Week Adjourned - Part 19

Week Adjourned: 5.30.14 – Listerine, Daiichi Sankyo, Pradaxa

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements including Listerine, Daiichi Sankyo and Pradaxa.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Listerine Total Care Missing Something? Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and subsidiaries may have to rebuild their advertising campaign if the allegations in this latest consumer fraud class action lawsuit prove true. The lawsuit claims J&J et al falsely label Listerine Total Care products as being capable of restoring tooth enamel despite the “overwhelming consensus” of experts that tooth enamel loss is permanent.

Specifically, the Listerine lawsuit, entitled Suzanna Bowling v. Johnson & Johnson et al., case number 1:14-cv-03727, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, claims that J&J, McNeil-PPC Inc., and Johnson & Johnson Healthcare Products label various Listerine products as capable of enamel restoration. Bowling, who filed the lawsuit, states that the misleading claims are “highly material” to consumers and served to differentiate Listerine’s Total Care line from other mouthwash products. Oh yes.

The lawsuit further claims that the Listerine Total Care labeling enabled the defendants to charge a 35.8 percent price premium for Total Care products. “In fact, Listerine Total Care is essentially identical to Listerine Fluoride Defense Anti-cavity Mouthwash,” the complaint, states. “Both products have the same active ingredient, in the same amount, the same indicated uses, the same warnings, the same directions, and the same inactive ingredients. There are only three differences between Listerine Total Care and Listerine Fluoride Defense: the packaging, the color, and the price.” Terrific.

Bowling seeks an order certifying the nationwide class and the New York subclass, an order finding in favor of the plaintiff and an order of restitution, as well as compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, prejudgment interest and injunctive relief.

Pharmasexist? Well…it’s been a while since we’ve heard about this one—a nationwide sex discrimination class action lawsuit against of Daiichi Sankyo Inc. It was certified this week. The collective action is brought by about 1,500 female employees of the pharmaceutical company, who claim they were paid less than their male counterparts for the same work.

The sex discrimination lawsuit was brought in February 2013, by current and former sales workers and are seeking more than $100 million in damages. Named plaintiff Sara Wellens and several other current or former Daiichi sales employees sought collective action certification in March under the Equal Pay Act.

FYI—the case is Sara Wellens et al. v. Daiichi Sankyo Inc., case number 4:13-cv-00581, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Top Settlements

Pradaxa Settlement…Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH looks set to pony up $650 million, after news a settlement deal has been struck—potentially ending claims in multidistrict litigation that its blood thinner Praxada (dabigatran) caused serious injuries including severe bleeding.

If approved, the Pradaxa settlement will resolve both state and federal personal injury lawsuits. Boehringer said in its statement that it expects the settlement will resolve roughly 4,000 claims over the drug, and noted that the US Food and Drug Administration has reaffirmed the drug’s positive benefit-risk profile.

During the past several years the number of Pradaxa lawsuits has increased, with users alleging they experienced bleeding events and other injuries associated with Pradaxa use. Lawsuits began to be filed in March 2012, according to court records, following the publication of a study in the Archives of Internal Medicine which linked Pradaxa with an increased risk of heart attack compared with other anticoagulants.

Boehringer received FDA approval in October 2010 for Pradaxa, to reduce clotting risks in patients with atrial fibrillation, an irregular heartbeat that causes problems with blood flow, that is not caused by a heart valve problem.

The case is In re: Pradaxa (Dabigatran Etexilate) Products Liability Litigation, case number 3:12-md-02385, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

Ok – Folks – we’re done here – have a great weekend and we’ll see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 5.24.14 – Google, US Foodservice, Citigroup

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements for the week ending May 24, 2014. Top stories include Google, US Foodservice and Citigroup.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Heads Up Google AdWords Users…Google’s been hit with a national unfair business practices class action lawsuit alleging the god of all things Internet unlawfully denies payments to thousands of website owners and operators who place ads on their sites sold through Google AdWords.

The Google AdWords lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that Google abruptly cancels website owners’ AdSense accounts often without explanation shortly before payments are due, and refuses to pay for the ads that ran prior to the cancelation.

According to the lawsuit, Google’s popular AdSense program translates annually to billions of dollars payable to website operators that host its ads via AdSense. Google’s AdSense advertising program induces website operators to host space for ads on their websites. Each time a visitor to the website interacts with the ad, the ad publisher who hosts the ad earns payment.

The complaint claims that the contracts and terms of service Google requires web publishers to sign are unconscionably one-sided, giving Google free reign to embark on what the lawsuit claims are actions devoid of good faith or fair dealing.

The complaint states, “Given Google’s contractual terms purportedly permitting it to withhold payment to publishers with disabled accounts, and in light of the experience of the plaintiff in seeing this policy actually effected, the total of earned funds that Google has refused to pay its AdSense publishers could be enormous.”

The lawsuit claims Google is in violation of contracts with users and in violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law.

The named plaintiff, Free Range Content, Inc., is a California corporation that owns and operates Repost.us. Free Range Content first noticed a spike in AdSense earnings in Feb. 2014. At the end of Feb. 2014, Google issued a report stating that the plaintiff’s estimated earnings for the covered period were over $40,000–a number that seemed far too high. Then on March 4, 2014, two days before a scheduled March 6, 2014 call with an AdSense representative was slated to occur, the plaintiff received word from the AdSense program that Google had disabled its account.

The lawsuit seeks damages for all U.S. Google AdSense publishers whose AdSense account was disabled or terminated, and whose last AdSense program payment was withheld permanently by Google.

Top Settlements

Major RICO settlement this week…thought to be among the largest civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Law (RICO) class action settlements in recent history: We’re talking $297 million—a preliminary agreement between plaintiffs in a multidistrict unfair business practices class action against U.S. Foodservice, Inc. and its former parent company, Koninklijke Ahold, N.V. The settlement agreement is pending approval by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

This US Foodservice agreement was reached on behalf of a class of customers, primarily hospitals and restaurants, who purchased products from U.S. Foodservice under cost-plus arrangements between 1998 and 2005.

