Consumer Fraud

Week Adjourned: 11.1.13 – iMac, Trump U, Verizon

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories include iMac faulty screens, Trump University and Verizon overtime class actions.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

More Bad Apples! It seems Apple just can’t stay out of the news – but is publicity really good publicity in this case? The tech Wunderstar is facing a defective products class action lawsuit over allegations that iMacs sold with 27 inch screens have faulty displays.

Filed by Corbin Rasmussen, the Apple lawsuit contends that half of Rasmussen’s iMac display failed after only 18 months. The lawsuit further claims that Apple wanted $500 to fix the problem.

Rasmussen alleges this is not an isolated incident, that the problem with the iMac screen is widespread, and that Apple refuses to address the problem. Rasmussen alleges Apple misled consumers by selling them iMacs with displays that failed prematurely.

The iMac screen lawsuit states that hundreds of consumers who purchased 27-inch iMac had half the display fail just months after their warranties expired. It also alleges that when Apple updated the iMac line in 2011 it failed to make any changes to the display or video card in order to prevent the issue from affecting future iMac buyers.

Rasmussen alleges Apple’s marketing led him to believe the iMac was “designed for a long productive life,” and that 18 months of usability he experienced fails to live up to that claim.

The class action seeks to represent Rasmussen and all those similarly situated who purchased 27-inch iMac in the US before December 2012. The suit targets iMacs that used LG’s LED backlit display.

And, Speaking of Bad Apples… Donald Trump is facing consumer fraud class action lawsuit brought by a California businessman who alleges he was duped into spending $35,000 on essentially bogus programs at Trump University.

Filed in the Southern District of California, Plaintiff Art Cohen seeks to represent other buyers of the programs in a class-action lawsuit against Trump.

According to the Trump University lawsuit, Cohen learned about Trump University in 2009 through a newspaper ad. He alleges he received a “special invitation” from Trump, by mail, to the school which included two VIP tickets to a free seminar. Cohen subsequently took programs which, he alleges he would not have paid for had known he wouldn’t have access to Trump’s real estate investing secrets. He further alleges that Trump had “no meaningful role” in selecting the instructors and that Trump University was not a “university.”

“Trump did not fulfill the promises he made to student-victims around the country — he did not teach students his coveted real estate investing ‘secrets’ at the Live Events, he did not contribute in any meaningful way to the curriculum for the Live Events, and he did not handpick the Live Event seminar instructors and mentors who ‘taught’ student-victims at three-day Live Events and Elite mentorship programs — both of which were upsells from the free introductory Live Event called the ‘Preview,’” the 34-page complaint claims.

Cohen is not alone in his complaints against Trump University. According to the lawsuit, nearly a dozen state attorneys general and the US Department of Justice have received “numerous” complaints about Trump’s institution. In August, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman filed a lawsuit against Trump and the Trump Entrepreneur Institute, formerly known as Trump University LLC, for allegedly engaging in deceptive and illegal conduct.

I wonder if The Donald should be teaching courses in “Dodging Consumer Fraud Lawsuits” instead…

Cohen is seeking damages and equitable relief on behalf of himself and the class, including, but not limited to, treble their monetary damages, restitution, injunctive relief, punitive damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees.

Top Settlements

Guess the Employees have been Heard Now! Verizon Communications has been ordered to pay $7.7 million to settle an unpaid overtime class action lawsuit brought by its retail employees.

The wage and hour class action alleged the wireless carrier was in violation the Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage laws, because it refused to its workers overtime and bonuses.

The Verizon settlement, approved by U.S. Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez, will end the Verizon unpaid overtime class action lawsuit which was filed over two years ago.

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

Week Adjourned: 10.11.13 – Toyota Prius, United MileagePlus, Motel 6

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements…Top stories include Toyota Prius, United Airlines MileagePlus, and Motel 6.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Prius Brakedown? Toyota’s making headlines again this week, over a national consumer fraud class action lawsuit, alleging consumer fraud related to its Pre-Collision System (PCS) in its high-end Prius Five vehicles.

