Posts Tagged ‘class action’

Kaiser fights back against lawsuit

July 13, 2009

“Kaiser Foundation Health Plan says a federal class action on copayments should be dismissed because the named plaintiff did not bring her complaint to the insurance company first. “It sounds to us like she just wants her $20,” a Kaiser spokesman said. “But we don’t even have a record of any phone calls from her.”

Article:

Class Disputes Best Buy’s Computer Claims

July 9, 2009

“Best Buy grossly overstates the battery power of the laptop computers it sells, according to a class action in St. Louis County Circuit Court. The class claims Best Buy lists a maximum battery life for each laptop that is more than twice its actual battery power.     Best Buy does not explain how it calculates maximum battery life, but lists it for all the brands the chain store sells, named plaintiff F. Damon Barton says in the complaint.
     Barton claims the maximum battery life claims are based on a dim, barely readable screen, a disabled Wi-Fi and an idling computer processor – in direct contrast to Best Buy’s advertisements.”

Article:

Big Pizza Hut franchise class action

July 3, 2009

“Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP in Kansas City, Mo. and Weinhaus & Potashnick in St. Louis, Mo. recently filed suit against NPC International, Inc., the largest Pizza Hut franchisee operating more than 1,100 stores in 28 states.  The plaintiff alleges NPC is in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failure to pay minimum wage to delivery drivers by their refusal to adequately reimburse drivers for automobile costs and other job related expenses.

Pizza companies require their delivery drivers to maintain operable, safe and legally-compliant vehicles.  To do so, the drivers must purchase their own gasoline, vehicle parts, fluids, repairs, maintenance services and insurance.  Meanwhile, their vehicles depreciate rapidly while driving on the job.  Some employees commonly drive more than 100 miles per shift.  AAA Auto Club calculates the average 2009 annual cost of operating a vehicle at $8,095 for 15,000 miles.  This equates to a per mile cost of $0.54.  Costs of operating sport utility vehicles and minivans are even higher.*”

Article:

Misleading battery claims might end up in lawsuit

July 1, 2009

“A couple of weeks ago, Advanced Micro Devices blew the whistle on the battery-life claims that laptop manufacturers make in their ads. The chip maker said the battery life cited in these ads cite were based on tests done in ideal conditions that users wouldn’t encounter. Quite often, actual battery performance is half the time advertised.”

Now it looks like that’s going to result in a class action lawsuit against computer makers. Girard Gibbs, a law firm that specializes in securities litigation and consumer class actions, is looking for possible plaintiffs related to the issue and is offering a “free consultation.” It’s time for the computer industry to move to regulate itself in a hurry.”

Article:

Suit against red light ticketing

June 28, 2009

“Several Washington cities are issuing bogus red-light camera tickets, motorists say in a class action in King County Court. The class claims the “fake tickets” are issued by private companies that operate the cameras and affix an electronic signature of a police officer.
     The class claims the tickets contains misleading and incomplete information about how to contest them.”

Article:

Apple sued over iTunes gift cards

June 28, 2009

“An Illinois couple has filed a class-action lawsuit against Apple for deceptive advertising and breach of contract over iTunes gift cards that advertised 99-cent music downloads despite a price hike to $1.29 on certain songs.”

…When it increased its prices but kept that wording on its iTunes gift cards, Apple “knowingly and fraudulently misrepresented, concealed, omitted, and/or suppressed the cost to purchase individual songs from its iTunes Internet Web site,” according to the suit, which was filed on Wednesday in Illinois District Court.”

Article:

Concerns about class action service “SueEasy”

June 28, 2009

“…Sue Easy is a legal affiliate marketing site to which a number of law firms that specialize in filing class actions subscribe.  A matchmaker, if you will, between people who may have suffered trivial damages not worthy of an individualized suit, and the lawyers who want to aggregate their claims into big contingent fee payouts.”

“First, its marketing is deceptive, at least to the potential plaintiffs if not attorneys.  Sue Easy is not an online application where you can “file” “complaints” in a variety of “legal” categories.  These terms have very specific meanings.  “Filing” of a “complaint” means the the act of submitting a lawsuit to the clerk of a court, which brings the lawsuit into existence.  Any attorney knows that, but many laypeople do not.  A layman registering with Sue Easy may be lulled into believing that by typing his grief into a chatbox, he has “filed a complaint,” meaning that he has sued the parties who caused his misfortune, when nothing could be further from the truth.  The only “online applications” that allow “filing of complaints,” in the real sense, are federal PACER and similar state electronic filing systems.”

Article:

Chinese drywall fix: $250,000

June 20, 2009

“A local family is now one of the latest victims of Chinese drywall contamination, and it could cost more than a quarter of a million dollars, out of pocket, to fix the problem.

The Galuzzi family of suburban Boca Raton says their home is filled with the tainted drywall, and that the hazzardous chemicals have been causing them to get sick.”

Article:

Moldy mattress class actions denied

June 15, 2009

“A federal court has dismissed the class action claim made against a number of manufacturers and sellers of the “Sleep Number” bed products. Molly Stearns, et al.,  v. Select Comfort Retail Corporation, No. 08-2746 JF, (N.D. Calif. June 5, 2009).

Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that she had found mold on her Sleep Number® bed purchased in 2000.”

Article:

Lawsuit claims Match.com features canceled subscribers

June 11, 2009

“Match.com, the world’s biggest online dating services, defrauded customers of millions of dollars in monthly fees because “the majority of Match members are canceled subscribers or never subscribed at all,” a class action claims in Federal Court. 
     Lead plaintiff Sean McGinn says Match.com charges $39.99 a month to display members’ profiles and facilitate communication between members. Once a “member” cancels, it is no longer possible to communicate with him or her through Match.
     But McGinn says Match “lumps together profiles of current subscribers and canceled members and displays them as if they are the same.””

Article: