Class Action Lawsuit

Week Adjourned: 1.17.14 – Stewart’s Shops, Brazilian Blowout, Elite Models

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories this week include Stewart’s Shops, Brazilian Blowout and Elite Model Management.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Stewart’s not-so-sweet deal for employees? According to company staff, yes indeedy. They filed an unpaid wage and hour class action lawsuit against Stewart’s Shops alleging violations of state and federal wage and hour laws.

Filed on January 9, 2014, in Federal District Court (Northern District of New York), the Stewart’s wage and hour lawsuit specifically claims that Stewart’s Shops failed to compensate employees for all hours worked by routinely requiring employees to perform work before and after their scheduled shifts without compensation.

The lawsuit also alleges that the defendant routinely deprived employees of mandatory meal breaks; failed to implement an accurate and effective method to record time worked by employees; failed to provide employees with mandatory disclosures concerning their rate of pay; and failed to pay for the cost to launder and maintain required uniforms.

The lawsuit is seeking class action status on behalf of 4,500 current and former Stewart’s Shops employees throughout New York and Vermont. FYI- Stewart’s Shops, headquartered in Saratoga Springs, NY, operates over 300 stores located across upstate New York and southern Vermont.

Top Settlements

What a Blow Out! It’s approved! The proposed $4.5 million settlement in the Brazilian Blowout class action lawsuit has received final approval. Cast your minds back to 2013 – when a consumer fraud lawsuit was filed against the company alleging BB failed to warn customers that its hair straightening product emit toxic formaldehyde gas, while the label states the product is “formaldehyde-free”.

Specifically, the lawsuit, entitled formaldehyde gas, GIB LLC Cases, JCCP No. 4657 and in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, in a case entitled In Re Brazilian Blowout Litigation, Case No. CV 10-08452 JFW (MANx), alleged that Defendants’ hair smoothing – products known as Brazilian Blowout Solution and Brazilian Blowout Acai Professional Smoothing Solution (hereinafter referred to as “Brazilian Blowout Products”) contain formaldehyde and other harsh chemicals, which Defendants failed to disclose and affirmatively represented as “formaldehyde free,” “contain[s] no formaldehyde,” and “contain[s] no harsh chemicals,” and as being “100% salon safe.”

The Proposed Brazilian Blowout Settlement provides, among other things, for the creation of a Gross Settlement Fund in the amount of $4,225,000, and the distribution of payments from the Settlement Fund to Class members who submit Valid Claims for monetary settlement payments.

Eligible class members may be covered by the Proposed Settlement if (1) they are a person in the United States who purchased Brazilian Blowout Products directly from GIB, LLC or one of its authorized distributors on or before June 6, 2012 (“Stylist” Class member), or (2) they are a person in the United States who underwent a treatment using Brazilian Blowout Products on or before June 6, 2012 (“Consumer” Class member).

To download claim forms and for more information on the Brazilian Blowout class action settlement, visit http://www.brazilianblowoutsettlement.com/

Elite – a Model Defendant? Elite Model Management is being praised (?) for its speed in agreeing to a $450K out of court settlement of an unpaid intern class action lawsuit filed last February.

The Elite Model Management lawsuit was filed by plaintiff Dajia Davenport, who interned at the agency in the summer of 2010. It states that Elite “deliberately misclassifies its interns as exempt from wage requirements,” despite the fact that they work over 40 hours per week.

Filed in February, the lawsuit sought a minimum of $50 million in unpaid wages, overtime pay, liquidated damages, interest and attorneys’ fees for unpaid interns who worked for Elite between February, 2007, and the date of a final judgment.

The terms of the settlement will guarantee participating the over 100 interns who make up the “Class” a minimum payment of $700, and as much as $1,750. It is reportedly the largest of an unpaid intern class action lawsuit settlement so far.

A final settlement hearing is scheduled for May 1, 2014.

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

Week Adjourned: 1.10.14 – Target Data Breach, Carfax, JP Morgan Chase

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories include the Target Data Breach lawsuit, Carfax, and more from Mr. Madoff…

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Target targeted, by a computer virus and now a class action lawsuit. In case you hadn’t heard—the US’s second largest retailer got hit with a massive data breach just before Christmas—which latest reports indicate could affect as many as 70 million customer’s credit and debit cards.

Filed in California federal court by lead plaintiff Lisa Purcell (“Plaintiff”), the Target lawsuit seeks to represent all those similarly situated to obtain damages, restitution and injunctive relief for the Class. “The information Target lost, including Plaintiff’s identifying information and other financial information, is extremely valuable to thieves. As the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) recognizes, once identity thieves have personal information, they can drain your bank account, run up your credit cards, open new utility accounts, or get medical treatment on your health insurance,” the lawsuit states.

According to a statement issued by Target, the so-called track data was stolen in real time as payment cards were swiped in its stores between November 27, the day before Thanksgiving, and December 15.

The Target lawsuit states “Investigators believe the data was obtained via software installed on machines that customers use to swipe magnetic strips on their cards when paying for merchandise at Target stores.” And “The thieves may also have accessed PIN numbers for affected customers’ debit cards, allowing the thieves to withdraw money from those customers’ bank accounts. Thieves could not have accessed this information and installed the software on Target’s point-of-sale machines but for Target’s negligence, and that Target failed to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature and scope of the information compromised in the data breach.”

Among the allegations is the clam that Target was negligent in its failure to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature and scope of the information compromised in the data breach. Further, “Target unreasonably delayed informing anyone about the breach of security of Class Members’ confidential and personal information after Target knew the data breach had occurred,” the lawsuit states.

FYI—investigations into the breach are reportedly underway by the US Secret Service and two states’ attorneys general.

Carfax taking some Flak. An antitrust class action lawsuit has been filed against Carfax, alleging the company impairs competition through its exclusive and illegal alliances with Autotrader.com, and Cars.com, as well as with the majority of the automobile manufacturers’ certified pre-owned programs. The lawsuit further alleges that, as a result, automobile dealers are forced to conduct business with CARFAX at grossly inflated prices only to have CARFAX spend these inflated revenues on ads that disparage dealers as dishonest and untrustworthy.