The class claimed that it was defrauded by U.S. Foodservice when it created six companies that it controlled to inflate the “cost component” of the products that were subject to the arrangement.

Citigroup Employee Shareholder Settlement…Bank employees got screwed too—and this week they got some justice, with the agreement of a $8.5 million settlement ending a securities class action lawsuit pending against Citigroup. The lawsuit, brought by Citigroup employee shareholders, alleged the company concealed its exposure to subprime mortgages prior to its stock price dropping.

The settlement class includes over 7,000 Citigroup employees who acquired securities between November 2006 and June 2009. Yikes! The damage seems endless. Probably is.

Under the terms of the agreement a $2.3 million settlement fund will be established, to include six payments of approximately $50,000 each to the six lead plaintiffs, as an incentive award for their service to the case. The Erisa lawsuit was brought in 2009 by former Citigroup employees who alleged the company prevented employees who had purchased the bank’s stock from obtaining information about subprime losses by means of a series of materially misleading statements and omissions concerning its subprime exposure, overall business outlook and financial results.

The lawsuit was originally filed in California, but was later consolidated into a multidistrict securities litigation against Citigroup through New York.

Ok—Folks—we’re done here—have a great weekend and we’ll see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 5.9.14 – CVS, Google, FiveFingers, Medtronic

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories include CVS, Google, FiveFingersand Medtronic

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Caremark to get healthy over vitamin E advertising claims? That’s right folks, the pharmacy chain is facing a consumer fraud class action lawsuit filed by a customer who alleges the labeling on the pharmacy chain’s vitamin E pills state that they have heart health benefits.

Filed by plaintiff Ronda Kauffman, on behalf a proposed nationwide class of consumers who purchased vitamin E pills from the major pharmacy chain, and subclasses for customers in Rhode Island and New York, the CVS/Caremark complaint alleges that the CVS labels are misleading to customers, making them think the vitamins could reduce the risk of heart disease.

“The overwhelming majority of scientific studies find no ‘heart health’ benefit to taking vitamin E supplements,” the lawsuit states. Hey – what about the placebo effect?

7,600 CVS pharmacies nationwide carried the vitamins, which retail for approximately $8 to $20 per bottle, the lawsuit states. Kaufman alleges she bought vitamin E tablets from a CVS store in New York after reading the label and lost money on the purchase, which she wouldn’t have made if not for the heart health claims.

The CVS lawsuit mentions several studies that allegedly show vitamin E provides no heart health benefits. Further, it cites data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which show heart disease to be the leading cause of death in the US.

“Defendants have preyed upon these legitimate health concerns by misrepresenting to consumers that its vitamin E products have a ‘heart health’ benefit when they do not,” the complaint states.

The lawsuit claims CVS has violated deceptive business practice laws in New York and Rhode Island.

So, it’s back to eating your veggies.

Do no evil? Isn’t that it? Well, Google Inc. is facing a proposed antitrust class action lawsuit alleging the company is trying to monopolize the search engine feature on Android smartphones and tablets in violation of state and federal antitrust laws.

The Google lawsuit, Feitelson et al v. Google Inc., case number 5:14-cv-02007, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, claims that Google engages is anticompetitive behavior by allowing Android device manufacturers to preload its popular applications, such as Youtube and Google Maps, only if the companies agree to make Google’s search application the default search engine on their devices. Is that evil—or convenient?

The lawsuit states: “By way of Google’s coercive and exclusionary practice with Android OS device manufacturers … Google restrains and quashes competition for default search engine status before it even can begin. Google’s practice is a pure power play designed to maintain and extend its monopoly in handheld general search.”

Further, the plaintiffs claim that Google’s alleged conduct results in consumers overpaying for certain Android phones and tablets, as the price for the devices may have been lowered if rivals had been given a chance to compete for default search engine status, potentially by paying manufacturers.

“Such payments … would lower the bottom-line cost associated with production of the covered devices, which in turn would lead to lower consumer prices for smartphones and tablets,” the lawsuit states.

The class action seeks to represent all U.S. purchasers of Android phones and tablets made by manufacturers who have entered into an alleged agreements with Google requiring its search engine to be the default search tool on their devices. The suit seeks an injunction on these alleged practices, as well as monetary damages.

Could this end up like Microsoft?

Top Settlements

Can you sue for ugliness, too? Vibram’s set to fork over for false health claims about FiveFingers..Turns out reinventing the wheel may be costly afterall. Vibram, the maker of a glovelike running shoe that purported to have health benefits such as reducing foot injuries and strengthening foot muscles—has agreed to settle a consumer fraud class action lawsuit.

The FiveFingers lawsuit alleges the company’s health claims regarding its FiveFingers running shoes were false and misleading. Specifically, the lawsuit alleged that the claims were“deceptive” and stated “that FiveFingers may increase injury risk as compared to running in conventional running shoes, and even when compared to running barefoot.” The complaint also stated that the company misrepresented research on barefoot running, claiming “there are no well-designed scientific studies that support FiveFingers’ claims.”

Under the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, Vibram would pay $94 per pair of shoes bought. More than two dozen models of Vibram shoes will qualify for refund.

Further, Vibram has agreed to discontinue some aspects of its advertising and marketing campaigns and, in the absence of verifiable scientific evidence, will make no other statements about the health benefits of FiveFingers.

Medtronic, the maker of a spinal bone graft product called Infuse Bone Graft, has said it will pay $22 million to settle about 1,000 lawsuits stemming from claims of adverse health outcomes related to the product and claims that the manufacturer illegally promoted the Medtronic bone product for off-label uses. Medtronic is also reportedly preparing a further $140 million to settle an even larger number of anticipated claims.

Medtronic allegedly encouraged physicians to use its Infuse bone stimulator off-label in the cervical spine, which helped generate sales of more than $3 billion for the manufacturer. As of September of 2008, about 680,000 units of Infuse Bone Grafts had been used in the US, according to Medtronic. According to a report by the Senate committee investigating the product, the company’s undisclosed manipulation of information through the medical literature included overstating its benefits and downplaying concerns about serious complications. According to MedPage Today, during the past 15 years, Medtronic has paid $210 million in royalties and other payments to a group of 13 doctors and two corporations linked to doctors. Many of the lawsuits claim that it was by paying spinal surgeons the company was able to promote the off-label use of Infuse.

