Ford

Week Adjourned: 1.5.18 – Ford, PHH Mortgage, Vita-Mix

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Driven to court? Maybe…Marketsource Inc, a contractor of Ford Motor Company, is facing a potential unpaid overtime class action lawsuit filed by a former employee who alleges the company misclassified its Ford account managers as being exempt from overtime pay.

According to the complaint, Marketsource misclassified its Ford account managers as salaried workers and therefore they were exempt from overtime pay, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Filed by Sivi Hoel, a former Marketsource account manager for Ford, the complaint states “Throughout the course of her employment by Marketsource, plaintiff was always denied overtime compensation even though she routinely worked overtime hours with the knowledge, encouragement and behest of Marketsource management.”

Hoel asserts she regularly had to work in excess of 40 hours a week and was not reimbursed for her time when required to travel to retail stores and car dealerships to perform their duties.

From April 2012 to March 2016, Hoel, who lives in California, was employed by Marketsource as an account manager to train and assist car dealership employees on how to sell certain Ford contracts. During that time, she was required to visit multiple car dealerships spread across a large geographic region, the lawsuit states.

Hoel seeks to certify a nationwide collective group of workers employed by Marketsource as account managers, who worked on the Ford program in the past three years. She is seeking unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages, including interest, on behalf of that group, and attorneys’ fees.

The case is Sivi Hoel v. Marketsource Inc., case number 1:17-cv-05547, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Go get ‘em.

Top Settlements

Where’s my mortgage payment? And a really scandalous one at that. A $45 million settlement has been reached by PHH Mortgage Corp and 49 state attorneys general who sued the company alleging the mortgage servicer committed financial fraud by failing to properly apply payments from borrowers and other loan service deficiencies.

While mortgage servicers do not directly issue home loans, they do collect and process borrower’s payments and are responsible for many anti-foreclosure measures, including loan modifications and other tools for homeowners. The lawsuit alleges that between 2009 and 2012 PHH Mortgage, based in New Jersey, failed in assisting borrowers to avoid foreclosures, failed to process loan modification applications and other vital documents, and did not properly maintain mortgage servicing and other files, among numerous other allegations.

According to the terms of the settlement, filed in the D.C. District Court, PHH will pay $45 million, with $30.4 million of that sum going directly to borrowers. The remainder of the funds will be used to cover costs of each of the 49 state’s investigations. PHH has also agreed to make changes to its servicing practices in its agreement with the Multi-State Mortgage Committee, a panel of state attorneys general and regulators set up to monitor mortgage markets after the 2008 financial crisis.

Notebly, the settlement does not release PHH from any potential liability for any alleged improper conduct from 2013 onward.

New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman’s office reported that an estimated 1,600 New York residents would be eligible for payments. For those who lost their homes due to foreclosure, the payments could begin at $840. For those who did not lose their homes but did go into foreclosures initiated by PHH during the relevant period, they could expect a minimum of $285.

Attorney General Mike DeWine of Ohio has stated that as many as 2,000 residents would be eligible for those payments.

The case is State of Alabama et al v. PHH Mortgage Corp., case number 1:18-cv-00009, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Heads up all you Vitamix owners out there – a settlement has been reached in a defective products class action lawsuit pending against Vitamix. The lawsuit, styled Vicki Linneman, et al. v. Vita-Mix Corp., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-748, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, alleged that the top seal of blade assemblies in certain Vitamix containers may fleck, causing black flecks to enter food or drink during blending. These flecks are of a non-stick material (polytetrafluoroethylene or “PTFE”) that is common in cookware and many other products in the food industry.

As a result of this alleged defect, the plaintiffs claim that the Vitamix blenders are worth less than what consumers and businesses paid to purchase them. No allegations of personal injury were made in the lawsuit.

Eligible Class members are defined as those who: (a) own a Vitamix household blender with a blade assembly dated on or after January 1, 2007 but before October 1, 2016; or (b) own a Vitamix commercial blender that was (i) purchased on or after September 15, 2015 but before August 9, 2016 or before April 7, 2017 in the case of a commercial blender from the XL product line, (ii) never used in connection with the Replacement Seal, and (iii) purchased through a third- party, such as a dealer, distributor, or restaurant supply store and not acquired directly from Vitamix.

According to the terms of the agreed settlement, Class Members who timely submit a Valid Claim are eligible for certain benefits depending on whether they purchased a household or commercial Vitamix blender. Class Members who own a Vitamix household blender may choose between (1) a $70 gift card to purchase certain Vitamix products; or (2) a newly designed replacement blade assembly that does not produce flecks. Owners of one or more Vitamix commercial blenders submitting Valid Claims can receive a new replacement blade assembly from Vitamix, with a maximum of two blade assemblies.

Vitamix has also agreed to pay court-approved Service Awards of $3,000 each to the two Named Plaintiffs as well as legal and administrative fees and court costs.

To receive any settlement benefits, valid Claim Form must be submitted on or before September 28, 2018. A final settlement hearing is scheduled for March 2018.

So folks – on that happy note – this year’s a wrap –and welcome to 2018!!

Week Adjourned: 9.8.17 – Ford, Victoza, Honda Airbags

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Got a Ford? How are your lug nuts? The automaker got hit with a defective automotive class action lawsuit this week, alleging it sold vehicles with defective lug nuts that swell and delaminate to such an extent that drivers cannot remove them with a lug wrench provided by Ford. This results in drivers being forced to pay a professional to replace the parts.

The Ford vehicles involved include the Ford Fusion, Escape, Flex, Focus, F-150 and F-350. According to the complaint, while the drivers might reasonably expect to be able to replace a flat tire using the wrench that is supplied by Ford with these vehicles, in practice, they cannot because the wrench no longer fits over the lug nuts if they swell or delaminate.

