Settlement - Part 2

Week Adjourned: 10.4.13 – Yahoo, LG Washers, Citizens Financial Group, Vytorin

The latest class action lawsuit news for the week ending October 4, 2013. Top class actions include Yahoo, LG Washers, Citizens Financial and Merck’s Vytorin

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Oh Yoo-Hoo Yahoo! This One’s for You! Yahoo following in Google’s footsteps? Umm, maybe…Yahoo got hit with a proposed Internet Privacy class action lawsuit this week, in case you missed it.

The Yahoo privacy lawsuit alleges Yahoo illegally reads, copies and analyzes emails in direct violation of California’s Invasion of Privacy Act and the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

Specifically, John Kevranian and Tammy Zapata, named plaintiffs in the action, allege Yahoo accesses Yahoo Mail users’ emails in order to make money on targeted advertising, profiling, data collection and other services.

According to the lawsuit, entitled Kevranian et al. v. Yahoo Inc., case number 5:13-cv-04547, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Yahoo put in place a new email system which became the default interface for all Yahoo users in May 2011. At the time, Yahoo said the system could “look for keywords and links to further protect you from spam, surface photos and in time, serve users with Internet-based advertising,” the lawsuit states. After a short grace period, all Yahoo email users were switched to the new version. Any of this sounding familiar?

Short version: The lawsuit states that Yahoo told its email account holders that the new email search capability looks for patterns, keywords and files in users’ communications, and that the automated system would scan and analyze all incoming and outgoing email, instant messages and other communications content sent and received from a user’s account in order to personalize his or her experience. “In employing the above described device, plaintiffs and the class allege that Yahoo intentionally intercepts and reviews the content of their electronic communications for financial gain.”

Not surprisingly, the plaintiffs allege “Yahoo’s acquisition and use of content from plaintiffs’ and class members’ email sent to Yahoo Mail users, and those emails sent from Yahoo Mail users to plaintiffs and class members, is not necessary to the transmission of email or to the operation the electronic communication service known as Yahoo Mail,” the lawsuit states.

Might be time to start writing more interesting emails…

LG Spinning Washer Efficiency Claims? And now—from “dirty laundry” to clean—or not…LG Electronics USA Inc. and Sears Holdings Corp got hit with a defective products class action lawsuit this week, alleging the companies manufactured and sold defective washing machines.

The LG defective washer class action lawsuit, entitled Laury Smith v. LG Electronics USA Inc., et al., Case No. 4:13-cv-04361, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleges the defendants misrepresented LG’s top-loading washing machines as being “high efficiency” , claiming the machines featured “extra high” spin speeds of 1,050 to 1,100 revolutions per minute. The lawsuit contends, however, that the machines tended to fall apart at high speeds. That’s useful!

The defective washing machines named in the class action are LG models WT5001CW, WT5101HV and WT5101HW; and Kenmore Elite brand models 29002, 29272 and 29278.

And the laundry list of charges (ok—that’s bad) are… unjust enrichment, breach of warranty, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and California’s False Advertising Law. Got all that?

Top Settlements

Who Knew? Even Bankers get Screwed on Unpaid Overtime…This week, an $11.5 million settlement was proposed in an unpaid overtime class action lawsuit pending against RBS Citizens Financial Group Inc. The lawsuit is brought by employees against the financial institution and two of its subsidiaries alleging they failed to adequately compensate employees for overtime pay.

All six of the complaints, which have been consolidated into one lawsuit, entitled Cuevas v. Citizens Financial Group, Inc. et al., 1:13-cv-03871, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleges RBS violated federal and state laws throughout New England and the Northeast and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

One of the lawsuits, filed by Kevin Martin in Pennsylvania in 2010 on behalf of all nonexempt employees working at Citizens Bank retail branches and its two subsidiaries, RBS Citizens NA and Citizens Bank of Pennsylvania, alleged Martin worked in excess of 40 hours per week but RBS prevented him from recording the additional work hours. Martin also alleged he was required to work through his breaks without pay, and that the institution erased or changed his recorded time to reduce his reported overtime hours.

The class or collective members involved in the litigation include some 5,827 employees such as assistant branch managers or hourly employees. Under the proposed settlement terms, the payout will cover class members’ payments, attorneys’ fees, litigation costs and enhancement awards, with assistant branch managers averaging an award of $2,000 and hourly employees averaging an award of $850.