According to a press release Medtronic issued Tuesday, the $22 million will resolve the claims of some 950 people. A further 750 cases brought by 1,200 people are pending across the use, and there could be another 2,600 claims yet to be brought.

Ok—Folks—we’re done here—have a great weekend and we’ll see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 5.2.14 – Baby Powder, Aveda, Apple, Google, Intel, Adobe

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories include Baby Powder cancer risk, Aveda interns, and the tech worker salary collusion settlement

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Talc Troubles? It’s one thing to file a consumer fraud class action lawsuit alleging mislabelling infractions regarding “all natural” and “ no preservatives”—for example, but a consumer fraud class action filed this week against Johnson & Johnson alleging its classic baby powder products are associated with a significant increase in the risk of ovarian cancer, well that’s just a whole different level of muckery. Why do I continue to be surprised by these things…

According to the baby powder lawsuit, filed by plaintiff Mona Estrada (Mona Estrada v. Johnson & Johnson et al., case number 2:14-cv-01051, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California) studies have shown a 33% increased risk for ovarian cancer associated with talcum powder among women who use it on their genitals. Yet the only warnings on the product labels tell users to keep the powder away from their eyes, avoid inhalation and to use externally. Estrada, who has used the product since 1950, claims she expected Johnson’s Baby Powder, made of scented talc, to be safe. Further, the lawsuit claims J&J has failed to disclose the information regarding ovarian cancer risk on its product labels.
“As a result of the defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions, plaintiff and the proposed class have purchased a product which is potentially lethal,” the complaint states. Estrada alleges she would not have purchased the powder had she been aware of the risk. You think? Thankfully, Estrada is not claiming any personal injury.

Estrada further alleges she has bought J&J’s powder since 1950 and believed all this time that the product was safe to use on any external part of her body, and that J&J encouraged women to use the product daily.

“Although the label has changed over time, the message is the same: that the product is safe for use on women as well as babies,” the lawsuit states. The lawsuit also states that J&J has known of studies showing that women who used talcum powder on their genital area had a higher risk of ovarian cancer, since at least 1982. Further, the author of a 1982 study was contacted by a J&J doctor who was told the company it should add a warning label to the bottle.

The talc lawsuit goes on to state that the American Cancer Society (ACS) allegedly said that a 2008 study, linking higher usage of talcum powder to increased risk of cancer, showed the powder “probably” increased the risk for cancer. The ACS compared talcum powder to asbestos, postmenopausal hormone therapy and radiation. Oh great.

The lawsuit claims J&J violated the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, negligently misrepresented its powder and breached its implied warranty. This is going to be interesting.

Beauty Blunder? Aveda Corp, and its parent company, Estee Lauder Inc, and are facing an employment lawsuit filed by a former beauty school student who alleges the beauty companies treat their trainees as unpaid employees in violation of state and federal labor law. There must be some law of physics that works something like—the larger the company the less they pay—or try to pay…

Filed by lead plaintiff Jazlyn Jennings, the lawsuit claims that Aveda uses students at its California cosmetology schools as unpaid workers, requiring them to provide full hair and beauty services to paying clients, while at the same time claiming to provide educational experience to those trainees. Yes—it’s an educational experience alright—just not the kind the students signed up for.

The nitty gritty—“The California defendants led plaintiff and others…to believe that they were paying tuition to learn the skills necessary to succeed in the glamorous profession of beauty and cosmetology. Instead, they converted students into student employees to profit from their free labor.”

According to Jennings, she trained at the Aveda Institute Los Angeles from April 2011 to June 2012, where she provided haircuts, makeup removal, manicures and other services to customers without being compensated for her labor.

Jennings alleges that the institute’s staff did not properly supervise students who shelled out “thousands or tens of thousands” to participate in its yearlong training program, providing just four supervisors for the 40 students working on the salon floor, in violation of state regulations.

In addition to the Aveda institute in Los Angeles, Jennings also names its San Francisco-based school, the Cinta Aveda Institute Inc., and its Southeast institute operator, Beauty Basics Inc., as co-defendants in the employment lawsuit. “[Defendants] could have hired employees who they would have had to have paid at least minimum wage but instead chose to displace such employees with the free labor they demanded of their student employees,” the lawsuit states.

Additionally, according to the allegations, students were compelled to sell Aveda products to the public, effectively transforming students into “non-commissioned salespeople.” And the litany of bad deeds goes on to include handing over of tips and insufficient or completely absent supervision—if that’s not a contradiction in terms… but you get the picture.

So—bottom line—by failing to pay its “student employees,” the complaint claims that Aveda violated the minimum wage requirements of both California labor law and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Additionally, Jennings claims Aveda failed to pay overtime, did not provide proper meal and rest breaks, did not provide accurate wage statements and engaged in unfair business practices.

Heads up—Jennings is seeking to represent a class of individuals who provided beauty services or sold products to paying customers in the named Aveda institutes from April 22, 2010, to the present. The class may also include student employees who cleaned or provided support services to Aveda’s beauty institutes in California.

Top Settlements

This settlement almost slipped under the radar this week—surprising given that the named defendants are Apple Inc, Google Inc, Intel Inc and Adobe Systems Inc. The tech worker settlement is, not surprisingly, pre-trial in the amount of $324 million—and it’s meant to end an antitrust class action lawsuit brought by by Silicon Valley tech engineers.

The lawsuit was filed in 2011, alleging that the four tech giants conspired to hold down salaries in Silicon Valley. You may remember some finger pointing at Steve Jobs over this one. In any event, the class action, filed in 2011 by Silicon Valley engineers, alleged that Apple Inc, Google Inc, Intel Inc and Adobe Systems conspired to refrain from soliciting one another’s employees in order to avert a salary war.

