Tag: HAMP

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.

Ford Escape HybridTop 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: 4.8.11

Top Class Actions

HAMPered Loan Modifications? It seems there’s no end in sight to the mortgage crisis—with new twists and victims appearing regularly. In fact, you could argue that it’s spawned a whole spin-off industry of fraud, and related legal actions. For example, this week, Saxon Mortgage Inc, the mortgage service division of Morgan Stanley, was hit with a potential class action lawsuit over allegations that the company uses the Homeowners Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) to attract customers into making “trial” payments on loans it has no intention of ever permanently modifying.

Filed in Northern California, the suit alleges a pattern of misconduct by Saxon which involves collecting trial payments, delaying the processing of loan modifications, and then denying the application altogether for demonstrably false reasons. Where do you start?

The suit’s lead plaintiff, a small business owner in San Francisco, Marie Gaudin, had, like millions of Americans, fallen on hard times as a result of the recession and approached Saxon for a loan modification on her home. Long story short, she was directed to Saxon’s “Home Preservation Department” and subsequently asked to provide extensive documentation of her financial condition, which she did. She received a written agreement from them that appeared to promise a permanent HAMP loan modification after she made three “trial” payments as proof she could handle the loan repayments. But—Saxon didn’t honor its agreement. Are we surprised?

The suit claims that Saxon delayed the processing of the HAMP loan modification, while Gaudin continued to make trial payments, which were duly noted as received in correspondence from Saxon. Nevertheless, Saxon denied her a permanent HAMP modification. According to the suit Saxon claimed that Gaudin had failed to make payments or comply with document requests. They also allegedly claimed that she did not make payments, while in the same letter actually acknowledged that she was current on all payments (do they not read their own correspondence before it goes out?). Saxon also claimed that the U.S. Treasury Department was involved in reviewing HAMP applications. Who gets paid to think this stuff up? 

Not surprisingly, the suit alleges that Saxon’s breach of contract, rescission and restitution, and deceptive debt collection practices violated California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Rosenthal Act), and fraudulent, unlawful, and unfair business practices under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). 

Top Settlements

Goodyear Discrimination Suit Settles. Here’s a good news story—we like those. A jury in Cumberland, NC recently awarded Lashanda Shaw $450,000 as settlement of her wrongful termination suit against Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.’s Fayetteville plant this week. 

Court documents reportedly state that Shaw was fired for making a complaint about racial and sexual discrimination in the workplace. She filed her suit in 2009. When she finally got to court the trial took five weeks with the jury unanimously agreed on the compensatory damages. I’ll bet she’s sleeping better now. 

May be Justice—but at What Cost? A 79-year old woman in Scranton, PA was awarded $550K this week as settlement of her medical malpractice case. But here’s the downside—Irene Doherty filed the suit because she suffered a 23-month delay in the diagnosis of her lung cancer. The verdict was returned against radiologist Earl Detrick, who practiced in Scranton and Wilkes-Barre, PA, prior to retiring.

Ms. Doherty’s lawyers argued that Detrick failed to properly report to Doherty or her physician his conclusions regarding a computerized tomography (CT) scan of her chest. That’s helpful. It turns out that that scan revealed a mass in Doherty’s right lung that required medical follow-up—but it wasn’t brought to Ms. Doherty’s attention until nearly two years later when she underwent a subsequent CT scan of her chest. The second scan revealed a much larger cancerous mass. So, in the 23 months between CT scans, the mass had doubled in size, and was inoperable. Worse, the cancer had spread to Doherty’s lymph nodes. Frankly, I find this astonishing—how does this kind of oversight happen?

Needless to say, Doherty’s suffering and physical deterioration due to her lung cancer could have been prevented had the radiologist done his job—which was to report the results of the January 2007 CT scan as soon as he saw them. And that’s exactly what her lawyers argued. If nothing else Doherty’s case emphasizes the importance of being your own advocate when it comes to healthcare. Don’t get me started…

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