The Prius lawsuit states that Toyota represents in its marketing materials and owner’s manual that the PCS employs radar to sense an unavoidable frontal collision, and then if needed, automatically applies the brakes to prepare for the accident. The PCS is part of an advanced technology package option that usually sells for over $5,000. The PCS option is believed to make up approximately $1,000 of that cost. Whoa Nellie!

The lawsuit claims that purchasers did not receive what Toyota represented with the PCS. Specifically, in vehicle testing by the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS), the Toyota Prius was one of only two models that failed to get any rating, leading the IIHS to state: “The Toyota Prius V wagon, which claims to have autobrake, had minimal braking in IIHS tests and currently fails to meet NHTSA criteria for forward collision warning. It doesn’t qualify for an IIHS front crash prevention rating.” Ok—now you have me.

The lawsuit is Lee v. Toyota Motor Sales, USA Inc, in the United States District Court of California, and is seeking to force Toyota to reimburse owners for the cost of the PCS and to force Toyota to discontinue marketing that the PCS provides automatic braking. Go get’em!

So That’s What MileagePlus Means… United Airlines got hit with a potential deceptive business practices class action lawsuit this week. Filed by two Jersey City, NJ residents, the lawsuit claims the airline uses an algorithm that modifies the number of miles needed for an award, depending on the number of frequent flyer miles the person has. Umm.

The federal United MileagePlus lawsuit was filed by Robert Gordon and Melissa Chan who claim United Airlines attempted to charge each of them different amounts of miles for the same hotel room last year when they were booking a trip together. Both are members of United’s MileagePlus rewards program. (who isn’t?)

According to the lawsuit, in August 2012, Gordon tried to use his miles to book a three-night stay at a hotel in Japan. Using United’s website, he was informed it would cost him 40,750 miles, which exceed the amount of points he had in his account, but was fewer than 41,733 miles in Chan’s MileagePlus account.

According to the lawsuit, Chan subsequently decided to book the same room for same dates using her miles instead. However, when she tried to do so only several minutes later, United’s website required her to use 44,500 miles, or 3,750 miles more than what it attempted to charge Gordon. To book the hotel room, Chan had to pay $26.10 to buy the additional miles that United charged her.

The lawsuit states that Gordon then called United, but was told the airline uses an algorithm that modifies the number miles needed for an award, depending on the number of miles the person has. They claim United was deceptive in not disclosing this alleged practice. Well, this ought to be interesting….

Top Settlements

Motel 6 Checking Out of Unpaid Overtime Class Action Lawsuit…Actually, they’ve settled, tentatively, for a reported $890,000. Announced this week, the proposed Motel 6 settlement could end the pending wage and hour class action lawsuit entitled Monica Gould et al v. Motel 6 Inc. et al, case No. 2:09-cv-08157 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California Central Division.

The lawsuit was brought by past and present Motel 6 employees who allege the company denied them meal and rest breaks, failed to pay wages upon termination and neglected to provide properly itemized wage statements.

Specifically, the wage and hour lawsuit, brought in 2009, claims Motel 6 is in violation of the California Labor Code, the Business & Professions Code, the Wage Order and the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

Motel 6 and G6 Hospitality Inc, the two defendants in the class action, deny any and all liability, but have agreed to settle. The class includes all current and former nonexempt employees employed by Motel 6 between March 25, 2006, and July 17, 2013, an estimated 18,280 members. Previously, Motel 6 and G6 Hospitality, which were formerly known as Accor North America, settled another class action in March 2006, reducing the current class to its present size, court documents indicate.

The final settlement hearing is scheduled for November 4, 2013.

Good Night Irene!

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

Week Adjourned: 9.27.13 – GoGo Wifi, Reserveage, Truvia Sweetener

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending 9.27.13. Top class actions include GoGo Wifi, Reserveage, Truvia Sweetener

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Internet Charges-A-GoGo! Hello! Gogo LLC, an inflight Internet service provider, is facing a consumer fraud class action lawsuit alleging the company misleads consumers about its charges. Gogo, for those of us not wireless wired at 41,000 feet, provides in-flight Internet and wireless in-cabin digital entertainment services.