Here’s the skinny: according to the Ford lug nut complaint, filed by Ford drivers from seven states, the lug nuts that secure the wheels to Ford’s Fusion, Escape, Flex, Focus, F-150 and F-350 vehicles are made with a steel core and a chrome, aluminum or stainless steel cap that improves the product’s appearance but swells and delaminates. This purported defect renders the Ford-provided wrench useless, making drivers pay more than $30 per wheel, plus labor, to replace the parts and often stranding the drivers on the side of the road with a flat tire.

Consequently, drivers who have a flat tire can become stuck on the side of the road they are unable to fix themselves, putting them in a “precarious and dangerous place,” the lawsuit states. When drivers do make it to a repair facility, they typically have to pay for the labor of removing the defective lug nuts as well as new parts, the complaint states.

Further, the drivers claim that Ford doesn’t replace the faulty lug nuts, even if the parts fail within the new vehicle warranty period. This forces the affected vehicles owners to “spend hundreds of dollars for new lug nuts and the labor to install them,” the lawsuit states.

Ford customers have submitted “numerous complaints” to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which Ford monitors, the complaint states. Therefore, the automaker is aware of the problem, according to the lawsuit.

The drivers seek to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased or leased an affected vehicle as well as classes of drivers in each of the 50 states. It is estimated that millions of vehicles have been affected.

The drivers are represented by Steve W. Berman and Thomas E. Loeser of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and E. Powell Miller and Sharon S. Almonrode of The Miller Law Firm PC.

The case is Josh Wozniak et al. vs. Ford Motor Company, case number 2:17-cv-12794 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Top Settlements

Victoza Settlement… Sitting down? Good, now strap yourselves in. A $60 million deal has been agreed between Novo Nordisk Inc., and federal agencies who alleged the pharmaceutical company engaged in misleading marketing practices concerning its best selling type 2 diabetes drug Victoza.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) charged that the company misled physicians and insurers about the associated risk of cancer associated with Victoza, specifically that the drug has been linked to a rare cancer called medullary thyroid carcinoma.

According to the DOJ, the allegations go back to 2010, when the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) initially approved the drug. The FDA had required Novo Nordisk to modify its FDA-mandated risk evaluation and mitigation strategies, or REMS, after a 2011 survey revealed that half of primary care doctors polled were unaware of the potential cancer risks associated with the drug, according to the DOJ. The drug has been linked to a rare cancer called medullary thyroid carcinoma, the DOJ said.

According to the terms of the deal, Novo Nordisk will pay over $43 million to the federal government and about $3.3 million to state Medicaid programs. The deal will resolve claims made the by agencies under the False Claims Act. Additionally, Novo Nordisk has agreed to turn over $12.15 million in profits to resolve claims made that it knowingly violated the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act from 2010 to 2012.

The deal also resolved seven whistleblower lawsuits filed between 2010 and 2016. Eleven whistleblowers were involved in bringing the lawsuits, and at least one, made by Peter Dastous, a Novo Nordisk sales representative who was responsible for selling Victoza to endocrinologists in South Carolina and northern Georgia, alleged Medicaid fraud against private commercial health insurers, and the deal brings the aggregate settlement amount the company will pay to $60 million.

You couldn’t make this stuff up – even if you wanted to.

The federal lawsuit is United States et al. v. Novo Nordisk Inc., case number 1:17-cv-01820, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The whistleblower suit filed by Dastous is United States et al. ex rel. Dastous v. Novo Nordisk Inc., case number 1:11-cv-01662, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

More About Airbags… Here’s another whopper. Honda has agreed to pay $603 million to exit the defective Takata air bag multidistrict litigation. This will hasten the removal of the exploding airbags from about 16.5 million Honda vehicles.

According to Honda, a $200 million fund will be established to expand the Takata air bag inflator recall in an effort to reach owners of affected Honda vehicles who have not been located or have not responded to recall notices.

If approved, the preliminary Honda airbag settlement would make Honda the sixth automaker to be exit the litigation, following Toyota, Subaru, Mazda and BMW who agreed to pay a combined $553.6 million. Nissan has also settled for $98 million. If Honda’s deal is approved, Ford would be the only remaining automaker in the lawsuit.

According to the terms of the deal, class members will be provided with rental or loaner vehicles while they deal with fixing their cars. Remaining funds will be distributed to class members in amounts up to $250.

The lawsuit was originally filed in 2014, claiming that Takata air bags contained volatile ammonium nitrate that when inflated, can misfire, especially in humid conditions, blasting chemicals and shrapnel at passengers and drivers. Takata’s air bag inflators have been linked to at least 11 deaths in the US and the company has faced massive global recalls.

Prior to filing for bankruptcy in June of this year, Takata pled guilty to wire fraud, agreed to pay $1 billion in fines and restitution, and acknowledged that it ran a scheme to use false reports and other misrepresentations to convince automakers to buy air bag systems that contained faulty, inferior or otherwise defective inflators.

The case is In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, case number 1:15-md-02599, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

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

Week Adjourned: 7.21.17 – Ford, Ashley Madison, Speeding Cameras

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Bigger not necessarily better? Possibly…Ford has been hit with a proposed consumer fraud class action lawsuit alleging the company sold car jacks with sports vehicles that are too small to fit their lifted trucks, so that car owners are unable to change their tires.

Filed in Oklahoma federal court, by lead plaintiff Matthew W. Leverett, the proposed national class action alleges the Ford’s trucks have a manufacturer’s window sticker that indicates that the vehicles come equipped with a jack and spare tire. However, the sticker doesn’t disclose that the jack and spare tire are only compatible with so-called stock trucks of the same model, and not with the higher lifted trucks, the plaintiff contends.