The trial, which will not be going ahead, surprise,surprise—was scheduled to begin at the end of May on behalf of roughly 64,000 workers who were seeking $3 billion in damages. Whoa Nelly—now that would have had an impact.
Ok—Folks—we’re done here—have a great weekend and we’ll see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 4.25.14 – Chrysler, Revlon, Neurontin

Top Class Action Lawsuits

GM, Toyota, now Chrysler—Welcome! to the defective automotive class action lawsuit hall of fame…Cast your mind back—when reports of alleged defects with the Chrysler Totally Integrated Power Module (TIPM) in 2011-2012 Jeep Grand Cherokees and Dodge Durangos and Dodge Grand Caravans, began to surface…well, predictably, a Chrysler class action has been filed, alleging the alleged defective Chrysler TIPMs can cause numerous electrical problems and serious safety risks. no surprise there. I suppose the good news is that there don’t appear to be any reports of deaths associated with these defects. We hope.

According to the lawsuit, the associated TIPM problems range from difficulty starting the vehicles to stalling to fuel pumps not shutting off. Additionally, the affected vehicles may experience random activation of the built in alarm systems, windshield wipers or horns, headlights going out. Talk about having a bad hair day! That could send a person seriously over the edge.

The alleged defective TIPMs are so common that the replacement parts are backordered for weeks across the US. Terrific.

The plaintiffs allege that to date, Chrysler has refused to reimburse impacted affected owners for their rental car costs or the cost of expensive repairs. Further, Chrysler has to date refused to issue a recall for the TIPM, despite being aware that the defective TIPM pose serious safety risks to those who continue to drive the impacted Chrysler vehicles. So, sing it with me folks—you know the words—Hi Ho, Hi Ho—it’s off to court they go!

Revlon’s hit a Wrinkle with their DNA Advantage product marketing…Wonder if they can make it vanish? The beauty products manufacturer got hit with a consumer fraud class action lawsuit this week—filed by two women who allege the company makes false and misleading claims regarding the benefits of various beauty products. Well, they certainly wouldn’t be the first.

The Revlon lawsuit specifically claims that these products are advertised as providing a “DNA Advantage” despite the fact that none of the products can stimulate, interact with or otherwise affect the genetic code in human skin cells. (Really, we should be very grateful for that…)

Filed by Anne Elkind and Sharon Rosen, of Long Island and California respectively, the lawsuit states: “Revlon claims in its federal trademark registration that ‘DNA Advantage’ refers to an ‘ingredient in the manufacturing of cosmetics and makeup to protect against UV rays’ which is essentially sunscreen. Further, only one of its three ‘Age Defying with DNA Advantage’ products … even contains sunscreen.” Really?

The plaintiffs allege Revlon’s use of the term “with DNA Advantage,” rather than “with sunscreen,” could deceive consumers into believing that the three cosmetic products are scientifically important and beneficial over and above anything having to do with UV protection from sunscreen, Really, it seems to me that if Revlon had found the “Fountain of Youth” we would not be buying this stuff over the counter for under $100 bucks…

The complaint further states that even if the information on the packaging is referring to other ingredients with respect to the “DNA Advantage”, no ingredient identified by its customer service employees is capable of stimulating, interacting with or otherwise affecting the DNA in human skin cells, contrary to Revlon’s advertising claims. Further, Revlon’s packaging of the products features a double-helix design characteristic of the shape of deoxyribonucleic acid or DNA molecules, which could further deceive ordinary consumers.

“Plaintiffs paid more for the products than they otherwise would have absent these statements, and would not have been willing to pay the prices they did, or to purchase them at all, absent the misrepresentations,” the lawsuit states. Well this part adds up.

The complaint, Elkind et al v. Revlon Consumer Products, case number 2:14-cv-02484, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleges fraud, false advertising and unfair business practices claims under both New York and California statutory and common law. The lawsuit is seeking class action status, injunctive relief including possibly a recall of the products and payment including punitive damages from the Manhattan-based Revlon Inc, unit.

Top Settlements

Pfizer is in a Giving Mood… They agreed to pay a $190M settlement settling a consumer fraud class action lawsuit which alleges the pharmaceutical giant engaged in tactics to delay market entry of generic versions of its epilepsy drug Neurontin.

The lawsuit was filed by purchasers of Neurontin in 2002, claiming Pfizer undertook campaign of sham patent infringement lawsuits and promotion of the drug for unapproved uses in order to maintain market exclusivity. The case is In re Neurontin Antitrust Litigation, No. 02-1390, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey. That’s an expensive process…

FYI—in 2004, Pfizer pleaded guilty to criminal charges of illegal marketing of Neurontin and paid $430 million to federal and state governments.

Ok—Folks—we’re done here—have a great weekend and we’ll see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 4.18.14 – Prime Healthcare, Wells Fargo, Compass Health

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories from Prime Healthcare, Wells Fargo and Compass Health.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Not Paid for Prime Time? What would the week be without an employment class action? This week, among several employment class actions filed, is one against Prime Healthcare Centinela LLC alleging California labor law violations, specifically underpayment of overtime and failure to provide meal and rest breaks to 400 employees at its 12 California hospitals.

In the Prime Healthcare class action, a social worker for Prime Healthcare’s subsidiary since March 2011, alleges “In violation of state law, defendants have knowingly and willfully refused to perform their obligations to compensate plaintiffs for all wages earned and all hours worked.” And “As a direct result, plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer, substantial losses related to the use and enjoyment of such wages.”

The lawsuit, Beauchamp et al. v. Prime Healthcare Centinela LLC et al., case number BC542351, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, claims that Prime Healthcare established policies under which hourly employees would be “taken off the clock” for a variety of reasons, including the indicating the end of a worker’s official shift or falsely accounting that a meal break was taken when the employee was actually forced to continue working.

According to the allegations, while Prime Healthcare frequently required its employees to work in excess of eight hours per day and over 40 hours per week, it failed to pay them one and a half times the regular hourly rate as required under California law.