The lawsuit, entitled Maxon Hyundai Mazda et-al. vs. Carfax, Inc, currently has approximately 500 dealer plaintiffs signed up, a number that is expected to increase as the suit progresses.

Top Settlements

More from Madoff… Ok—here’s one for the record books—a settlement for the Class of BLMIS/Madoff customers has been reached affecting (“Class Action Settlement”) all potential claims against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and its parents, subsidiaries and affiliates (“JPMorgan”). The proposed Class Action Settlement will be contemporaneously presented by motions for approval to both United States District Court Judge McMahon and to Bankruptcy Court Judge Lifland. The filed case number is 11-cv-7866 (VM) (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D.N.Y.).

The settlement of this Class Action is one part of a multi-part resolution of Madoff-related litigation against JPMorgan involving simultaneous, separately negotiated settlements, which include the Class Action Settlement in the amount of $218 million, the SIPA Trustee’s Avoidance Action settlement in the amount of $325 million, and a resolution with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York that includes a civil forfeiture in the amount of $1.7 billion.

The payments by JPMorgan in connection with these agreements will total $2.243 billion and will benefit victims of Madoff’s Ponzi scheme.

Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. Happy New Year! Here’s to a peaceful and prosperous 2014 for all.

Week Adjourned: 1.3.14 – Facebook, Hyundai Kia, Royal Health

Top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending January 3, 2014. Top class actions include Facebook, Hyundai, Kia and Royal Health.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Hashtag Privacy Please! Naughty, naughty! Facebook’s allegedly been peeping into your privates—messages that is…which, a potential class action lawsuit claims, is in violation of federal and state laws.

Filed by two Facebook users against Facebook the lawsuit alleges the social media platform scans messages between users labeled “private” for links and other information that can be sold to third parties including advertisers, marketers and data aggregators. The Facebook lawsuit is seeking class action status, with a potential 166 million Facebook users in the US eligible to join the class, if it is certified.

Plaintiffs Matthew Campbell from Arkansas and Michael Hurley from Oregon filed the lawsuit in a US district court in Northern California, alleging Facebook data mines “private” messages without disclosing it does so, or seeking users’ consent. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges Facebook’s intercepting and using links in “private” messages between users is in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and California privacy and unfair competition laws.

“Facebook’s desire to harness the myriad data points of its users has led to overreach and intrusion … as it mines its account holders’ private communications for monetary gain,” the lawsuit contends.

Great start to the New Year guys!

Top Settlements

Holy Hyundai! (ok, bad, I know) A preliminary $395 settlement has been reached in a consumer fraud class action pending against Hyundai Motor Corp. and Kia Motors alleging gas mileage rating were overstated by the automotive manufacturers. The settlement will affect some 600,000 of Hyundai’s 2011-13 models and about 300,000 of Kia‘s 2011-13 models in the US.

The back story? ….In November 2012, Hyundai and Kia Motors agreed to restate expected gas mileage for 1.1 million vehicles in North America, following an investigation by the Environmental Protection Agency. The automakers admitted they after overstated mileage claims on vehicle window stickers for 900,000 vehicles in the United States. The settlement impacts about 600,000 of Hyundai’s 2011-13 models and about 300,000 of Kia‘s 2011-13 models in the U.S. Hyundai’s settlement is valued at up to $210 million, while Kia’s is valued at $185 million.

The 2012 restatement reduced Hyundai-Kia’s fleetwide average fuel economy from 27 to 26 mpg for the 2012 model year. Individual ratings, depending on the car, will fall from 1 mpg to 6 mpg. Most vehicles saw combined city-highway efficiency drop by 1 mpg, the Detroit News reports. Exact figures will depend on how many customers elect to participate in the settlement’s one-time lump sum payment option or remain in the lifetime reimbursement program, the automakers said.

The Hyundai Kia settlement will resolve more than 50 lawsuits filed across the country to address the issue. Hyundai agreed to add the option of taking a lump sum payment. The proposed cash amount, which varies by vehicle model and ownership type, will result in an average payment of $353 to Hyundai owners and lessees. For example, an owner of a 2012 Elantra would receive a lump sum payment of $320 minus any previous reimbursement payments. For Kia owners, the proposed average cash lump-sum amount will be about $667.

A federal judge is expected to review the proposed settlement for preliminary approval in early 2014. If approved, settlement notices will be sent to individual class members. To get the full skinny on initial details of the settlement, you can visit hyundaimpginfo.com or www.kiampginfo.com.

Royal Health to Shell Out a Royal $1.94 Million …in unpaid overtime. Yup. A preliminary settlement has been reached in an unpaid overtime class action lawsuit pending against Royal Health Care of Long Island LLC. Employees who filed the class action alleged the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York state labor laws by not paying them overtime pay.

In their employment lawsuit, the 411 plaintiffs allege Royal Health misclassified their positions as Representative, which are exempt from the overtime provisions stipulated under the FLSA and NYLL, and thereby failed to pay Plaintiffs overtime when they worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Under the terms of the Royal Health settlement, the Royal Health will pay $1.94 million to plaintiffs who worked eight weeks or more, between May 2006 to May 2013. If approved, funds will be distributed proportionally among the Class Members based on number of weeks each worked at Royal Health Care. An incentive award of $10,000 each will also be given to the four original named plaintiffs.

A Fairness Hearing is scheduled for January 6, 2014. The Royal Health Care Unpaid Overtime Class Action Lawsuit is Chandrakalli Sukhnandan et al. v. Royal Health Care of Long Island LLC, Case No. 1:12-cv-04216, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. Happy New Year! Here’s to a peaceful and prosperous 2014 for all.

Week Adjourned: 12.27.13 – Target, Meningitis Outbreak, Costco

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements including Target data breach, the Meningitis outbreak of 2012, and Costco gender discrimination.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Guess that 10% Discount wasn’t enough… This one made international headlines in December—well the data breach did. This week, a class action lawsuit was filed against retail giant Target, over the data breach of up to 40 million customer’s credit and debit cards.