According to the Ford complaint, Leverett’s 2017 Ford F-250 Super Duty Truck came with a jack that isn’t compatible with his vehicle because the tires on his truck are larger and the ride heights are higher than so called stock trucks. Leverett asserts Ford failed to inform him of the car jack’s deficiencies when he purchased the truck.

“Each person who has purchased or leased a lifted truck during the time period relevant to this action was injured by overpaying for a vehicle that did not come equipped with a functioning jack and spare tire, as Ford represented, and as each purchaser would have reasonably expected,” the lawsuit states. “These jacks cannot safely be used on, and are not compatible with, the relatively higher frames of the lifted trucks,” the complaint states.

Further, Leverett asserts that before buying the 2017 Ford F-250 Super Duty Truck, he was told the lift kit and larger tires were covered under a vehicle service agreement he purchased through Ford Motor Credit Company LLC, a division of Ford Motor Co. However, after buying the truck, he discovered the lift kit and larger tires were not covered by Ford’s manufacturer’s warranty.

Leverett seeks to represent a class of car users who have had similar experiences. The proposed class action claims violations of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act and breaches of the implied warranties of merchantability under the Uniform Commercial Code. Leverett is seeking damages and equitable and declaratory relief on behalf of himself and a nationwide class and a statewide class of individuals who purchased or leased one or more new Ford trucks equipped with a lift kit and larger-than-stock tires.

Last week it was Ford Transit vans making class action headlines, this week it’s Lift Kits. What next, I wonder?

The case is Leverett et al. v. Ford Motor Co., case number 5:17-cv-00751, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.

Top Settlements

Shhhh—it’s a secret! Well, actually, it’s just not finalized. What, you ask? An $11.2 million settlement has been reached in the data breach multi-district litigation (MDL) pending against the dating site Ashley Madison, formerly known as Avid Dating Life Inc., and its parent company Ruby Life Inc. There may be millions of plaintiffs seeking compensation from the settlement, as the 2015 data breach affected some 37 million users.

The MDL joins multiple lawsuits filed against the dating website, which catered to married people. Ruby has stated that since the data leak it has enhanced its measures to protect client data.

According to the allegations made after the Ashley Madison data breach, Avid not only failed to secure customers’ confidential information, but also advertised a “full delete removal” service that in fact didn’t eradicate user account information from the website’s database. Further, the complaints claimed that Avid used artificial intelligence to fool men into believing they were interacting with women when they were in fact chatting with “bots.”

According to the terms of the proposed settlement, funds will be available to reimburse customers who paid for “full delete” services, reimbursements for credits on the website they may have pre-purchased and any losses caused by the data breach of up to $2,000. Class members may receive a maximum of $3,500 each, according to settlement documents.

The proposed program to notify potential class members will ads in People magazine, Sports Illustrated and more than 11 million targeted digital banner ads. That will probably be the best exposure the now defunct website ever receives.

The proposed settlement requires court approval.

The case is In Re: Ashley Madison Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, case number 4:15-md-02669 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

And while we’re talking scandals… This week, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and his administration said they’d pony up $38.75 million to settle an unfair business practices class-action lawsuit alleging the city failed to provide motorists with adequate notice regarding red light camera and speed camera operations within Chicago.

The windy city’s red light camera system consists of over than 350 cameras and has raised more than $500 million in $100 tickets since 2002. Ok, they’re not fooling around. But…

The lawsuit was brought by attorney Jacie Zolna in 2015, claiming the city violated its own rules by failing to send a second notice of a violation before guilt was determined, and by doubling the fine for late payment of tickets sooner than allowed.

Several lawsuits were brought and the attention they received unearthed a massive scandal and corruption in Chicago’s city hall. A Chicago Tribune investigation exposed a $2 million City Hall bribery scheme that brought the traffic cameras to Chicago as well as tens of thousands of tickets that were unfairly issued to drivers.

According to the terms of the settlement, more than 1.2 million people could be eligible to receive payment for half of the costs of their tickets. Zolna said those who qualify will receive letters in the mail in upcoming months notifying them they were part of the lawsuit, the Chicago Tribune reports.

So if you got a ticket—you’ll be hearing from them. A victory for the little people. And on that note…

That’s a wrap for this week. See you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 7.14.17 – Ford, Blue Shield, Wells Fargo

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Heads Up Ford Transit Van Owners – a consumer fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against Ford Motor Co, alleging Ford knew of the Transit van flex disc defect long before it issued the recall of some 402,000 Ford Transit vans.

The recall affects 2015, 2016 and 2017 models of Ford Transit vans that have a defect in the flex disc, which is a type of rubber joint connecting the transmission to the driveshaft. The defect can allegedly cause vehicle damage in addition to being a safety hazard, the complaint asserts.

All Care Transport is a family-owned business that provides non-emergency medical transport. It owns several of the Transit vehicles. The plaintiff states in the complaint that two of his Transit vans’ flex discs failed in November 2016. In one case, the driver lost control of the steering and breaks while driving on a freeway. “Had another vehicle been near the van at the time, a crash would have been likely,” the complaint states. The repair cost in excess of $3,200.

According to Ford’s recall announcement, the flex disc cracks after about 30,000 miles, possibly causing the driveshaft to separate from the transmission. The cracking can result in a loss of power while driving or the unintended movement of parked vehicles not anchored by a parking brake. Such separation can also damage surrounding components, including brakes and fuel lines.

The Ford Transit lawsuit claims that Ford’s recall notice doesn’t indicate that the automaker has a permanent fix for the defect, as it recommends vehicle owners repair the disc every 30,000 miles. Further, the notice does not indicate any plans by Ford to reimburse customers such as All Care for lost business opportunities from disc-related repairs.