Further, the lawsuit claims Prime Healthcare failed to provide its employees with accurate wage statements and failed to pay separated employees the amounts they were owed in a timely manner.

Beauchamp filed the lawsuit on behalf of all hourly, nonunionized social workers and others in similar positions, claiming the company established policies for employees to clock out when they were still working and did not compensate them for overtime hours worked.

The class action seeks to represent all hourly nonexempt social workers, discharge planners, case managers and others who worked for Prime Healthcare since April 2010, a class she estimates to include 400 people at 12 hospitals.

De-Fault of the Bank? Maybe…If the allegations in this new consumer banking and lending violations class action lawsuit prove true, then yes. Wells Fargo Bank NA is facing a potential lawsuit alleging it violated California consumer laws by billing late fees to, or foreclosing on, state homeowners who had loan modification applications pending with the bank. Something referred to as Dual Tracking. Read on.

The Wells Fargo lawsuit, Garcia et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al., case number 8:14-cv-00558, in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleges Wells Fargo practices “dual tracking”, which is when a bank pursues a foreclosure while simultaneously processing loan modifications. On January 1, 2013, the California Homeowner Bill of Rights was enacted, forbidding this behavior.

“Because the dual-tracking system prevents homeowners from being evaluated for appropriate loan modifications before foreclosure, it has resulted in many unnecessary foreclosures,” the lawsuit states.

Lead plaintiffs, Orange County residents Henry and Renee Garcia, allege they applied for a loan modification with Wells Fargo but that the bank charged them $840 in late fees and prepared to foreclose on the property before the application process was complete. The bank later rejected the application, verbally denied their appeal, and scheduled the home for trustee sale.

According to the lawsuit, the Garcias defaulted on the mortgage for their San Juan Capistrano, CA, home on March 6, 2013. The following month they submitted a loan modification application to Wells Fargo and over the next several months they stayed in frequent communication with bank officials.

However, simultaneous to the processing of the Garcias’ application Wells Fargo recorded a notice of trustee sale on their home, moving forward with the foreclosure process in violation of the state’s consumer protection law, according to the lawsuit. It wasn’t until the following January that the Garcias loan application was denied, according to the complaint. Garcias appealed, but the bank denied the appeal in February and scheduled a trustee sale of the property for March 5, 2014.

In their lawsuit, the Garcias seek to establish two classes: one for alleged victims of dual tracking and another for homeowners who were illegally charged late fees.

The complaint alleges violations of the California Homeowner Bill of Rights’ restrictions on dual tracking and late fees and the California Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiffs are seeking class certification, unspecified damages and restitution, and injunctive relief forbidding the bank from engaging in the alleged activity.

Top Settlements

Next Time Ask for Directions? With a name like Compass, you’d think they’d already know how not to go astray… At any rate, here’s proof that employment class actions are worth the effort—a proposed $1.1 million settlement has been reached in a class action accusing Compass Health Inc. of California labor law violations, specifically of underpayment of overtime. Heard that one before?

Under the terms of the settlement, Compass would pay a net settlement amount of up to $700,500 to all members of the settlement class, which is approximately 2,500 current and former hourly nonexempt employees in California who worked for Compass Health between March 29, 2009 and January 6 2014.

According to the lawsuit, the workers alleged Compass miscalculated the regular rate of pay because it didn’t properly include the value of annual safety bonuses. They also claimed meal and rest period violations on the part of the defendant, as well as derivative penalty claims.

Court documents indicated that based on the number of valid claims filed, the average settlement payment would be about $425, with the highest payment being roughly $1,050, which is “an excellent result for the settlement class, particularly when compared to other, similar wage and hour class action settlements involving similar-wage workers.”

Ok—Let’s celebrate that news—Happy Easter—and we’ll see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 4.11.14 – Dog Treats, Hilton Hotels, Actos

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories this week include deadly dog treats, Hilton hotels and Actos diabetes drug settlement.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Dog treats manufacturer to be treated to a little justice perhaps? IMS Trading Corp, aka IMS Pet Industries—maker of Cadet duck jerky treats, is facing a consumer fraud class action lawsuit alleging it sold products containing duck jerky imported from China that caused dogs to become sick or die. The dog treat lawsuit alleges the company, IMS Trading Corp, aka IMS Pet Industries, is in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and is guilty of unjust enrichment as they falsely assured consumers through the product packaging that the treats were healthy for dogs. Several unnamed companies involved in the manufacture and sale of the dog treats are also named as defendants in the lawsuit.

Lead plaintiff, Marie Dopico, who owns several small dogs, alleges her dogs nearly died after she fed them Cadet duck jerky dog treats she bought in October from a ShopRite grocery store in New Jersey. She claims she had to pay veterinary expenses and other related costs to save her dogs’ lives.

The proposed lawsuit claims that there could be thousands of plaintiffs, as other consumers in New Jersey and across the US have suffered similar damages as a result of defendants’ conduct. The putative class and subclass includes consumers who, up to six years prior to the January filing of the lawsuit, purchased IMS dog treats and whose dogs got sick or died as a result of consuming the allegedly unhealthy and dangerous treats.

According to the lawsuit, the packaging for IMS’ dog treats allegedly states the products do not contain artificial colors, additives, fillers or by-products. The packaging also states that the treats are “healthy and natural treats with only the finest ingredients.” The same claims are found on the company’s website, the plaintiffs allege.

The lawsuit states that in November 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration issued warnings stating that dogs can become ill after eating treats containing duck jerky made in China. The agency has said that more than 3,600 dogs in the US have become ill after eating Chinese jerky treats. This information was not fully disclosed on the company’s website, plaintiffs allege, and they accuse the defendants of hiding the warnings to increase or maintain sales.

“No reasonable person would feed dog treats to their dogs knowing that there was a substantial risk of death or illness from doing so,” the lawsuit states. “Dog owners consider their pets to be members of the family, and become very distressed when their dogs pass away or become seriously ill.”

Hey—no reasonable manufacturer would consider producing food that makes animals ill.