Filed in California federal court by lead plaintiff Lisa Purcell (“Plaintiff”), the Target lawsuit seeks to represent all those similarly situated to obtain damages, restitution and injunctive relief for the Class. “The information Target lost, including Plaintiff’s identifying information and other financial information, is extremely valuable to thieves. As the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) recognizes, once identity thieves have personal information, they can drain your bank account, run up your credit cards, open new utility accounts, or get medical treatment on your health insurance,”’ the lawsuit states.

The Target data breach lawsuit states “ Investigators believe the data was obtained via software installed on machines that customers use to swipe magnetic strips on their cards when paying for merchandise at Target stores.” And “The thieves may also have accessed PIN numbers for affected customers’ debit cards, allowing the thieves to withdraw money from those customers’ bank accounts. Thieves could not have accessed this information and installed the software on Target’s point-of-sale machines but for Target’s negligence, and that Target failed to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature and scope of the information compromised in the data breach.”

Among the allegations is the clam that Target was negligent in its failure to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature and scope of the information compromised in the data breach. Further, “Target unreasonably delayed informing anyone about the breach of security of Class Members’ confidential and personal information after Target knew the data breach had occurred,” the lawsuit states.

Not so very Ho Ho Ho.

Top Settlements

Remember this? 2012—Nationwide Meningitis Outbreak? Sure you do. The outbreak affected over 700 people, with 64 fatalities in 20 states? Well, this week a $100M settlement was reached between the compounding pharmacy allegedly behind a massive fungal meningitis outbreak last year and victims and their families.

Paul Moore, a trustee of the now bankrupt New England Compounding Center, supported the preliminary settlement agreement. “We are pleased that a significant amount of funds will become available for distribution to victims and their families as compensation for the deaths, injuries and suffering they endured as a result of this tragic meningitis outbreak,” Moore told CNN.com. If approved, the settlement will also be used to pay out the pharmacy’s creditors.

In a statement issued announcing the settlement, the pharmacy’s owners said they deny any liability or wrongdoing, but want to play a major role in establishing a fund for those who died or suffered “as a result of this tragic outbreak.”

Bet Women at Wal-Mart are Watching this one… Costco has agreed to a tentative $8 million settlement in a gender discrimination class action lawsuit At the heart of the lawsuit are allegations the wholesale retailer engages in promotion practices that disadvantage women in the company: rather than posting positions internally and letting qualified candidates apply, candidates were hand-picked for promotions to managerial positions. The result was that fewer women rose to senior managerial positions.

If the Costco settlement is approved, it would provide compensation for current and former employees who were incorrectly denied promotions. Claimants still with the company who were improperly denied promotions may be eligible to receive up to $50,000, and former employees up to $300,000, depending on the position. Also part of the settlement terms is an undertaking by Costco to reform its internal promotion process, to allow employees equal opportunity to apply for management jobs going forward. A fairness hearing is scheduled for February 2014.

The lawsuit alleges Costco has pursued policies and practices on a continuing basis which result in the denial of equal job opportunities to qualified women. Specifically:

Relying upon subjective, gender-based and/or arbitrary criteria utilized by a nearly all male managerial workers in making promotion and compensation decisions;

Failing to follow a uniform job posting procedure to guarantee that all employees have notice of openings;

Discouraging females from applying for senior level management positions;

Failing and refusing to consider females for promotion on the same basis as males are considered;

Failing and refusing to promote females on the same basis as males are promoted and compensated;

Failing to provide females with accurate and timely notice of promotional opportunities; and

Maintaining and fostering a reputation for discriminatory conduct which deters females from pursuing promotion opportunities with Costco.

The initial lawsuit was filed in 2002, and refiled in 2004. It was not certified until September 2012. Talk about “keeping the faith!”

Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. Happy Holidays, be safe, and we’ll see you at the bar in 2014!

Week Adjourned: 12.20.13 – Snooki Diet, Major Bank Credit Card Fees x 2

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top class actions for the week include Snooki’s would-be diet wonder and major bank credit card fees.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Is Snooki snookered? And maybe those of us using Zantrex? Christmas is not a good time to get the news that your diet pills may be snake oil. But, really, it shouldn’t come as a surprise. Snooki, of “Jersey Shore” fame, is facing a federal consumer fraud class action lawsuit over allegations she promoted the diet pill Zantrex knowing that the pills don’t work. http://www.bigclassaction.com/lawsuit/snooki-zantrex-diet-pills-consumer-fraud-class.php

Basic Research LLC, Zoller Laboratories, three of their officers, and Nicole Polizzi aka Snooki are named as defendants by lead plaintiff Ashley Brady, who claims Zantrex combines caffeine with herbs that are “unsafe and ineffective for weight control or appetite suppression.” Brady further alleges that the three officers have been ordered to cease and desist selling fraudulent weight-loss products.

So re: the Snooki Zantrex lawsuit, here’s the skinny—(couldn’t resist that one) Brady alleges she bought a bottle of Zantrex-3 in 2010 after reading the label’s claims stating the drug would provide “546% More Weight Loss Than America’s #1 Selling Ephedra-Based Diet Pill,” and that it would make her lose weight “without diet and exercise.” (OK, what’s your first clue.)

According to the lawsuit, “Snooki represents … that Zantrex is safe and effective for weight loss and fat loss,” the lawsuit states. “These representations are false, misleading and deceptive because … Zantrex is neither effective nor safe for weight loss nor fat loss.” The complaint states that Snooki is the face of the Zantrex brand, promoting it on her websites, on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook, and in celebrity gossip magazines.