“In short,“ the complaint states, “as the safety recall notice makes clear, Ford’s recall fails to fix the underlying problem and falls well short of fully compensating plaintiffs and class members for the harm caused by the defective class vehicles.”

The plaintiff and All Care assert that Ford had knowledge of the defect as early as 2014, based on vehicle evaluations and testing, field data, replacement part sales data and consumer complaints made directly to Ford and collected by federal regulators at the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration.

The plaintiffs state in the proposed class action: “Yet despite this knowledge, Ford failed to disclose and actively concealed the defect from class members and the public, and continued to market and advertise the class vehicles as ‘tough,’ ‘safe,’ ‘durable’ vehicles ‘designed to do its job all day, every day and for many years to come,’ which they are not.”

“All Care Transport expected the class vehicles to be of good and merchantable quality and not defective,” the complaint states. “It had no reason to know of, or expect, that the vehicles were equipped with a defective flex disc that would catastrophically and dangerously fail, nor was it aware from any source prior to purchase of the unexpected, extraordinary and costly repairs the defect would cause them to incur.”

The proposed class includes anyone who leased or purchased a 2015-2017 Transit in California for purposes other than personal or household use.

The case is All Care Transport LLC et al. v. Ford Motor Company, case number 5:17-cv-01390, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Bad Blue Shield? Once again, Blue Shield of California and its claims administrator Magellan Health Services, are in the news—this time facing a bad faith insurance class action lawsuit alleging it wrongly restricted patients’ access to outpatient and residential mental health treatment.

The complaint was filed in Northern California by two parents who allege their teenage children were denied coverage, repeatedly, under the parents’ employer-based health insurance plans. The children required medical assistance for serious mental and substance abuse problems, according to the lawsuit.

The Blue Shield lawsuit received class-action status in June, enabling patients whose claims were rejected under similar circumstances to join as plaintiffs.

According to the complaint, Blue Shield and Magellan Health Services of California, which handles the insurer’s mental health claims, developed criteria that violate accepted professional standards and the terms of the health plan itself. Further, the plaintiffs claim the defendants are in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, a federal law that regulates employee benefit plans. (Californiahealthline.org)

The class action alleges specifically, that the insurers authorized residential patients care only if less intensive treatment in the previous three months was unsuccessful. This “fail-first” approach is inconsistent with standards established by professional groups such as the American Psychiatric Association or the American Society of Addiction Medicine, the complaint states.

The plaintiffs seek to change Blue Shield’s and Magellan’s policies to be consistent with the law, generally accepted professional standards and the terms of its own plans, according to the lawsuit. Further, they seek to have the thousands of mental health and substance-use benefit denials reprocessed by the defendants.

The lawsuit is Charles Des Roches, et al. v. California Physicians’ Service, et al.

Top Settlements

If First You Don’t Succeed, Wells… do as the judge tells you and revise that settlement deal! And guess what—it worked. A revised $142 million settlement has received preliminary approval potentially ending the Wells Fargo consumer bank account fraud class action lawsuit.

The back story is that Wells Fargo employees were involved in a fake bank account scam that saw them set up unauthorized accounts and transfer customers’ funds from legitimate accounts to the newly-created ones without customer knowledge or consent. And the point? Additional bank fees of course—and it enabled the employees to hit their sales targets. Wells Fargo customers were then charged fees for insufficient funds or overdrafts, because they didn’t have enough money in their legitimate accounts. How do you spell illegal?

In March, Wells Fargo announced it had reached a preliminary $110 million settlement resolving 12 putative class actions making similar allegations of fraud. According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which shared in a $185 million fine brought against Wells Fargo for the fraud, bank employees set up more than two million deposit and credit card accounts without customer authorization between January 2011 and September 8, 2015. Some 14,000 of those accounts earned over $400,000 in fees for the bank, including annual fees, interest charges and overdraft-protection fees, CNN Money reported.

US District Judge Vince Chhabria has now given the revised settlement deal the go-ahead after the plaintiffs and defendants resubmitted the agreement with several revisions, as requested by the judge. Those revisions include a simplified opt-out process, a more comprehensive class notification procedure and an expanded anticipated scope of credit-impact damages.

Under the original settlement proposal, the class consisted of Wells Fargo bank customers that had unauthorized accounts opened in their names, were enrolled in a product or service or had an application submitted for a product or service in their name without consent between January 1, 2009, and the execution of the settlement. Wells Fargo subsequently agreed to extend the claims to 2002, adding an additional $30 million to the settlement fund in April.

“[T]he parties negotiated a revised settlement that guarantees classwide compensation for actual damages, supplements compensation for noncompensatory damages and provides a better process for claimant input and court oversight prior to final approval,” Judge Chhabria wrote.

The case is Jabbari et al. v. Wells Fargo & Co. et al., case number 3:15-cv-02159, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

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

Week Adjourned: 9.30.16 – Ford, LoyaltyOne, LifeLock

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Ford Losing Its Touch? Ford Motor Co. got hit with a defective products class action lawsuit filed by customers who allege the automotive maker sold vehicles with faulty touchscreen systems. Great! The last thing you want to try and figure out while you’re driving…why the technology isn’t working as advertised.

The Ford class action lawsuit, which represents no less than nine classes, alleges the defect resulted in the failure of safety functions such as rear view cameras and functioning navigation systems.

U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen has certified nine different classes of Ford owners, divided by state: California, Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, Virginia and Washington. Each class brings its own set of claims related to breach of warranty, unfair trade practices, fraudulent concealment and other various other allegations.

