufacturer falsely advertised its “toning” shoes, making claims that the shoes could measurably strengthen the muscles in the legs, thighs and buttocks.

Among the claims the FTC found offensive–and possibly downright misleading—are that the EasyTone footwear is proven to increase the strength and tone of your gluteus maximus muscles by 28% (really?) and give you 11% more strength in your hamstring and calf muscles—(really)—compared with regular walking shoes—whatever those are.

The FTC settlement is the first, and results from its investigation into the advertising claims made by Reebok. However, other companies such as New Balance and Sketchers have also aced lawsuits over their advertising claims.

Ok—That’s it for this week. See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 9.23.11

Weekly roundup of latest class action lawsuits and settlements, September 23, 2011

Top Class Actions

Engine Trouble for Mercedes-Benz? Well, last week we reported on a proposed settlement between Mercedes Benz and some unhappy customers who allege consumer fraud over Mercedes Benz USA failing to inform buyers of its luxury vehicles with analog Tele Aid communication systems that the company planned to phase out the analogue emergency communications systems altogether on its models from 2003-2006.

This week, Mercedes Benz is back on the books with a defective product class action. The allegations? Premature wear taking place with its M156 engines, specifically the cam shafts. The suit alleges that the premature wear in the M156 V8 (63 AMG) engine leads to engine problems and in some instances engine failure.

The lawsuit states that the camshafts used are made of cast nodular iron but the valve lifters used are made of 9310 grade steel, and that the combination of these metals as designed is contributing to premature wear of the M156 motors. The suit alleges that Mercedes and AMG (Aufrecht Melcher Grossaspach), a division of Mercedes that sells the high-end M156 have known about this issue since 2007. According to the lawsuit, the luxury vehicles sell for between $60K and $200K. OK, for that kind of money I would not be expecting engine problems – ever.

Top Settlements

Libby Montana Asbestos Settlement. This is a biggy and a long time in coming…long-suffering, potentially terminally ill residents of Libby, Montana, suffering from asbestos-related illnesses including asbestosis and mesothelioma have been awarded a $43 million settlement by a judge in that state. The people were made ill as a result of their exposure to asbestos from the infamous W.R. Grace asbestos mine in Libby, Montana. Reports indicate that a large part of the settlement will be paid by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway.

The settlement resolves a lawsuit filed against the state and the mine by former miners and their families who accused the state of failing to properly oversee the mine or warn workers of dangers there. Miners had originally sued W.R. Grace but after the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2001, they sued the state for failing to adequately protect them, court documents state.

Some 1,400 people are expected to receive payouts from the settlement, which was approved September 8, by Montana District Court Judge Jeffrey M. Sherlock, ending ten years of legal wrangling. However, while the settlement ends numerous cases and claims against Montana it “expressly reserves their claims against all other responsible parties,” according to the agreement.

Many of the people who suffered asbestos exposure from the Libby mine are now over the age of 65, and others have since died of asbestos-related diseases such as asbestosis and cancers such as mesothelioma, records show. It may be a good ending but it’s certainly not a good story.

Snap, Crackle…Pop! Goes the Immunity Claim… Ok—hands up—how many of you actually believe a breakfast cereal could boost your immune system? Really.

But no matter, as long as the claim is made…

Kellogg, finding itself in a position of having to defend such a claim, to a potential class of consumers who filed a consumer fraud lawsuit, has proposed a settlement… cheaper than going to court after all.

In a nutshell, the lawsuit claims the Kellogg Company falsely advertised that Rice Krispies cereal and Cocoa Krispies cereal supported a person’s immunity system despite not having competent clinical evidence to support the claim. Now there’s a surprise.

So—if you purchased Kellogg’s Rice Krispies Cereal or Cocoa Krispies Cereal between June 1, 2009 and March 1, 2010, you may be entitled to a cash refund from a class action settlement.

The only way to get a cash refund: Claim Forms must either be submitted online or postmarked by November 16, 2011. If you wish, you can get out of the lawsuits and the settlement. Get no cash refund. If you wanted to exclude yourself, you must have sent an request postmarked no later than July 30, 2011. The deadline to file an objection to the settlement was July 25, 2011. If you do nothing, you will get no cash refund. However, any leftover money will be donated to one or more charities.

OK. That’s it for this week. See you at the Bar. (I’ve been told a Bloody Mary is also good for the immune system…)

Week Adjourned: 8.19.11

Top Class Actions

Vita Coco a bit Loco with their Health Claims? A consumer fraud class action lawsuit was filed this week, against All Market Inc., the manufacturer of Vita Coco Coconut Water, over allegations that you ain’t getting what you pay for.

The plaintiff in the lawsuit alleges that Vita Coco products are falsely marketed as “super-hydrating,” “nutrient-packed,” “mega-electrolyte,” “life-enhancing,” and healthy “super-water” that should be regularly consumed to help maintain optimal hydration. In reality, Vita Coco products are no more hydrating than a standard sports drink and, for some Vita Coco products, do not even contain the levels of electrolytes indicated on their nutritional labels.