Basic Research bills itself as “one of the largest ‘nutraceutical’ companies in the United States, with annual sales revenues in excess of $50 million,” the lawsuit states. Further, all three officers have come under fire for similar fraudulent schemes in the past. Defendant Dennis W. Gay is a principal and director of both Basic Research and Zoller; the FTC enjoined him in a similar case weight-loss fraud in 2006, according to the lawsuit. Additionally, defendant Daniel B. Mowrey was also enjoined from this conduct by the FTC’s 2006 injunction, and defendant Mitchell K. Friedlander, with Basic Research received a cease-and-desist order from the US Postal Service in 1985, also involving allegedly fraudulent weight-loss products, and a second USPS order involving bogus breast enlargement products, according to the lawsuit.

What’s that expression—“it’s the company you keep.”

Ho Ho Ho Baby!

What is this? Instant Replay? Almost. Following on the heels of a huge settlement by Visa and Mastercard in an antitrust lawsuit brought by thousands of small businesses across the US, (see below), a consumer banking class action lawsuit has just been filed against four major banks alleging they conspired to fix “interchange fees,” attached to the use of those same banks’ credit cards.

Those additional fees have cost consumers billions, according to the allegations. But I’m getting ahead of myself…

Not to sound cynical, but the list of defendants shouldn’t’ come as a surprise. They are JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp., Capital One FSB and HSBC Bank USA NA. The allegations are that they conspired with credit card companies to arrange or ‘fix’ the swipe fees charged to customers when they use their credit cards. The credit care fee lawsuit contends this has cost cardholders (you and me)—are you ready for this—over $54 billion in illegal credit card and bank fees annually. That would fund a few retirement but not ours apparently. No surprise, the class action claims this “price fixing” is in violation of the Sherman Act and the California Business and Professions Code.

Filed by Melvin Salveson, Edward Lawrence, Dianna Lawrence and Wendy M. Adams, the potential class action seeks to represent a nationwide class of Visa and MasterCard holders.

The plaintiffs claim that they each purchased “thousands of dollars’ worth of goods and services and paid related Interchange Fees on Visa and MasterCard transactions at prices inflated by the Defendants’ price-fixing conspiracy over many years.” Further, because of these fees, the plaintiffs contend, they have purchased products at artificially inflated prices. According to the lawsuit, “This price-fixing conspiracy is ongoing and additional overcharge dollars are being extracted from Cardholders pursuant to the conspiracy every time they swipe their Visa and MasterCard payment cards.”

And—yes—there’s more—all this collusion has also resulted in a loss of competition from other cards, in that merchants were prevented, allegedly, from telling their customers that there were cheaper options when making a purchase

Entitled Salveson, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al., Case No. 13-cv-05816, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the lawsuit claims “In furtherance of the conspiracy, Defendants and their co-conspirators also agreed to and have collectively imposed restraints on competition, such as so-called ‘Exclusionary Rules,’ ‘No Discount Rules,’ ‘No Surcharge Rules,’ and ‘Honor All Cards Rules,’ as well as Anti-Steering and other restrictions imposed upon merchants to the detriment of Cardholders,” the lawsuit states. The effect of these rules is such that merchants are prevented or prohibited from informing customers about the true costs associated with different forms of payments and from offering consumers an option to use a credit card with lower fees.

Specifically, “Through their common control of both Visa and MasterCard, Defendants and their co-conspirators have stifled competition between Visa and MasterCard and have thwarted competition from smaller competitor networks such as American Express and Discover,” the class action lawsuit states. “This reduction in competition among general purpose payment card networks has resulted in higher Interchange Fees, hindered and delayed the development and implementation of improved network products and services, and has lessened consumer choice.”

So these allegations, if proved true, would go along way to explaining how Visa and Mastercard can afford to pony up $5.7 Billion to settle an antitrust class action…but not everyone is happy with this settlement…

Top Settlements

Visa & MasterCard Pay Up… A settlement has been approved in a credit card fees class action lawsuit, by a United States federal judge. The settlement is for an estimated $5.7B, between Visa Inc (NYSE:V) and MasterCard Inc . The lawsuit was brought by thousands of retailers who alleged the credit card companies fixed fees that are charged to merchants every time their customers made use of their debit or credit cards. Additionally, the lawsuit claimed that Visa and Mastercard prevented merchants from informing customers about other forms of payments that were considerably cheaper.

The judge’s approval came amidst objections from literally thousands of retailers who were complaining that this amount was inadequate. It is believed that this settlement is the largest in any United States antitrust class action.

The class action was initially brought against Visa, then Mastercard in 2005, with both companies accused of fee fixing. A fairness hearing was held in September. The original settlement amount was $7.2B but was reduced to $5.7B after thousands of merchants dropped out of the settlement deal. The updated Visa and MasterCard settlement provides for cash payments to merchants across the country and also permits then to start charging customers and additional fee whenever a Master or a Visa card is used.

The National Retail Federation’s general counsel, Mallory Duncan said in a statement that his organization which had opposed this deal was now reviewing the ruling that they are expecting to file an appeal.

Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. Happy Holidays, be safe, and we’ll see you at the bar in time for a toast to 2014!

Week Adjourned: 12.13.13 – Lumber Liquidators, Visiting Nurses, Wal-Mart

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements including Lumber Liquidators, Visiting Nurses and Wal-Mart gas can explosions.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Lumber Liquidators is in the woods over allegations it sold defective Chinese wood flooring that emits excessive levels of formaldehyde (raising memories of the Chinese Drywall debacle… )

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the lawsuit states, “Indeed, contrary to Lumber Liquidators’ repeated, detailed representations that its flooring complies with strict formaldehyde standards on its product labels, website, and elsewhere, the toxic formaldehyde emissions from the company’s Chinese flooring products are multiple times the maximum permissible limits set by those standards at the time of purchase.”

FYI—in 2011, formaldehyde was described as “known to be a human carcinogen,” by the US National Toxicology Program: a carcinogen is a substance or agent suspected to cause cancer. Terrific.

The plaintiffs in the Lumber Liquidators class action lawsuit, Donnie Williamson, Melissa Stini and Jennifer Hogencamp, further claim that the floor is illegally sourced through China from other countries, including Russia, threatening “critical habitat and endangered species.”