According to plaintiffs, the MyFord Touch infotainment touchscreen systems often crash or freeze while the vehicle is in motion. The systems were introduced into Ford vehicles in 2010 with the promise of touch screen operating of audio and navigation systems, the ability to make phone calls, manage climate systems and play music from their smartphones. However, the systems have encountered a lengthy list of problems. In 2010, according to the lawsuit, Ford reported roughly 400 problems for every 1000 vehicles, which was an improvement from earlier numbers. The systems add about $1,000 to the cost of a Ford vehicle, according to the plaintiffs.

The case is In re: MyFord Touch Consumer Litigation, case number 3:13-cv-03072, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

New Meaning To ‘Loyalty’? LoyaltyOne is facing a consumer fraud class action in Canada, over “unfair and unilateral” changes to its airmiles program’s terms and conditions.

Here’s the skinny. According to the allegations, LoyaltyOne, which owns Airmiles—an airmiles rewards program—is accused of not giving adequate notice of the changes to its customers about the expiration of their airmiles, including miles earned before December 31, 2011 that expire at the end of this year. The AirMiles lawsuit also accuses LoyaltyOne of failure to give adequate notice that miles collected after that date will expire five years after they are earned. Got all that? Oh yes, the complaint also asserts that the company has made it difficult for miles to be redeemed before their expiration.

“The net result is that Air Miles’ conduct will result in a large number of the class members’ miles expiring, resulting in a significant loss to the class, and a corresponding large windfall for Air Miles,” the claim states.

According to the complaint, some 10 million Canadian households belong to the Air Miles program. The award miles are earned by shopping at participating retailers and are meant to be exchanged for flights and other rewards.

According to the claim, users wanting to redeem points before they expire have had problems doing so because of “unduly long” wait times on the phone. As well, it says the website displayed reward items users did not have enough miles to purchase, but not those that were within reach.

Need a vacation after reading all that!

Top Settlements

Lifelock Locks Up $68 Million Settlement. The deal has received final approval, ending a consumer fraud class action lawsuit pending against it. The lawsuit alleged that LifeLock made false statements about its services and failed to follow through on promised that it would alert consumers of potential identify theft immediately.

Specifically, the class alleged that LifeLock would not pay any losses directly to the consumer and does not cover consequential or incidental damages to identity theft. It also alleged the guarantee is limited to fixing failures or defects in the LifeLock services and paying other professionals to attempt to restore losses. LifeLock illegally placed and renewed fraud alerts under consumers’ names with credit bureaus. However, under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, corporations such as LifeLock are not allowed to place fraud alerts on a consumers’ behalf, in fact, the law was written to specifically bar credit repair companies from improperly using fraud alerts.

In the LifeLock Settlement, U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. also approved attorneys’ fees of $10.2 million and a payment of $2,000 to each of four class representatives. Distribution of the remaining funds works out to $20 per class member, with members of a subclass receiving funds on a pro rata distribution of a cordoned off subclass fund. The class starts from September 2010 and the subclass period begins in January 2012.

In July, 2015 the FTC accused LifeLock of “failing to establish and maintain a comprehensive information security program to protect its users’ sensitive personal data, including credit card, social security, and bank account numbers [and of] falsely advertising that it protected consumers’ sensitive data with the same high-level safeguards as financial institutions.”

The case is Ebarle et al. v. LifeLock Inc., case number 3:15-cv-00258, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Well, that’s a wrap for this week. See you at the Bar!

Week Adjourned: 7.10.15 – Ford, Capital One, Transvaginal Mesh

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Ford is not in the driver’s seat on this one…They got hit with a defective design class action this week, alleging certain Ford Explorer, Ford Edge and Lincoln MKX models allow carbon monoxide to enter the passenger compartment. Yeah, not so good guys. The suit covers 2011-2015 Ford Explorers as well as Edge and MKX models from 2011-2013 with 3.5L and 3.7L TIVCT engines.

The proposed Ford class action was filed on behalf of New Jersey owners or lessors of the vehicles in question. The complaint also proposes a subclass of consumers with claims under New Jersey’s Lemon Law for claimants who reported the defect to Ford in the first two years or 24 months of ownership.

According to the legal documents, Ford has known of the defect since 2012 but has not warned owners to get it fixed. Surprised? Apparently Ford has issued two technical safety bulletins to dealers about the problem but to date, has not notified owners, despite the related safety hazard. Ford has attempted to fix the problem on customers’ vehicles with a variety of remedies but none have proved effective, according to the complaint.

“Given that the defect renders driving the subject vehicles a health hazard that is potentially deadly, the vehicles are valueless,” the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit alleges breach of implied and express warranty, violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and of the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Warrant Act, also known as the Lemon Law. Love that Lemon Law!!!

Capital One should change its tag line…from “What’s in your Wallet” to “If at first you don’t succeed.” These guys are frankly, incorrigible—nay—unrepentant. They are facing yet another robocalls class action lawsuit—this one against Capital One Financial Group. Filed by plaintiff Nakia Pitr, this latest lawsuit alleges Capital One is in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by calling consumers through robodialing without their consent. Yeah, know this one off by heart.

Pitre claims in the Capital One lawsuit that within the space of two months, she received 37 calls on her cellphone from the bank, despite not being a customer. Capital One ignored her requests to stop calling, she claims.

According to the lawsuit, the calls were from the company’s credit card division. During each of the calls she received and answered, she told the bank they had the wrong number and asked them to stop calling. However, she continued to receive calls. According to the suit, the frequency and nature of the calls indicates they were made from an automatic telephone dialing system.

Pitre further alleges she has never been a Capital One customer, has never given the bank her number or given her consent for them to call her.

If approved, the class would include anyone contacted by Capital One using a robodialing system from July 1, 2014, through July 2, 2015, without prior consent and who received calls after asking not to be contacted.