According to a recent independent study, certain Vita Coco products have nearly 50% less sodium and significantly less magnesium than advertised.

Lawyers representing the plaintiffs state that consumers are paying a premium for a product that simply does not live up to its health claims, and that Vita Coco products do not deliver on their nutritional promises. Well, if the products lived up to the advertising they should be putting that stuff in the tap water!

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of purchasers of Vita Coco products between August 10, 2007 and the present.

Top Settlements

Asbestos Mesothelioma Lawsuits Continue to Rise. These two asbestos settlements total $51 million. Separate verdicts totaling $32 million and more than $19 million were awarded on August 17 in cases involving individuals who contracted asbestos mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos.

In the case of Ronald Dummitt and Doris Kay Dummitt v. A.W. Chesterton, et al., a jury found Crane Co. and Elliott Turbomachinery Co., responsible for the asbestos exposure that led to a U.S. Navy boiler tender’s diagnosis of pleural mesothelioma, an incurable form of cancer.

In returning its verdict, the jury determined that Crane and Elliott acted with a reckless disregard for the safety of others in failing to warn. The jury apportioned 99 percent responsibility to Crane and 1 percent responsibility to Elliott. The award included $16 million in past pain and suffering and $16 million in future pain and suffering to Mr. Dummitt.

In the case of David Konstantin and Ruby Konstantin v. 630 Third Avenue Associates, et al., the jury found Tishman Liquidating Corporation, formerly known as Tishman Realty & Construction, Co., Inc., responsible for Mr. Konstantin developing mesothelioma of the tunica vaginalis, one of the rarest forms of cancer in the world. Like all cases of mesothelioma, this form of the disease is not curable.

The jury found Tishman 76 percent liable and to have acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others. The jury awarded Mr. Konstantin $7 million for past pain and suffering, and $12 million for future pain and suffering. The verdict amount also included $64,832 for past lost wages, and $485,325 for future lost wages.

If ever there were an Argument for Being your own Health Advocate… this would probably be it. A man admitted to Temple University Hospital for three severe hypoglycemic episodes over two days, episodes that left him with permanent brain damage—by the way—has been awarded $19 million in settlement of his medical malpractice lawsuit.

The short version of his terrifying story is that after having been released from hospital without a diagnosis or explanation as to why he was suffering from hypoglycemia, Ronald S. Campbell was admitted and subsequently discharged again—and for the last time—at 1:04 am. The middle of the night—or the wee hours of the morning. Whichever you prefer to call it, Campbell’s lawyers argued, rightly, that it was a time when his family would probably be asleep (you think?) and that hospital staff knew that and that Campbell’s family would therefore not able to monitor his condition.

In their defense, the hospital said it met the standard of care in restoring Campbell’s blood sugar to a stable level and noted that he had been previously noncompliant with insulin instructions. Yes—but since when do you discharge people in the middle of the night—and without figuring out what was going on? This whole situation may have been preventable… but instead he has brain damage.

OK. That’s it for this week. See you at the Bar—pool bar most likely.

Week Adjourned: 7.30.11

Top Class Actions

Guaranteed Rate but Not Guaranteed Pay? That’s the story according to loan officers who worked for Guaranteed Rate Inc (GRI) and filed a wages and overtime class action lawsuit against the mortgage lender this week.

The lawsuit alleges that GRI violated the rights of loan officers under the California Labor Code. That’s not very nice. The lawsuit alleges that the mortgage lender unlawfully paid loan officers below minimum wage, failed to compensate them for overtime hours worked and unjustly deducted expenses from previously earned wages, in violation of state wage and hour laws.

The complaint also claims that Guaranteed Rate incorrectly and intentionally classified loan officers as “outside salespeople,” making them exempt from some minimum wage and overtime regulations. Oh, that old chestnut. Never dies, does it.

Predictably, these outside sales employees claim to have spent more than 50 percent of their working time in their homes, which the employees argue is considered the employer’s places of business for purposes of the outside sales exemption from minimum and overtime wage laws.

The Guaranteed Rate Loan Officer class action lawsuit further alleges that the mortgage lender intentionally misclassified the loan officers as outside salespeople in order to avoid overtime and minimum wage requirements in violation of California employment laws. Specifically, the complaint states, the sales plaintiff was paid a “percentage of the profit obtained from the sale of the loan” and as a result “there were pay periods during which the Plaintiff received less than minimum wage or no compensation.” This compensation structure caused the loan officers to often work more than 8 hours per day and/or 5 days per week, which was allegedly known by the the Mortgage Loan Company.

According to California overtime laws, employers are required to pay employees overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of eight hours in a single workday or forty hours in a workweek.

Top Settlements

Another Big Asbestos Settlement. A painter who was recently diagnosed with terminal asbestos mesothelioma caused by his exposure to asbestos-laiden products, was awarded $8.5 million in settlement of his asbestos lawsuit.