“Plaintiffs would have paid significantly less, if they purchased Chinese flooring at all, had they known that the products were sourced from endangered habitats and contained elevated levels of the toxin formaldehyde,” the lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs contend their flooring purchases—all of which were installed in their homes—are now “markedly less valuable.”

The plaintiffs are seeking damages for installation and removal costs, remediation costs, restocking fees, loss of use and diminished value, in addition to attorneys’ fees and costs, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest “at the highest rates allowed by law” on the damages awarded.

Another Case of Overworked and Underpaid? You know, the week just wouldn’t be complete without an unpaid wages and overtime class action. This week, it’s Nurses at Baystate Visiting Nurse Association (VNA) and Hospice who filed a class action lawsuit against Baystate Health. The Nurses are seeking to recover unpaid overtime and wages that have allegedly been withheld illegally by the employer—for several years.

The VNA nurses are routinely required to make preparations before their first home care visits for the day and subsequently to complete lengthy documentation of their visits, but are frequently not paid for that work which can sometimes take several hours per day. Computerized documentation has become more lengthy and cumbersome in recent years, but no accommodation has been made to allow nurses time to complete the required documentation during the normal course of the workday. As a result nurses have been forced to work many hours of unpaid time each week.

Baystate has been locked in a two-year dispute with its nurses at Baystate Franklin Medical Center regarding its demand to limit those nurses the right to overtime pay, while at the same time the organization has been failing to pay its BVNA&H nurses for their hours of work. Baystate Visiting Nurse Association & Hospice is a wholly owned subsidiary of Baystate Health. While allegedly withholding wages illegally from the nurses, Baystate Health is one of the most profitable health care conglomerates in the state, and its. CEO, Mark Tolosky, is one of the highest paid hospital CEOs in New England with a salary and benefits package of nearly $2 million annually.

Top Settlements

Wal-Mart Settles Exploding Gas Cans. Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest retailer (and among the most frequently sued), will pay $25 million as a settlement contribution to resolve a raft of personal injury lawsuits filed by people who were injured or had someone they knew killed by exploding portable plastic gas cans, NBC News reports. Wal-Mart is the largest US retailed of plastic gas cans, and sold tens of millions of Blitz gas cans, which, the lawsuits allege, had a safety defect. Blitz, the manufacturer of the gas cans, is in bankruptcy, largely due to the litigation and settlements.

During the past decade more than 80 lawsuits have been filed by people who allege the exploding gas cans caused them burn injuries. Defendants include some retailers as well as the manufacturer. Wal-Mart told NBC News it’s been named as a defendant in 24 of the lawsuits.

In those lawsuits, Blitz and Wal-Mart are accused of knowingly selling a defective product that could explode and produce catastrophic and sometimes fatal injuries. The lawsuits further claim the defendant (Blitz) refused to add a safety device, known as a flame arrester, to make the cans safer.

Parties to the Wal-Mart gas can lawsuits, including Blitz USA’s estate, debtors, participating insurers and Walmart, have agreed to contribute $161 million to settle with many of the plaintiffs, while denying liability. Wal-Mart’s settlement contribution amounts to just over 15 percent of the proposed $161 million fund that would settle dozens of lawsuits. A hearing on the proposed settlement is set for early next year NBC News reports.

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

Week Adjourned: 12.6.13 – Fisher-Price, Starbucks, FalconStor Software

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending December 6, 2013. Top class actions include Fisher Price, Starbucks and FalconStor Software.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Rock ‘N Mold? Heads-Up anyone who purchased a Fisher-Price Rock ‘N Play Bassinet or baby seat prior to January 2010:

Fisher Price and Mattel are facing a defective products class action lawsuit over allegations the Rock N Play baby seat has design flaws which results in it growing mold. Nice.

The Fisher-Price Rock ‘N Play Mold Growth Class Action Lawsuit, entitled is Butler v. Mattel Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-00306, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleges Mattel and Fisher-Price were aware of the Rock ‘N Play design flaw since 2010. Specifically, the lawsuit claims that the baby seat design does not allow for adequate ventilation around the seat, making the product conducive to dangerous mold growth. The lawsuit, states that mold “is linked with serious respiratory illnesses and inflammatory problems in infants and recent long-term studies have suggested that infants exposed to environmental mold are nearly three times as likely to develop asthma by age seven.”

The Consumer Product Safety Commission has received in excess of 600 consumer complaints alleging mold growth between the Rock ‘N Play’s removable cushion and plastic frame, prior to the device recall in January 2013. At the time, 16 complaints included reports of infants becoming sick from the mold. Fisher-Price faced at least on lawsuit filed by a couple who alleged their son was hospitalized for respiratory problems after being exposed to mold that they claim developed on his Rock ‘N Play seat.

The Mattel and Fisher-Price marketed the Rock ‘N Play class action lawsuit claims the defendants failed to warn consumers that the sleeper was prone to mold growth. The plaintiffs further claim the defendants failed to test the product for mold growth or humidity resistance prior to releasing it on the market, even though they were aware that the seat would be regularly exposed to moisture and warmth—conditions conducive to mold growth.

According to the lawsuit, “Within seven months of the Rock ‘N Play’s release, concerned consumers began to call Defendants to complain that their Rock ‘N Plays were ‘moldy’ and, in many instances, that their infants were having respiratory problems they attributed to the mold.”

The lawsuit goes on to claim that tests for mold were only conducted on the product after hundreds of consumer complaints had been made detailing babies becoming ill from mold exposure. And, the lawsuit states that Mattel and Fisher-Price did not take timely action to either fix the defect or warn consumers about the risks, even though they were aware of the design defect.

While the defendants issued a recall of the Rock ‘N Play on January 8, 2013, the lawsuit claims that it was inadequate because it “consists solely of a 16 page booklet of cleaning instructions downloadable from the Internet, instructing owners to inspect the product for visible mold and, if mold is seen, undertake an onerous cleaning process that will cause damage to the product.”

The plaintiffs are seeking certification of a nationwide class of people who acquired a Fisher-Price Rock ‘N Play Sleeper that was sold prior to the January 8, 2013 recall. The plaintiffs also seek to certify three subclasses of California, Pennsylvania and Maryland residents who purchased the Rock ‘N Play prior to January 8, 2013.