FYI—the case is Pitre v. Capital One Financial Corporation, case number 1:15-cv-00869, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Top Settlements

Not a class action settlement—but a significant settlement none the less. Sadly, at great personal expense. Boston Scientific has been ordered to pay a $100 million settlement by a jury hearing the case of a women who suffered injury from the company’s Pinnacle and Advantage Fit vaginal mesh. Fifty-one year old Deborah Barba was awarded $25 million in compensatory damages with an additional $75 million in punitive damages.

In her personal injury lawsuit, Barba alleged she received a Boston Scientific’s Pinnacle mesh product in 2009 for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI). However, following the implant she began experiencing serious medical complications and despite two subsequent surgeries to rectify the problems, parts of the vaginal mesh implant remain in her body and continue to cause her pain.

The trial took just two weeks, after which the jury reached a decision within seven hours. They found Boston Scientific was negligent in designing and making the devices and that it had failed to warn patients and doctors about potential risks.

To date, this verdict is the largest regarding litigation over transvaginal mesh devices against Boston Scientific or any other mesh manufacturer. The company announced last month it had reached agreements to pay about $119 million to resolve 2,970 cases about transvaginal mesh. There are more than 25,000 defective product lawsuits pending against Boston Scientific concerning injuries resulting resulting from the Pinnacle mesh implant.

Reuters reports that this latest verdict is the sixth so far against the company by women who say that the devices are poorly designed and use subpar materials, resulting in painful physical injuries such as bleeding, infection and pain during sex.

That’s a wrap folks…See you at the Bar!

Week Adjourned: 6.27.14 – Ford, Caterpillar, Kashi

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories this week include Ford, Caterpillar and Kashi.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

It was Ford’s turn this week…its turn to face the class action blues…yessiree—they got hit with a consumer fraud lawsuit alleging personal harm from what appears to be a rather serious design defect.

The Ford lawsuit was filed in Florida by Ford Explorer owners and lessors alleging the automaker mislead consumers about the vehicles’ exhaust system that exposes passengers to dangerous levels of carbon monoxide.

Filed by lead plaintiff Angela Sanchez-Knutson, the complaint alleges that when the air conditioning is on in the Ford Motor Co. sport utility vehicle, the exhaust leaks into the passenger cabin of the cars. This poses a health risk to those in the cars and a safety risk to people on the road.

Sanchez-Knutson further claims that she and her daughter suffer from chronic headaches as a result of exposure to dangerous levels of carbon monoxide in her 2013 Ford Explorer. She alleges she took the car to the local dealership for repair numerous times because of a sulfuric smell. However, at no point in time was she informed that the odor actually signified exposure to the gas.

An internal technical service bulletin distributed by Ford to its dealerships showed that the automaker was aware that certain Explorer models’ exhaust systems were leaking into the cabins of the cars when the air conditioning was turned on, the complaint states.

The bulletin provided dealerships with instructions on how handle the smell in the vehicles but did not specify that carbon monoxide was seeping into the cabins or provide any remedies to protect consumers from the risk of exposure, according to the lawsuit.

“Ford knew or should have known that the 2011 through 2013 model year Ford Explorers were dangerous and defective such that drivers and passengers of those vehicles may be exposed to carbon monoxide and other dangerous gases while the vehicles are in operation,” the complaint states.

The complaint alleges Ford violated the vehicles’ express and limited warranties, since the contracts guaranteed that the vehicles were defect-free. All of the affected vehicles are still under warranty with the company, the lawsuit states.

As a result of filing the lawsuit, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced that it is looking into the exhaust allegations. The agency said it was aware of complaints involving the vehicles but that it had not initiated a formal investigation.

The lawsuit seeks to certify a class of all consumers in Florida who purchased or leased the 2011 to 2013 Explorer models. The suit is Sanchez-Knutson v. Ford Motor Company, case number 0:14-cv-61344, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Exhausted yet? Wait–there’s more! Caterpillar Inc. also got hit with a class action lawsuit over claims that its heavy-duty on-highway diesel engines, designed to adhere to 2007 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emissions regulations, contain a design defect that requires extensive repairs and replacements. Nice!! This is all sounding so familiar!

The Caterpillar lawsuit alleges Caterpillar’s 2007-2010 model C-13 and C-15 engines have defective exhaust emission controls which make the vehicles unreliable for transportation. Further, despite repeated repairs, they cannot be permanently fixed.

According to the complaint, the engines’ exhaust emission control systems regularly detect warning and shutdown readings from the software used to regulate and monitor certain components, causing the vehicle to require authorized exhaust emission control diagnoses that eventually are unable to rectify the problem.

“This caused plaintiff and class members to incur significant damages in the diminution of the value of their vehicles, but also in the cost of replacing the … engines with other EPA 2007 Emission Standard compliant heavy-duty, on-highway, diesel engines.” the lawsuit states.

K Double D Inc, lead plaintiff in the class action, alleges it purchased a vehicle featuring the 2007 heavy-duty on-highway diesel engine that suffered engine and regeneration problems, which resulted in thousands of dollars in damages to the company.

Further, K Double D claims that despite extensive repair work, the engine experienced repeated instances of warning lights illuminating, engine derating and shutdown, regeneration failure and more, as well as other failures that prevented it from working properly.

“Despite defendant’s numerous attempts to correct the … failures, the … engine exhaust emission controls do not function as required under all operating conditions, and will not do so for the expected life of the vehicle,” the lawsuit states.

The lead plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all vehicle owners and lessees who purchased or leased a vehicle containing the engines. The lawsuit alleges claims of breach of express and implied warranty, negligence, unfair and deceptive acts and more.

The suit is K Double D Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc., case number 1:14-cv-01760, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

Top Settlements

Heads up all you California crunchy granolas! A settlement has been reached in a consumer fraud class action lawsuit pending against Kashi Co. According to the terms of the settlement, a fund of $5 million will be established by Kashi, which will resolve claims of false advertising, the grounds for the lawsuit.