Hilton not honoring wage & hour laws? Maybe. They got hit with a putative wage and hour class action lawsuit this week, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the California labor law Act. In addition to Hilton Worldwide, named defendants include Doubletree LLC, and Crestline Hotels and Resorts LLC.

Filed by Nelson Chico, the Hilton wage & hour lawsuit, entitled Nelson Chico v. Hilton Worldwide Inc. et al., case number BC541043 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, alleges failure to pay overtime wages and failure to provide meal or rest breaks. Chico, a former employee, claims the defendants also allowed or required employees to work off the clock.

Further, the lawsuit states the defendants failed to provide itemized statements for each pay period, failed to keep accurate records and failed to compensate employees for necessary expenditures.

Heads up people—the potential employment class action seeks to represent aggrieved employees who worked for the defendants within the past four years.

Top Settlements

Actos maker ordered to pay up huge. Japanese drug maker Takeda Pharmaceutical Co Ltd, got hit with a heart-attack inducing jury award this week—they were ordered to pay $6 billion in punitive damages in settlement of allegations the company concealed information regarding the risk for cancer associated with its diabetes drug Actos. Eli Lilly and Co, a co-defendant in the case, was ordered to pay $3 billion in punitive damages and $1.45 in compensatory damages by the jury in Louisiana on Monday.

According to Lilly, 75 percent of the liability was allocated to Takeda and 25 percent to Lilly. Takeda plans to dispute the awards, stating that judgments were entered in its favor in all three previous Actos trials. This was the first federal case to be tried in a consolidated multidistrict litigation comprising more than 2,900 lawsuits. Germany and France suspended use of the drug in 2011 due to concerns of a possible link to cancer.

More to come on this? Very possibly. Stay tuned.

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

Week Adjourned: 4.4.14 – Toyota, Walgreens, Trader Joe’s

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories include Toyota, Walgreen’s, and Trader Joe’s.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Toyota rejoins the automotive class action lawsuit alumni this week—with the filing of a new consumer fraud class action alleging it concealed information regarding oil consumption in the engines of some of its most popular models. The lawsuit claims that the engines in certain Toyota vehicles were prone to rapidly burning through oil just as they approached warranty expiration, causing owners thousands of dollars in repair costs. Now that’s convenient.

Filed in California federal court, the complaint alleges the defect can cause safety risk that can lead to catastrophic engine failure. The lawsuit claims the models affected include the Toyota Camry, Corolla, Matrix and RAV4.

According to the complaint, Toyota Motor Corp. was aware of the defect, and it notified authorized dealers of the problem in 2011, however, Toyota refused to pay to fix the vehicles when contacted by the plaintiffs. Really?

“Plaintiffs … bring this claim since the oil consumption defect typically manifests shortly outside of the warranty period for the class vehicles—and given defendants’ knowledge of this concealed, safety-related design defect—Toyota’s attempt to limit the warranty with respect to the oil consumption defect is unconscionable here,” the complaint states. The lawsuit states that the plaintiffs’ vehicles exhausted their oil supply in 3,440 to 4,300 miles ??” well before an oil change would typically be performed at 5,000 miles under Toyota’s recommended maintenance schedule. And, according to the lawsuit, once the plaintiffs contacted Toyota, it refused to repair the vehicles under the warranty, claiming it had either expired or failed to cover the defect.

Toyota was made aware of the problem after receiving information from dealers and records from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The company also knew the nature and extent of the problem from its internal record keeping and durability testing, and from warranty and post-warranty claims, the complaint alleges.

The claims, which seeks unspecified damages, were brought under various state consumer protection and business law statutes, on behalf of consumers in California, Florida, Washington, New York and New Jersey. Additionally, the lawsuit claims violations of express warranty, fraud, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.

The vehicles cited in the complaint are the 2007 to 2011 Toyota Camry HV, 2007 to 2009 Toyota Camry, 2009 Toyota Corolla, 2009 Toyota Matrix, 2006 to 2008 Toyota RAV4, 2007 to 2008 Toyota Solara, 2007 to 2009 Scion tC, and 2008 to 2009 Scion xB. The defect is found on 2AZ-FE engines.

Bicycles—that’s the answer… oh dear.

Top Settlements

Walgreens may soon be dispensing settlement checks…the pharmacy chain reached a proposed $29 million settlement this week, which involves nine California wage and hour class action lawsuits, consolidated in federal court in California. The lawsuits had all alleged that Walgreens failed to provide its employees with adequate breaks, and pay them overtime for mandatory security checks.

Additionally, the wage and hour lawsuits claimed Walgreens failed to provide duty-free meal and/or rest periods, failed to pay all wages owed at termination, failed to reimburse employees for business expenses, failed to provide itemized wage statements.

The Walgreens settlement covers Walgreens nonexempt employees who worked at a California Walgreens store from May 13, 2007, including pharmacists and regular retail store employees.

A hearing will be held May 12, 2014, to determine whether to grant preliminary approval to the Walgreens unpaid overtime class action settlement.

Walgreens agreed to the settlement as a quick means for a resolution, despite its ongoing dispute of the claims. What – so it costs less to pay your employees than go to court? And the learning here would be?

Although the settlement was agreed in principal in August 2013, it has taken several months to finalize the details, consequently a preliminary settlement hearing will be held May 12, 2014. Here’s hoping…

Trader Joe’s trading a lawsuit for settlement? Heads up all you Trader Joe’s shoppers out there—a potential settlement is in the works regarding the consumer fraud class action lawsuit pending against Trader Joe’s. The class action claims certain food products carried and sold at the food retailers’ outlets are labeled as being “All natural”, when they contained synthetic ingredients. Yup. Heard that one before.

The lawsuit goes…certain Trader Joe’s food products were improperly labeled, marketed, supplied, and sold as “All Natural” and/or “100% Natural” even though they contained one or more of the following allegedly synthetic ingredients: ascorbic acid, cocoa processed with alkali, sodium acid pyrophosphate, xanthan gum, and vegetable mono- and diglycerides. The products at issue are: Trader Joe’s Chocolate Vanilla Creme Cookies; Trader Joe’s Chocolate Sandwich Creme Cookies; Trader Joe’s Jumbo Cinnamon Rolls; Trader Joe’s Buttermilk Biscuits; Trader Giotto’s 100% Natural Fat Free Ricotta Cheese; and Trader Joe’s Fresh Pressed Apple Juice.