Bernard Steffen alleged that while working as a commercial painter and handyman he was exposed to products including stucco, molding and construction materials that contain asbestos. In his lawsuit he named as defendants the many manufacturers of the products, claiming that they knew of the dangers associated with their products yet failed to provide appropriate warnings.

The named defendants who went to court were cement maker CalPortland Co., molding material maker Cytec Engineered Materials and product supplier Union Carbide,all of whom denied the allegations. The jury found CalPortland and Union Carbide each 10 percent liable; remaining liability was divided amongst defendants who were no longer in the case at trial. Cytec was found not liable.

The storm around Katrina—will it ever end? Maybe. Preliminary approval of a $25 million settlement of a class action lawsuit against Tenet Healthcare Corp and subsidiaries has been granted by Orleans Parish Chief Judge Rosemary Ledet.

The lawsuit was filed following and as a result of Hurricane Katrina in which Tenet’s Memorial Medical Center in New Orleans was flooded, and dozens of people, patients and visitors, suffered as a result. A class of plaintiffs represents patients and family of patients who died in the hospital during the storm: 45 patients died during in the hospital during the storm, and doctors later admitted to having used euthanasia on patients, but no criminal charges were brought.

According to a report in the Louisana Record, the lawsuit states that approximately 187 patients and 800 visitors were in the hospital during and after the storm.

The lawsuit alleges that Tenet was liable for failing to adequately prepare the hospital for flooding before Katrina despite warnings from the hospital’s maintenance staff. The back-up power source in the hospital failed during the hurricane, as a result of flooding caused when the federally built levees broke, letting floodwater into the city. According to court documents, Tenet had argued that the dangerous environment at the hospital was a result of the failed levees and shoddy government response to the storm.

Tenet staff spent several days urgently seeking help from several federal agencies including the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Coast Guard. The Tenet settlement releases Tenet and its partners from all liability.

OK. That’s it for this week. See you at the Bar.

Week Adjourned: 7.9.11

Top Class Actions

Pricey Prescriptions? This is nothing short of scandalous, if the allegations prove true. A nationwide consumer fraud class action lawsuit was filed against CVS Caremark, the largest pharmacy health care provider in the United States and the owners of CVS.com, for allegedly double-billing its customers for the price of prescription drugs.

The lawsuit claims that CVS’s nationwide billing system double-bills the price of prescription drugs to CVS customers who have a high deductible health plan that is coupled with a health reimbursement account or health savings account (HSA) and who use a prescription drug coupon. CVS’s billing system isn’t equipped to handle this coordination of benefits, and as a result, it’s alleged that CVS uniformly double-bills these customers–taking cash from the customer at the time of sale and then later taking cash from their HSA. Unbelievable!

The class action lawsuit brings the claim on behalf of all CVS customers who were allegedly double-billed the price of prescription drugs and seeks damages on behalf of those customers estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands across the country. Check your receipts and your statements!

Top Settlements

Asbestos Mesothelioma Settlement. Another large asbestos-illness lawsuit was settled this week, with an Orleans Parish Civil District Court jury hearing the lawsuit finding in favor of the plaintiff. The jury awarded Leopold Granier Jr, a $1.5 million settlement in general damages, and $104,160.77 in special damages.

Mr. Granier developed asbestos mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to asbestos, asbestos he was allegedly exposed to through the negligence of Avondale Shipyards, Cajun Insulation and Union Carbide Corp. The jury produced a four page verdict, which found that Avondale, Cajun and Union Carbide were strictly liable and that the products in their possession were a “substantial and contributing cause” of Granier’s mesothelioma.

The jury also found that Union Carbide, in particular, was strictly liable because asbestos materials incorporated into the company’s Taft, La., plant were a “substantial and contributing cause” of the man’s cancer. I guess there’s no surprise there.

Avondale shipyard was, at one time, the largest employer in the state of Louisiana, employing more than 20,000 people. The shipyard was acquired by Northrop Grumman Corp., and is now slated to close in 2013. Northrop Grumman made the decision as a result of a reduced order for warships from the US Navy.

20,000 employees is no small business…I wonder how many more asbestos lawsuits Avondale could find itself on the end of?

Would You Prefer Still, Sparkling or Tap Water? Maybe it’s further proof that tap is just fine, thanks, as this sounds like a nightmare come true—a woman who was mistakenly given a bottle containing a poisonous chemical instead of drinking water subsequently suffered second and third degree burns to her esophagus and permanent damage (no kidding). She sued, and was recently awarded $3.3 million in her product liability lawsuit.

Julia Ellis suffered the life-altering burns in 2007. She was at Harvey’s Lake Tahoe Hotel and Casino in Stateline, NV, when she was given a bottle labeled “Harrah’s Purified Drinking Water.”

As a result of her injuries, Ellis can now eat only pureed or soft foods. She sued Harvey’s and Harrah’s on claims of strict products liability, breach of warranty and premises liability.

OK. That’s it for this week. See you at the Bar. Watch what you’re drinking!