The GoGo lawsuit, filed by Kerry Welsh, president of WelCom Products, which produces folding hand trucks, claims that on August 7, 2011 Welsh paid $39.95 for up to 30 days Internet usage on any airline. However, Welsh contends that after the 30 days term ended on September 7, he was charged $39.95 every month until at least December 2012, even though he did not use the service.

In the class action, Welsh alleges he “received no communications from Gogo on a monthly basis notifying him of the recurring charges.”

Welsh, filed the lawsuit on behalf of class members who were “were misled to believe they were purchasing only a one-month pass, but were in fact charged every month thereafter.”

The lawsuit states that “every other class member purchased in-flight Internet serve from Gogo prior to December 31, 2012, using a registration website that had representations about the monthly cost of the service but had no representations about the recurring nature of charges for the service.” While the Gogo website now states that monthly services charges will be recurring, “… it did not do so in 2011,” the lawsuit states.

Were you overcharged for inflight Internet access?

Anti-Aging? Um, not so much… Anti-honest? Very possibly, according to a consumer fraud class action filed against Reserve Life Organics LLC (d/b/a Reserveage Organics). According to the lawsuit, the company makes false and misleading statements regarding the health benefits of its anti-aging products. (No!)

The Reserveage lawsuit, entitled Kathleen Hold v. Reserve Life Organics, Case No. 3:13-cv-02206, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, claims that the Reserveage product made by Reserveage Organics does not contain resveratrol, an ingredient derived from French red wine grapes. Instead, the lawsuit asserts, the product actually contains Japanese Knotweed, a cheaper, more readily available source of resveratrol (couldn’t you just drink red wine instead?)

Filed by plaintiff Kathleen Holt, the lawsuit states that Reserveage deceives consumers into paying a premium for health supplements that contain very little of the advertised resveratrol, an ingredient that allegedly has anti-aging capabilities. Holt also claims Reserveage Organics does not admit that the products contain substantial amounts of magnesium stearate, an additive that is allegedly hazardous to human health by adversely affecting the immune system.

Specifically, the lawsuit states, “The main ingredient in resveratrol, and the main ingredient providing substantial resveratrol, is nonorganic Japanese Knotweed, not French red-wine grapes, (!) which is a much cheaper and more plentiful source of natural, as opposed to organic, grape-based resveratrol.” Further, “In addition, despite defendant’s claim of ‘From the Heart of France,’ plaintiff believes that defendant’s Japanese Knotweed is sourced from China.”

The consumer fraud class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff and all California residents who purchased Reserveage resveratrol products within the last four years. The lawsuit contends that the company’s marketing violates California’s False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition law, among other claims.

I think direct application of red wine grapes—ingested in the form of wine—should be put to the test…

Top Settlements

A sweet deal for consumers? Maybe. A $5 million proposed settlement has been agreed by Cargill Inc, potentially ending a consumer fraud class action lawsuit alleging the food manufacturer misled consumers into believing its Truvia stevia sweetener is “natural.”

According to the consumer fraud lawsuit, entitled The Truvia False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit is Martin, et al. v. Cargill Inc., Case No. 13-cv-2563, U.S. District Court of Minnesota, the main ingredients in Cargill’s Truvia stevia sweetener are “highly processed” and/or derived from GMOs.

If approved, the Truvia settlement would distribute the $5 million in settlement funds among eligible class members as cash or vouchers. Class Members will be eligible to claim a cash refund or voucher based on the amount of money they spent on Truvia products during the Class Period.

Lead plaintiffs Molly Martin and Lauren Barry asked the Court to preliminary approve the proposed settlement. Eligible class members include consumers who purchased 40-count and 80-count packages of Truvia Natural Sweetener packets, and any size of the Truvia Natural Sweetener spoonable jars and baking blends, from July 1, 2008 onwards.

A Preliminary Approval Hearing is set for October 23, 2013.

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

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

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

Top Class Action Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

Week Adjourned: 8.16.13 – Campbell’s Soup, LA Fitness, Payday Loans

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

Top Class Action Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Class Action Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Class Action Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok folks, have a good one—see you at the bar!

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

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

Top Class Action Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Week Adjourned: 7.12.13 – Ford, BofA Mortgages, Ticketmaster

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

Top Class Action Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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