The proposed Settlement Class (i.e., “Settlement Class Member”) covers a class of plaintiffs who purchased, on or after October 24, 2007 through February 6, 2014, the following Trader Joe’s food products: Trader Joe’s Chocolate Vanilla Creme Cookies; Trader Joe’s Chocolate Sandwich Creme Cookies; Trader Joe’s Jumbo Cinnamon Rolls; Trader Joe’s Buttermilk Biscuits; Trader Giotto’s 100% Natural Fat Free Ricotta Cheese; and Trader Joe’s Fresh Pressed Apple Juice (“Products”).

Trader Joe’s, being the latest in a long line of companies facing similar if not the same allegations, denies it did anything wrong or unlawful, of course. They claim, instead that the Products’ labels were truthful, not misleading, and consistent with the law.

For the complete skinny on the Trader Joe’s class action settlement and to download forms, visit: https://tjallnaturalclassaction.com/

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

Week Adjourned: 3.28.14 – Coca-Cola, Synovus, Abercrombie & Fitch

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements. Top stories include Coca-Cola, Synovus Bank and Abercrombie & Fitch.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Coke is it! (Really?) Coca-Cola Company—the company that wants to teach the world to sing (or did)—and Coca-Cola Refreshments USA Inc. had better get their song sheets sorted out. They got hit with a consumer fraud class action lawsuit this week, over allegations they violated federal and state laws by fraudulently and negligently making claims on its two-liter bottles and other packages that its products have “no artificial flavors. No preservatives added. Since 1886.” Ok—who’s away with the Fairies here—no change since 1886?

According to the Coca-Cola lawsuit, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois case number: 1:14-cv-01914 “This statement, as well as the entire premise of the Pemberton campaign, was false and misleading…In fact, Coca-Cola contains phosphoric acid. Phosphoric acid is both an artificial flavoring and a chemical preservative.”

Filed by plaintiff Ronald Sowizrol, the lawsuit goes on to claim that Coca-Cola falsely represented that Coca-Cola is still made with the “original formula” devised by John Pemberton in 1886. “In fact, the composition of Coca-Cola has repeatedly changed over time,” the lawsuit states. “These changes have included, among other things, an increase in the amount of unhealthy ingredients like sugar and corn syrup and the addition of artificial ingredients like phosphoric acid.”

Sowizrol claims that Coca-Cola knowingly and intentionally sold misbranded products to consumers with the intent to deceive. He alleges he purchased Coke, Diet Coke, Caffeine Free Coke and Sprite in 2-liter bottles, 20-ounce bottles and individual and various packages of 12-ounce cans and that all related containers failed to state that any ingredients are used as artificial flavoring or as a chemical preservative. Had he known, he claims he would not have purchased Coca-Cola products.

Sowizrol claims the defendants have violated the Illinois Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act by misbranding Coca-Cola products, and that Coca-Cola has been unjustly enriched by its unlawful and deceptive actions.

Better get in line to sign up for this one.

Top Settlements

Another Bank Caught with its Hand in the Cookie Jar—or more specifically its customers’ bank accounts. This time its Synovus’ turn—and for their sins they will likely have to pony up $24 million—as settlement in the overdraft fees class action lawsuit it’s facing.

Filed in July 2010, the Synovus lawsuit covers the period between July 10, 2004, and February 3, 2014, and alleges Synovus banks charged excessive overdraft fees on debit-card purchases or ATM cash withdrawals using debit cards.

According to court documents, “A lawsuit filed by customers of Synovus Bank … claims that the fees Synovus charged in connection with overdrafts arising from a (point of sale) or ATM debit card transaction constitutes interest, and as a result, Synovus has violated Georgia’s usury laws, committed conversion and is liable to plaintiffs for money had and received.”

Synovus said the settlement agreement has been made “without admitting liability,” with current and former Georgia resident bank customers eligible to participate if they have been charged an overdraft fee over that nearly 10-year period. Over a dozen Synovus divisions are included in the settlement including Columbus Bank and Trust.

The proposed settlement has been preliminarily approved by the court, according to the Synovus notice to customers. A fairness hearing will take place May 20.

A&F to Pay up…Abercrombie & Fitch, no stranger to lawsuits, reached a preliminary $575,000 settlement this week, potentially ending an unpaid overtime class action lawsuit pending against it in Pennsylvania. The lawsuit, filed by lead plaintiff Paul Oliver in November 2012, alleged the clothing retailer had violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act with its overtime wage policy.

This week, a state judge in Pennsylvania granted the approval, creating a class of 702 plaintiffs, consisting of all eligible A&F employees in that state between November 2009 and the beginning of January 2014.

According to Pennsylvania state law, employees are entitled to overtime wages that are at least 1.5 times the regular rate. Oliver filed the employment class action against Abercrombie alleging that the retailer, which operates at least 44 stores in the state, relies on an overtime calculation that violated the PMWA. Under a fluctuating work week, which is the model Abercrombie used, non-exempt employees get paid a fixed amount per week and receive half their hourly wage for each hour of overtime. This system is allowed under the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA), but is, Oliver alleged, in violation of state employment law.

Under the terms of the settlement, Oliver will receive $7,500 for bringing the lawsuit and acting as lead plaintiff. “Based on plaintiff’s counsel’s review and analysis of the relevant payroll data, the $403,750.00 in available class member payouts will enable each participating class member to recover (free and clear of attorneys’ fees) over 50 percent of his/her alleged unpaid overtime during the class period,” according to the settlement.

The case is Oliver v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., case number 121102571 in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.