Phantom of the Paycheck. Well, here’s a new take on an old theme….taxable phantom wages…? Yup. Three ex-Starbucks employees have filed a wage and hour class action lawsuit alleging the coffee company adds a taxable “phantom wage” of 50 cents an hour in tips to paychecks, which results in some employees receiving less than the minimum wage. The lawsuit claims that Starbucks in is violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which prohibits employers making deductions in employees pay that would result in those employees making less than minimum wage.

Entitled, Fredrickson, et al. v. Starbucks Corp., Case No. 13-cv-02041, U.S. District Court Oregon, Portland Office, the lawsuit, filed by Hannah Fredrickson, lead plaintiff, states that Starbucks discourages employees from reporting their tips. Further, the lawsuit claims, “Starbucks just makes up that phantom number out of thin air.” Therefore, the lawsuit contends that Starbucks “willfully filed fraudulent information,” in violation of federal tax law, by reporting the made-up tips in W-2 returns.

According to the Starbucks class action, “Starbucks deducts amounts from its employees’ pay that reduce their paychecks below the minimum wage and/or overtime requirements. Its stated reason for the deduction is that the employees owe taxes on their tips, but that is false. Neither Oregon nor federal law require Starbucks to withhold taxes from unreported tips. The employees do not owe taxes on the tips, because their income is low enough that the withholdings from their regular wages are more than enough to meet their annual tax burden. Even if this were not the case, however, the employees would not have to pay any taxes on those unreported tips until the following April 15 (tax day). The FLSA requires employers to pay the minimum wage and overtime on payday, so the fact that the employees might receive a refund of these wrongfully deducted amounts (in many cases over a year later) does not eliminate the violation.”

Fredrickson is seeking class certification, an injunction, and damages for wage and hour violations and $5,000 or the sum of actual damages incurred, whichever is greater, for providing false information on tax returns.

Top Settlements

Securities Settlement News… FalconStor Software is going to pony up some cash, it looks like. A proposed $5 million settlement has been reached in the securities class action lawsuit its facing, which was filed by purchasers of FalconStor Software, Inc. (Nasdaq:FALC) common stock.

The FalconStor Software settlement would affect all persons who purchased the common stock of Falconstor Software Inc during the class period March 12, 2008 to September 29, 2010, inclusive.

Here’s the skinny: If you purchased FalconStor common stock during the period of March 12, 2008 through September 29, 2010, inclusive, you may be a member of the Class described above, and your rights may be affected by the Settlement of this Litigation.

If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at: www.strategicclaims.net.

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release postmarked no later than January 20, 2014, establishing that you are entitled to recovery, in the manner and form explained in the Notice. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper Proof of Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will be bound by any judgment or orders entered by the Court in the Litigation, whether or not you submit a claim.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion received no later than January 20, 2014, in the manner and form explained in the Notice. All members of the Settlement Class who do not request exclusion will be bound by any judgment entered in the Litigation.

For complete information on the proposed settlement and class action lawsuit, and to download forms, visit: www.strategicclaims.net.

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

Week Adjourned: 12.2.13 – Electrolux, Kenmore, Frigidaire, ING, FedEx

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top class actions include Electrolux washers, ING Annuities, FedEx overcharges.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Were you out Shopping for Appliances on Black Friday? If so, a federal class action lawsuit has been filed against Electrolux Home Products Inc, over allegations the company marketed and sold defective washing machines.

Filed by plaintiffs Gloria Waters and William Hall, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the lawsuit claims that Electrolux sold front-loading washing machines that are prone to accumulate mold.

The Electrolux lawsuit alleges the manufacturer sold the defective washing machines under brand names including Frigidaire and Kenmore, and that Electrolux knowingly concealed the fact that the washing machines were prone to accumulate mold and mildew which can permeate throughout the consumer’s home and ruin clothes.

The plaintiffs are accusing Electrolux of breaching implied warranties by selling products they allegedly knew were defective, and are seeking an undisclosed amount in damages.

Thinking of Annuities InvestING? If you’re a senior or know a senior—you may be interested to learn that an annuities class action lawsuit has been filed against ING. Filed by Ernest Abbit of California, the lawsuit alleges the financial services firm indexed financial instruments that failed to meet the advertised goals and that company officials failed to properly advise seniors of the risks associated with investing in the annuities.

According to the ING lawsuit, the stated goal of ING indexed annuities, is to provide seniors in various age groups with “protection of principal”, which means reducing the risks of investment while using various investments products aimed at “fueling the value of our annuity” “to build up your retirement savings.” Abbit claims ING failed to back up their claims. Sound familiar?

Abbit alleges in the class action, that he, and others similarly situated, have lost as much as 20 percent of their savings, “on the first day” of investment, due to the lack of information regarding what the product provided. His returns are allegedly a fraction of those an investor would have received by investing in the S&P 500 as a whole, the index his annuity was allegedly designed to mirror. Umm.

Specifically, the lawsuit, The ING Annuity Class Action Lawsuit, entitled Ernest O. Abbit, et al. v. ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company, Case No. 13-cv-2310, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, claims that ING’s the financial instruments are “wolves-in-sheep’s clothing” and that their statements are “opaque.” The lawsuit claims that not only did the instruments fail to return as advertised, but that those investments contained “embedded derivatives” similar to those that led to the financial collapse in 2008. ING indexed annuities were structured, the lawsuit claims, so that the company would benefit from any derivatives income while at the same time putting it senior investors at risk for losses.

According to the class action, in 2005 the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), which is the financial services industry’s self-governing body operating as a private monitor, warned that the products Abbit and others were invested in were accompanied by sales material that “do not fully describe the features and risks of the products.” insurance companies allegedly changing their annuity obligations or not being able to meet those obligations are Aviva, Transamerica, The Principal Financial Group, MetLife, Prudential, Guggenheim and Genworth. Variable annuity holders who purchased their annuities in the past three years from those companies may be eligible to file a claim against those companies.