Additionally, the 10 plaintiffs named in the action and who initiated the six lawsuits, will each receive $7,500. A further 36 people who testified at or provided a deposition for one of the case’s three-week jury trial will receive $1,500. Well done!

Big News for Vytorin. This one’s definitely a biggie…: A $688 million Vytorin settlement has been approved by a federal judge effectively ending claims that Merck & Co. Inc. and its subsidiary Schering-Plough Corp. concealed test results on the efficacy of their anti-cholesterol drug Vytorin.

Back in 2008, New York Attorney-General Andrew Cuomo began investigating whether Vytorin’s marketing campaign violated the state’s laws regarding false advertising. Specifically, officials were concerned that, despite results from a study that found Vytorin was no more effective than generic drugs.

This whopper of a settlement was initially proposed in February—interestingly—just prior to the class action’s trial date. Neither Merck nor Schering-Plough admits any wrongdoing—why would they?

The settlement will end claims against the companies for the vast majority of the class, except for 187 plaintiffs who opted out, according to court papers.

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

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

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

Top Class Action Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

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

Were you overcharged for inflight Internet access?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

Week Adjourned: 9.20.13 – LinkedIn, Dish Network, BJ’s Wholesale Clubs

The week’s top class action lawsuit and settlement new for the week ending September 20, 2013. Top class action lawsuits include LinkedIn, Dish Network and BJ’s Wholesale Club.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Heads up for everyone who’s on LinkedIn (who isn’t?), they got hit with an Internet privacy class action lawsuit alleging the company hacked into its subscribers’ email accounts without consent, and harvested the email addresses. Surprise, surprise.

Filed by four LinkedIn users in the in US District Court in San Jose, the LinkedIn lawsuit contends “The hacking of the users’ email accounts and downloading of all email addresses associated with that user’s account is done without clearly notifying the user or obtaining his or her consent.”

The four plaintiffs do acknowledge that LinkedIn asked permission, however they allege the networking site never disclosed it would inundate the plaintiffs’ friends with email invitations. “LinkedIn’s own website contains hundreds of complaints regarding this practice,” the complaint states.

The plaintiffs are asking that LinkedIn be barred from the practice and turn over any revenue that results from it. The lawsuit is seeking class action status and unspecified damages.

Employees Dish-ed a Dirty Deal? They think so, at least according to an employment class action lawsuit they filed against Dish Network, and a satellite installation company, Dish Country, Inc., over allegations the companies are in violation of State and Federal wage and hour laws.

Here’s the skinny—filed on September 13, 2013 in Federal District Court, the lawsuit alleges that Dish Country, Inc. and Dish Network engaged in the practice of employee misclassification, in which Dish Country, Inc. would repeatedly and routinely misclassify their employees as “independent contractors” to avoid having to follow State and Federal labor laws. How original.

The Dish class action also alleges that defendants routinely made arbitrary illegal deductions from the employees paychecks; deprived employees of a 30 minute uninterrupted lunch break; failed to compensate employees for all hours worked; failed to provide employees with mandatory disclosures concerning their rate of pay; failed to provide employees with mandatory disclosures related to wage deductions; deprived employees of overtime; and wrongfully denied the misclassified employees from several ERISA benefit plans.

The class action lawsuit is filed on behalf of all non-exempt employees that worked as a misclassified satellite installation technician for Dish Country, Inc. Go Get’em!

Top Settlements

BJ’s Busted? So, while we’re on the subject of employment, unpaid wages and overtime and employee misclassification, I am pleased to inform you that a $2.7 million settlement has been reached in the unpaid wages and overtime class action lawsuit pending against BJ’s Wholesale Club Inc. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, BJ’s, one of the largest food retailers in the US, will compensate its employees who allege they weren’t fully paid for overtime.

The lawsuit, entitled, Gene Cintron, et al. v. BJ’s Wholesale Club Inc., Case No. 1:12-cv-11064, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleges BJ’s purposefully misclassified key managers, including loss prevention managers, asset protection managers and personnel managers, in order to avoid paying them overtime. The unpaid wages and overtime lawsuit was filed against BJ’s in June 2012. Specifically, the plaintiffs claim they were “required” to work in excess of 40 hours a week without overtime compensation. The plaintiffs allege this is in direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as well as state laws. According to the lawsuit, there are only a few of the positions at BJs which are exempt from overtime. The employees in this class action were incorrectly put in those categories as a means of avoiding overtime payments.