Ok—so I think we know the tune here—the Kashi lawsuit, Astiana v. Kashi Co., Case No. 3:11-cv-01967-H-BGS, alleged the food manufacturer misled consumers by claiming that certain of its products are “All Natural” and “Nothing Artificial” even though they contained synthetic ingredients, such as pyridoxine, hydrochloride, calcium pantothenate and/or hexane-processed soy ingredients. Got it?

Class Members of the Kashi class action settlement include California residents who purchased certain Kashi products between August 24, 2007 and May 1, 2014.

Ok–Folks–we’re done here–have a great weekend and we’ll 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: 3.29.13 – Ford, RadioShack, Toyota & Ford (again!)

Check out the latest class action lawsuit news for the week ending March 29, 2013. Top class action news includes Ford, Toyota and RadioShack.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Will Ford Follow in Toyota’s Footsteps? This week, consumers from 14 states filed a federal class action against Ford Motor Co. in connection with alleged defects in Ford’s vehicles causing and failing to prevent the unintended acceleration of those vehicles. Umm, remember that one? Toyota comes to mind…and they settled recently (more on that later).

Here’s the dirt: the plaintiffs contend that Ford vehicles equipped with an electronic throttle control system are vulnerable to sudden unintended acceleration events, and that Ford has admitted that some of its vehicles are in fact prone to such acceleration. Their complaint alleges that the Ford vehicles share a common design defect in lacking adequate fail-safe features, including a reliable brake-over-accelerator (BOA) system (also referred to as a “brake override system”). Such a system is designed to allow a driver to overcome unintended throttle opening by returning the throttle to idle when certain conditions are met, allowing a driver to mitigate unintended acceleration by depressing the brake.

The Ford lawsuit also claims that Ford owners have experienced unacceptable rates of sudden unintended acceleration (SUA), citing a report issued in October 2011 by the U.S. Department of Transportation Inspector General. Plaintiffs allege that Ford should have prevented the SUA incidents by including the brake-over-accelerator system or other fail-safe systems in its vehicles. They maintain that, while Ford began installing a BOA system on some of its North American cars beginning in 2010, the company has failed to remedy, or even warn drivers about the lack of a brake-over-accelerator system on its earlier vehicles.

The cars named in the complaint are:

Ford vehicles: 2005-2007 500; 2005-2009 Crown Victoria; 2005-2010 Econoline; 2007 2010 Edge; 2009-2010 Escape; 2005-2010 Escape HEV; 2005-2010 Expedition; 2004-2010 Explorer; 2007-2010 Explorer Sport Trac; 2004-2010 F-Series; 2009-2010 Flex; 2008-2010 Focus; 2005-2007 Freestyle; 2006-2010 Fusion; 2005-2010 Mustang; 2008-2010 Taurus; 2008-2009 Taurus X; 2002-2005 Thunderbird; and 2010 Transit Connect.

Lincoln vehicles: 2003-2006 LS; 2006-2008 Mark LT; 2009-2010 MKS; 2010 MKT; 2007-2010 MKX; 2006-2010 MKZ; 2005-2009 Town Car; and 2006-2010 Zephyr.

Mercury vehicles: 2002-2005 Cougar (XR7); 2005-2009 Grand Marquis; 2009-2010 Mariner; 2005-2010 Mariner HEV; 2006-2010 Milan; 2005-2007 Montego; 2004-2010 Mountaineer; and 2008-2010 Sable.

The potential class action was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia in Huntington. The plaintiffs, both individually and on behalf of all other class members, seek compensatory damages for the lost value of their cars, the difference between what they originally paid for their cars versus the actual value of their defective vehicles. Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief, requesting that Ford fix the problem.

Shack Sacked for Tracking? RadioShack got hit with a potential class action this week…The lawsuit claims the electronics retailer secretly tracks the Internet browsing activities of website visitors and shares this private information with third parties. Well, if so, they’re certainly not the first to do that, and I’m betting they won’t be the last…

Short version, the Radio Shack class action was filed in Missouri, by plaintiff Stephanie Hanson who alleges she visited the RadioShack website numerous times during the past five years but was unaware that the company, together with its website operator, GSI Commerce Solutions Inc., had accessed Adobe Flash Player on her computer. Adobe Flash Player is software that enables the playing of sound and video on websites. By accessing this software, the defendants were able to plant tracking devices known as Location Shared Objects (LSOs) on her computer, the lawsuit claims.

The lawsuit, entitled, Hanson v. RadioShack Corp. et al., Case No. 13-cv-00536, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, seeks to represent a proposed class comprised of all Missouri residents who, within the past five years, had their computers illegally tampered with by RadioShack and GSI. Additionally, the lawsuit is seeking damages for alleged invasion of privacy by unreasonable intrusion, computer tampering, trespassing and more.

Top Settlements

It was a very busy week for settlements, and car manufacturers Ford and Toyota led the pack.

First up—Toyota. The Toyota sudden and unwanted acceleration lawsuit claims that certain Toyota, Scion and Lexus vehicles equipped with electronic throttle control systems (ETCS) are defective and can experience unintended acceleration. Yes, that old chestnut…

As a result, the Toyota lawsuit pursues claims for breach of warranties, unjust enrichment, and violations of various state consumer protection statutes. Toyota denies that it has violated any law, denies that it engaged in any and all wrongdoing, and denies that its ETCS is defective. The parties agreed to resolve these matters before these issues were decided by the Court.

Heads up—this settlement does not involve claims of personal injury or property damage.

If you are class member, you may be entitled to one or more of the following:

A cash payment for alleged loss upon certain disposition of a Subject Vehicle during the period from September 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010 or upon early lease termination following an alleged unintended acceleration event that you reported.