Top Settlements

FedEx to deliver $21.5 million in cash and billing practice changes, ending a consumer fraud class action lawsuit brought against it by business and government agencies.

Granted final approval this week, the FedEx settlement ends the lawsuit brought in 2011 by two law firms, which alleged the world’s largest cargo delivery company overcharged by as much as $3 per package for tens of thousands of packages. Ouch! That could add up.

The plaintiffs, made up of government and business customers, claimed FedEx charged residential rates to destinations including the US Citizenship and Immigration Office in Chicago, a Bank of America Corp. facility in Tampa, Florida, and the Safariland Group body armor company in Jacksonville, Florida.

FedEx has denied the allegations but has agreed to settle. No news there.

The settlement was preliminarily settled in July. FYI—the class period is from August 28, 2008, to July 13, 2011, and involves FedEx customers who used the carrier’s services and didn’t get a full refund for claimed overcharges on residential deliveries.

The case is Manjunath A. Gokare PC v. Federal Express Corp., 11-cv-02131, U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee (Memphis).

Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. Happy Shopping till you’re Dropping!

Week Adjourned: 11.22.13 – Beneficial WV, SouthWest Airlines, Google

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories include Beneficial West Virginia, Southwest Airlines and Google.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Bad Beneficial! Heads up Beneficial West Virginia Insurance Policy Holders—yup—it’s a bad faith insurance class action lawsuit. This one filed against Beneficial West Virginia Inc, and Household Insurance Co, by two policy holders. Denzil and Cathy Shaw allege they are owed payments under the terms of their credit-disability insurance policy.

The Shaws state in their Beneficial West class action complaint that they submitted a claim to their insurer in October 2009, when Denzil Shaw became permanently disabled. They ha

d purchased the disability policy through Beneficial, and it was issued by Household Insurance. The lawsuit contends that the Shaw’s policy states that if either of the plaintiffs become disabled during the mortgage term, their mortgage would be paid for a period up to 180 months. The lawsuit states that the Shaw’s mor

tgage payments were paid through the policy until they received a letter stating the payments would stop in December 2012, which is in violation of the policy-stipulated 180 months.

The lawsuit claims that the defendants are in breach of contract, consumer credit and protection act, unfair claims settlement practices act, failure to disclose and first-party insurance bad faith.

Top Settlements

The Settlement Fund will be divided equally among all Class Members (after fees and costs are deducted), who timely submit a valid Claim Form and do not exclude themselves from the settlement. It is estimated that approximately $1,132,053 will be available to be divided among Class Members who timely submit a valid Claim Form. Based on claims rates in other cases, the range of expected recovery per Class Member who submits a valid Claim Form is estimated at between $25 and $200. This is only an estimate. The actual amount paid out will depend on the number of Class Members who submit valid Claim Forms. Printing Error? SouthWest has agreed to pay $1.8 million in settlement of a class action lawsuit concerning allegations it “willfully” violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Reporting Act (FACTA) by printing the expiration date on customers’ credit or debit card receipts at airport ticket counters between October 17, 2007 and October 30, 2012 or at cargo counters between October 17, 2007 and January 25, 2013. Got all that? Did you even know SouthWest was doing this?

If you made a non-business related credit or debit card purchase or transaction at a Southwest Airlines Co. airport ticket counter between October 17, 2007 and October 30, 2012 or a cargo counter between October 17, 2007 and January 25, 2013 and received a printed receipt, you may be entitled to benefits as part of a class action settlement.

Wait—there’s more—a settlement has been proposed in two related class action lawsuits alleging that Southwest Airlines Co. willfully printed credit card and debit card expiration dates on certain customer receipts. The settlement will provide benefits to any Class member who used a credit or debit card to make an individual, non-business related purchase or transaction at a Southwest airport ticket counter between October 17, 2007 and October 30, 2012 or a cargo counter between October 17, 2007 and January 25, 2013 and received a printed receipt.

To get the whole picture and for information on downloading and submitting claim forms, visit: www.SouthwestFACTASettlement.com, or write to Southwest Airlines Co. Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 3059, Faribault, MN 55021-2659.

Google to pay for Oogles —sorry that’s Ogles… to the tune of $17 million. A settlement has reportedly been reached in an Internet privacy class action lawsuit pending against Google Inc. The lawsuit concerns allegations that Google and another three online companies circumvented default privacy settings on Apple’s Safari web browser, for the purposes of placing tracking cookies without consumers’ knowledge. Oh that my Internet practices were that interesting!

Nevertheless, “Consumers should be able to know whether there are other eyes surfing the web with them,” New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said. Well, preferably, no other eyes.

As part of the Google settlement, Google has not admitted to any wrongdoing and stressed that they had “taken steps to remove the ad cookies, which collected no personal information from Apple’s browsers.” Other terms of the settlement reportedly stipulate that Google honor default privacy settings on web browsers. Google will also “provide a separate stand-alone page or pages on the Google.com domain designed to give information to users about Cookies (the “Cookie Page).”

“Google shall maintain systems configured to instruct Safari brand web browsers to expire any Cookie placed from the doubleclick.net domain by Google through February 15, 2012 if those systems encounter such a Cookie, with the exception of the DoubleClick opt-out Cookie. Such systems shall remain in place until Feb. 15, 2014, at which time all Cookies placed from the doubleclick.net domain by Google on Safari brand web Browsers through Feb. 15, 2012 should have expired by design,” the settlement states.

The $17 million settlement fund is set to be split among each of the Attorneys General who filed against Google, in amount yet to be designated. The states are listed as beneficiaries of the settlement are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin, and District of Columbia. Umm.

Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. Happy Thanksgiving!

Week Adjourned: 11.15.13 – Kia Soul, Garnier Fructis, Miley Cyrus, Starbucks

The week’s top class action lawsuits including Kia Soul, L’Oreal Garnier Fructis, Miley Cyrus jewelry and Starbucks coffee.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

An Explosive Situation… Heads up to Kia Soul owners and anyone leasing the 2010-2013 models. Kia Motors is facing a defective automotive class action lawsuit alleging that some of its vehicles have fuel tank placements that place vehicle occupants at risk for fire in the event of collision. The specific models cited in the consumer fraud class action lawsuit are the 2010-2013 Kia Soul.