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

Week Adjourned: 3.14.14 – McDonald’s, Geico, Suave Professionals

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements including top stories from McDonald’s, Geico and Suave Professionals Hair Care.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Mickey D’s served up a supersized set of wage and hour class action lawsuits…Yup McDonald’s workers in California, Michigan and New York this week filed wage and hour class action lawsuits in federal and state courts claiming the fast food giant is systematically stealing employees’ wages by forcing them to work off the clock, shaving hours off their time cards, and not paying them overtime among other practices

In three California wage and hour suits, workers claim that McDonald’s and its franchise owners failed to pay them for all time worked, failed to pay proper overtime, altered pay records and deprived them of timely meal periods and rest breaks. A fourth case makes similar claims on behalf of a statewide class of workers in McDonald’s corporate-owned restaurants, who are adding their claims to a lawsuit for unpaid wages, penalties, and other relief that is already pending against McDonald’s in Los Angeles Superior Court.

In two Michigan lawsuits, filed against McDonald’s Corp., its U.S. subsidiary and two Detroit-area franchisees, workers assert McDonald’s regularly forces workers to show up for work at a scheduled time but then has them wait without pay until the store gets busy enough, and that it routinely violates minimum wage laws.

The lawsuits contend that, using McDonald’s franchisor standards and corporation-provided software, McDonald’s franchisees closely monitor the ratio of labor costs to revenues. When it exceeds a corporate-set target, managers tell workers arriving for their shifts to wait for up to an hour to clock in, and sometimes direct workers who have already clocked in for scheduled shifts to clock out for extended breaks until the target ratio is again achieved. Workers are not paid for these wait times, and McDonald’s Corporation knowingly tolerates this practice, in violation of federal labor law.

The lawsuits also allege that McDonald’s forces its low-paid workers to buy their own uniforms. Because McDonald’s restaurants pay at or near the minimum wage, this drives some workers’ real wages below the legal minimum, in violation of federal labor law.

The case filed in New York federal court seeks to redress McDonald’s blatant failure to compensate and reimburse workers at its New York stores for the time and cost of cleaning uniforms which McDonald’s requires them to wear and to keep clean.

The plaintiffs contend that McDonald’s failure to reimburse employees for uniform cleaning violates the New York state requirement to pay workers weekly for uniform maintenance and often also violates both federal and New York state state minimum wage laws.

FYI McDonald’s reportedly brought in nearly $5.6 billion in profits last year, so why the problem with paying its employees?

Geico policy of bad faith? A Geico class action lawsuit, alleging bad faith insurance has been filed against the auto insurance giant in New York federal court. The lawsuit claims the insurer “deliberately and systematically” misrepresented information about the plaintiffs’ accident histories and risk tiers to stop them from going to competitors. Really?

The New York class action alleges Geico either assigned “at-fault” status to policyholders who bore no reasonability for the accidents or misclassified their risk tiers.

“As a result of Geico’s misclassification schemes, plaintiffs and the class have had difficulties purchasing insurance from other insurance companies, have been captive to Geico, and have paid inflated premiums,” the lawsuit states. Well, that’s the last time I believe a cute little gecko.

But let’s not stop there—a second bad faith class action was filed against a unit of Geico Corp, alleging the company has been arbitrarily denying personal injury protection claims for years. The Geico lawsuit claims the defendant uses software that reduces or eliminates claims payments without “reasonable basis or justification.”

Filed in Delaware Chancery Court, by plaintiff Yvonne Green, the complaint states that the only factors taken into consideration by the fully automated PIP claims-processing system Geico General Insurance Co, uses are the date of an accident and the date and geographic location of medical treatment.

“By employing these rules to deny benefits, Geico violates Delaware law and breaches its contractual and legal obligations,” the lawsuit states. “The only justification for Geico’s conduct is to contain Geico’s costs and to maximize Geico’s profits.”

The lawsuit, (Green v. Geico General Insurance Co., case number 9431), further claims Geico makes no effort to determine what a reasonable fee ought to be for a specific doctor providing a particular treatment but has a computer system that sets a “hidden cap” at the 80th percentile of what the insurer has been charged by other medical providers. Instead, price recommendations are generated by the software based on a provider’s location. However, it doesn’t consider other factors such as a doctor’s level of expertise, inflation, rent or cost of staff, the lawsuit states.

Green further alleges that claims for certain passive treatments that occur eight weeks after an accident are automatically denied without any review by an actual agent.

“Geico uses this rule even though it has information that treatment and healing times for injuries vary,” the lawsuit states. “Further, Geico enforces this rule without making any inquiry into facts or treatment.”

Green is basing her complaint on her 2011 car accident in which she sutained injuries. She alleges her PIP benefits were denied despite having submitted records detailing her injuries and that they were related to the crash, and that her treatment was reasonable.

The lawsuit seeks to represent a proposed class of plaintiffs who, three years prior to the filing and up to the date of final judgment, had claims on Delaware policies that were either reduced or denied under similar circumstances, according to the complaint.

Top Settlements

Get a little more than you bargained for with Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit? Like scalp injuries? If so, you may be interested to know that a settlement has been reached in the defective product personal injury class action lawsuit pending against Unilever United States, Inc. (“Unilever”) and two other companies (collectively, “Defendants”). The Suave lawsuit represents customers who purchased or used the Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit (“Smoothing Kit”) in the United States before February 17, 2014. FYI—the kits must have been purchased for personal or household use.

The allegations are that Unilever misled consumers into purchasing and using the Smoothing Kit by making false and misleading statements concerning the safety of the Smoothing Kit, and by failing to disclose that the Smoothing Kit posed an unreasonable risk of hair and/or scalp injury when used by consumers in accordance with the product warnings and instructions, or when misused by consumers in ways that were foreseeable. All Defendants deny that they did anything wrong and deny that the Smoothing Kit posed an unreasonable risk of harm to consumers. Of course.

The settlement includes a one-time reimbursement of up to $10 and/or reimbursement for the costs of treating class members who suffered bodily injury to their hair or scalp, and who does not timely request exclusion.

For complete details on how to file a claim, visit: http://suave30daysmoothingkitlawsuit.com/info/claim.

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