Plaintiffs are asking the judge to certify a proposed class of all BJ’s managers who worked for the company from July 19, 2009, until the present. They are also seeking certification of a sub-class of employees who worked in 15 states, including Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Virginia. Let’s hope this is a happily ever after kind of scenario…

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

Week Adjourned: 9.6.13 – Alpha Centurion, Bad Berries, Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements, for the week ending September 13, 2013. Top stories include Alpha Centurion, Bad Berries, Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Security Co. Securing 20% off Top of Employee Pay Advances? Alpha Centurion security company is facing a consumer fraud class action lawsuit filed by a former employee who alleges the company violated federal law by levying a large finance charge on workers who request an advance on their pay. According to the lawsuit, defendants are unlawfully imposing a 20 percent finance charge on employees’ pay advances. Yikes!

Filed by Jonathan J. DiBello, in the US District Court in Philadelphia, the lawsuit names Alpha Centurion, which provides security guards to private and governmental entities, as well as the company’s owner and chief executive, Joanna Small, and its chief of operations, Patrick A. Panetta, who are husband and wife, as defendants. DiBello, worked for Alpha Centurion from December 2006, first as a security guard and later as a field supervisor.

According to the Alpha Centurion lawsuit, the defendant pays its employees once every two weeks. However, it has a policy of allowing its employees to obtain advances on their wages but only if the employee agrees to a 20 percent finance charge.

In the lawsuit DiBello questions whether a pay advance fee is usurious interest, whether liability arises under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act for the collection of an unlawful debt, whether the company is liable for failing to make material disclosures under the Truth-in-Lending Act, and whether Alpha Centurion is liable under the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law for failing to pay employees their full wages.

According to the lawsuit, on an annualized basis, the 20 percent finance charge equates to an interest rate of 1,042.85 percent A.P.R. on a seven-day loan or 521.42 percent on a 14-day loan.

DiBello paid the 20 percent finance charge on every advance he took, according to the lawsuit, which was automatically deducted from his paycheck. Over a one-year period, provided that DiBello took a $200 advance each pay period, the plaintiff would have paid an aggregate finance charge of $1,040, nearly all of which would be usurious interest, the complaint alleges.

DiBello seeks to represent a class of plaintiffs consisting of all present and former Alpha Centurion employees who took pay advances within four years prior to the filing of the civil action.

The company is believed to regularly employ between 100 and 200 workers, many of whom have apparently taken pay advances. “A class action is a superior means to fairly and efficiently adjudicate this dispute,” the suit reads. “Without a class action it is unlikely anyone would ever obtain a recovery.”

Alpha Centurion has made “usurious payday advances” for years, the suit states, although to date no employee has ever brought an individual action to recover the interest charges. No kidding. Even the big banks wouldn’t try for that. Although…

Berry Bad? OK—you’re not going mad—this is the second food poisoning class action filed against Townsend Farms Mixed Berries. The class action lawsuit was filed against an Oregon-based fruit grower this month, alleging the plaintiff had to seek medical care after consuming a frozen berry mix tied to hepatitis A outbreaks in Colorado and other western states.

This mixed berries lawsuit, was filed by Suzanne Faber, who alleges she sought a hepatitis A vaccination after consuming The Townsend Farms Organic Antioxidant Blend of berries she purchased from a Costco at 5050 N. Nevada Ave. in Colorado Springs. She does not specify whether she contracted hepatitis A. The mixed berries have since been removed from Costco stores.

The Townsend Farms Organic Antioxidant Blend was responsible for sickening 161 people in Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Hawaii, Washington, and California, according to a September 13 public health notice by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The mixed berries and pomegranate seeds were sold at Costco stores beginning in early 2013 and subsequently removed in May, when the CDC announced the finding of Hepatitis A contamination. Costco also issued a product recall and warned customers against consuming the berries.

Hepatitis A is a chronic liver disease that causes fatigue, nausea, vomiting, and a yellowing of the eyes and skin, among other symptoms. The disease is associated with foods tainted with fecal matter, and the illness can last from several weeks to several months. In some cases hepatitis A can be fatal.