The Kia Soul class action lawsuit contends that there was a scenario in Texas, in which a Kia Soul exploded in a collision, and as a result of the defective gas tank design all three passengers in the rear compartment of the car burned to death.

Filed in California federal court, the lawsuit, entitled Constance Sims, et al. v. Kia Motors America Inc. et al., Case No. 13-01791, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleges that Kia Motors America Inc, falsely misrepresented some of its vehicles as being constructed with “world-class quality.”

The design of certain Kia vehicles has the gas tank located directly under the rear seat. Further, the lawsuit alleges there are no means of protecting or reinforcing the fuel tank with reinforcing straps or a whole-tank shield, which is a practice commonly used by other automakers.

Therefore, the lawsuit contends, Kia passengers are unknowingly put at risk in certain types of collisions. Plaintiffs allege that placing the fuel tanks under the rear seat “increases the risk that the gas tank will dislodge and ignite in a major collision.”

The Kia defective automotive lawsuit also alleges the fuel pump cover is placed directly under the rear seat cushion, in order to allow mechanics easier access in the event of problem: mechanics would not necessarily have to remove the entire gas tank. However, should the gas tank become dislodged, the covering is plastic, “increasing the likelihood of a ‘blow torch’ [sic] fire in the rear compartment,” the lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs are seeking to represent anyone who purchased, leased and/or currently own or lease a Kia vehicle model that has a gas tank that is not properly secured or is covered by a plastic fuel pump service cover. They are also seeking damages for violations of the state Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, false advertising, breach of implied warranty and fraudulent concealment.

Having a Bad Hair Day? Wait till you read this… L’Oréal is facing a defective product class action lawsuit over claims that it failed to warn customers that Garnier Fructis Sleek and Shine Anti-Frizz Serum has, as its main ingredients, cyclopentasiloxane and dimethiconol, which are flammable. According to the class action, the anti-frizz serum can catch fire at temperatures above 171 degrees and can cause substantial risk of burns to face, head and neck. One teenager has suffered significant burns to her face and scalp.

The Garnier Fructis lawsuit has received certification by strict Court Judge Christina A. Snyder of the Central District of California. The class action alleges that L’Oréal USA Inc, and L’Oréal USA Products Inc., failed to label the frizz-reducing product as combustible or flammable near flame, ignition or high-heat-producing styling appliances, and misrepresented the product as safe to use with such implements, according to court documents.

Filed by plaintiffs Jill Guido and Catherine Altamura of California; Natalie Lefebvre of Texas; and Lisa Pearly of New York, the lawsuit seeks to represent any person who purchased the Serum during the period from February 4, 2008, to the present. According to court documents, during the class period, L’Oréal sold some 9.9 million units of Garnier Fructis Sleek and Shine Anti-Frizz Serum in the US. So—heads up ladies… and gents.

Top Settlements

All that Glitters is not Gold…and now there’s a settlement as a result. That’s right folks. A settlement has been reached in the consumer fraud class action lawsuit alleging that Miley Cyrus-branded jewelry manufactured by BCBG Max Azria Group Inc., and sold through Wal-Mart stores, contained cadmium.

The lawsuit, entitled Canamore v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. CV-2010-534, claims that had the plaintiffs known the Miley Cyrus jewelry contained cadmium, they would not have purchased it.

The Miley Cyrus jewelry lawsuit was filed on July 2, 2010. Defendants have denied and continue to deny any and all allegations of wrongdoing and liability. The Court has not decided which side is right.

FYI—you are a Settlement Class Member if you purchased Miley Cyrus-branded jewelry from a Wal-Mart retail store after July 1, 2005. A Final Approval Hearing will be held on December 30, 2013. There’s a little light reading with this one, so to find out your options, download forms, etc., visit: http://www.canamoresettlement.com.

Were you Scooped by Starbucks? If so, you may be entitled to some dosh. A proposed settlement has been reached in a consumer fraud class action lawsuit pending against Starbucks. The global coffee company has agreed to reimburse consumers who purchased less than one pound of scooped (not pre-packaged) Starbucks coffee beans between December 9, 2007 and November 7, 2011. The beans may have been purchased from any company-owned Starbucks store in the United States, other than half-pound purchases during January to March 2008 of coffee that had half-pound prices posted on menu boards during that time.

Among the allegations in the Starbucks consumer fraud class action, is that Starbucks (“Starbucks” or “Starbucks Coffee Company” or “Defendant”) failed to disclose to certain Starbucks customers who bought Starbucks scooped coffee beans in amounts less than 1 pound that the price was greater per pound than the amount charged for purchases of 1 pound of Starbucks coffee beans, according to the Starbucks settlement website.

According to the terms of the proposed settlement, Starbucks would provide a common settlement fund of $1,733,025.71, inclusive of settled claims, administrative expenses, attorneys’ fees, and costs. Starbucks would credit the My Starbucks Rewards accounts of Class Members who are My Starbucks Rewards Members in an amount calculated by multiplying $0.45 (an estimate of the weighted average Upcharge of all transactions by Class Members in the Class Period) by the number of Covered Purchases on each My Starbucks Rewards Member’s account identified in Starbucks’ business records or $5.00, whichever is more.

For consumers who are Starbucks Class Members but who are not My Starbucks Rewards Members, claims forms can be accessed online at: https://scoopedcoffeesettlement.simpluris.com/pages/ClaimForm.aspx or by downloading a claim form from the settlement website at www.starbucks.com/scoopedcoffeesettlement that can be printed out and mailed to Simpluris, Inc. P.O. Box 26170, Santa Ana, CA 92799.

Again, if you think you’re affected by this settlement there’s a little light reading involved, which you can access at www.starbucks.com/scoopedcoffeesettlement.

Ok Folks, That’s all for this week. And have a good weekend.