Installation of a brake override system (BOS) in certain Subject Vehicles at no charge; A cash payment if your Subject Vehicle is not a hybrid and is not eligible for a BOS; Participation in a Customer Support Program; and other settlement benefits.

For more information including class member options and filing dates visit: toyotaelsettlement.com

Then there’s Ford. They reached a proposed settlement in the pending Ford defective engine class action lawsuit. The background: On April 13, 2011, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created MDL No. 2223, In re: Navistar 6.0L Diesel Engine Products Liability Litigation, and transferred seven lawsuits involving similar claims to the Court for pretrial proceedings. Thirty-two additional lawsuits have since been transferred to the Court. The plaintiffs contend that the 6.0-liter diesel engine installed primarily in 2003 – 2007 heavy-duty Ford trucks and vans contain defects that result in poor performance and expensive repair bills. Plaintiffs assert a variety of legal claims against Ford based on the engine’s design, the marketing of the vehicles, and Ford’s repair practices. Plaintiffs seek to pursue their lawsuits (the “Litigation”) as a class action on behalf of other owners and lessees of model year 2003_2007 non-ambulance Ford vehicles equipped with a 6.0 liter diesel engine (the “Class”).

If you:

1. purchased or leased a model year 2003_2007 non-ambulance Ford vehicle in the United States equipped with a 6.0-liter PowerStroke diesel engine; and

2. the vehicle received one or more repairs covered by Ford_s New Vehicle Limited Warranty during its first five years in service or 100,000 miles, whichever came first, to a fuel injector; the EGR valve; the EGR cooler; the oil cooler; or the turbocharger; and

3. you had not, as of November 1, 2012, filed (and not voluntarily dismissed without prejudice) an individual lawsuit based on that engine;

You may be a member of a proposed Settlement Class and entitled to reimbursement for certain engine-related repair costs and deductibles.

If the Court approves the proposed Settlement, Ford will provide Class Members a means of obtaining reimbursement for certain engine-related repair costs and deductibles. All persons (or entities) who agree to accept these benefits will be barred from pursuing individual lawsuits against Ford and others based on the 6.0-liter engines in these vehicles.

For complete information on the pending settlement, your legal rights, and obtaining and filing forms, visit: http://www.dieselsettlement.com/Casedocuments.html

Ok—that’s a wrap. See you at that bar…and Happy Easter, Happy Passover, Happy belated Holi, etc…

Week Adjourned: 6.25.11

Top Class Actions

The Tailgate Crack’d? Tailgates aren’t the only thing showing cracks at Ford, it seems. Ford’s in hot water this week as it finds itself facing a consumer fraud class action. The Ford lawsuit, filed Northern District of California, seeks to represent anyone in the country who purchased certain makes and models of SUVs that have experienced damage, as in “a large crack to the tailgate of the vehicle.”

Well, that would be a little hard to miss. Apparently, or at least according to the lawsuit, Ford “knowingly and fraudulently concealed the cracked tailgate issue in connection with its sale and delivery of model 2002 through model 2005 Ford Explorers and Mercury Mountaineers, and model 2003 through model 2005 Lincoln Aviators.”

Indeed? Indeed. Indeed, according to the cracked tailgate lawsuit, although Ford knew about the problem in early-2002, the company continued to sell the affected vehicles and systematically refused to repair or replace the damaged tailgates both inside and outside of the warranty period. Umm. That could be a real pain.

So, the lawsuit alleges that Ford continued sale and delivery of these vehicles and thereby violated the various consumer protection laws of the United States and that Ford’s actions also constitute common law fraud, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment.

The Complaint also alleges that Ford made material misrepresentations and concealed material information regarding the design defect that caused the cracked tailgate issue. Moreover, Ford intentionally misled the public so they could continue to sell the affected Ford vehicles and avoid the expense of repair or redesign of the cracked tailgates. Go all that? Not very good for business. Not good at all, actually, if the allegations prove true.

Top Settlements

Award puts Focus on the Suffering Silent. Every once in a while a story like this makes the news and it’s sad because it takes this kind of distress before attention is paid, it seems. Recently, an elderly nursing home resident was awarded a $4.4 million settlement in a negligence lawsuit.

The short version is that in 2009, 79-year old Samuel Nevarrez was admitted to San Marino Skilled Nursing and Wellness Centre for rehabilitation after he had fallen at home several times. He stayed at the nursing home for six weeks and during that time he fell a further nine times, which, he claimed in his lawsuit, caused him to suffer a subdural hematoma and a subsequent stroke. That’s a lot of falling.

Nevarrez later returned to the facility where he suffered a further two falls and following the last fall he was placed in hospice. Nevarrez sued the nursing home and its management company, the Country Villa Service Corp, claiming that the staff at the facility did not prevent his falls. The jury hearing the elder care lawsuit found the nursing home 40 percent at fault and Nevarrez 20 percent comparatively negligent.

Medical Negligence Award puts Elder Care in Focus…Again. And while we’re on the topic, the family of an 88-year old woman who underwent treatment for a Stage IV sacral pressure sore which the family allege was negligently performed and led to their mother’s death, were recently awarded $315,000 in their medical negligence lawsuit.

It’s a very sad case. According to reports on the case, the surgery was done through Vohra Health Services, a wound care company that treated residents at the , where the woman was resident. The woman’s daughter alleged in her lawsuit, that the doctor involved negligently performed a surgical debridement because he didn’t remove all the necrotic tissue from the wound. The daughter also claimed that the surgery and post-operative care from the nurse involved led to her mother’s death. Interestingly, the counsel for the defense also blamed Miami Gardens for the worsening of the woman’s bed sore. So the woman’s family won their case.

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