According to the CDC, 70 consumers required hospitalization after contracting the disease. No deaths were reported.

Purely Pomegranate Inc, is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit, as the Hepatitis A contamination was linked to a shipment of pomegranate seeds Townsend Farms received from Purely Pomegranate, which had, in turn, been imported from a producer in Turkey.

The class seeks to represent anyone who ate the tainted berries and contracted hepatitis A or underwent testing or vaccination for the disease. People who came into close contact with sickened consumers are also eligible.

Top Settlements

Cough it up Boys. A $39 million settlement has been reached in the gender bias class action lawsuit pending against Merrill Lynch, now owned by Bank of America Corp (BoFA). The lawsuit was brought by female brokers who claimed they were paid less than men and deprived of handling their fair share of lucrative accounts. Approximately 4,800 current and former female financial advisers and trainees at Bank of America and Merrill are eligible for this settlement.

According to a report by Reuters.com, the gender bias class action settlement was disclosed less than two weeks after news that the bank reached a $160 million settlement with hundreds of black Merrill Lynch & Co. brokers who alleged racial bias in pay, promotions and how large accounts were allocated.

The lawsuit, entitled The gender case is Calibuso et al v. Bank of America Corp et al, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, No. 10-01413, alleged that female financial advisers and trainees were intentionally discriminated against by Bank of America and Merrill because the defendants favored male brokers when awarding pay, allocating client accounts and referrals, and providing professional and marketing support.

According to court papers, such practices created a “cumulative advantage” effect that perpetuated and widened earnings disparities by gender. Bank of America was also accused of retaliating against female brokers who complained of bias.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, BoFA will retain an independent monitor to oversee improvements to its practices. Additionally, it must hire a consultant to study how it “teams” brokers and how its teaming practices affect the allocation of accounts.

Bank of America is based in Charlotte, North Carolina, and said it ended June with nearly 15,800 financial advisers.

$300 Million Happy Ending. Yup—$300 million is the proposed force placed insurance settlement amount in a federal class action lawsuit pending against JPMorgan Chase & Co, and Assurant. The lawsuit alleged the defendants were overcharging homeowners for forced-placed insurance.

Under investigation by attorneys representing the plaintiffs since 2010, the lawsuit was filed in June 2012 on behalf of borrowers with forced place insurance policies as of June 2008. The lawsuit alleged the banking and insurance firms enriched themselves by more than $1 billion over five years, by forcing insurance on homeowners who declined to purchase insurance themselves.

If approved, the settlement would see Chase and Assurant pay 12.5 percent cash refunds to class members who paid the premiums of the force placed insurance and a 12.5 percent credit to class members who were charged the premiums but never paid them. This applies even if the borrowers already lost their homes.

Additionally, Chase has agreed to stop allowing its insurance agents to collect commissions from making force-placed insurance policies.

Well Done!

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

Week Adjourned: 9.13.13 – Dialysis Deaths, Auto Worker Severance Pay, Cipro

The week’s top class action lawsuits and settlements including Fresenius Granuflo Dialysis lawsuits, Auto Workers denied severance, and Cipro anti-trust partial settlement.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Dialysis Death Lawsuit Update. The lawsuits continue against Fresenius Medical Care, the maker of Granuflo and Naturalyte. This week, they found themselves facing a wrongful death class action lawsuit filed by the widow of Earin Blossom. The potential class action, filed in the Northern District of California, alleges the makers of Granuflo and Naturalyte, and their subsidiaries “failed to exercise reasonable care in manufacturing and selling defective dialysis products known as Granuflo and and Naturalyte.”

Tina Nunn, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of herself, her late husband, and those similarly situated, alleges that the dialysates caused fatal complications and sudden death, and caused her husband to incur substantial medical expenses prior to his death.

According to court documents, Earin Blossom began hemodialysis treatments in November 2010. During the course of those treatments, which took place three times a week at a Fresenius dialysis clinic in Fremont, he received both Granuflo and Naturalyte additives. Then, on April 6, 2011, just a few hours after completing a dialysis treatment at the clinic, Blossom suffered a massive heart attack and died.

The lawsuit alleges that Blossom’s metabolic alkalosis, cardiac arrest and subsequent demise were a direct and proximate result of his use of Granuflo and/or Naturalyte. The lawsuit also claims that the defendant knew its products resulted in excess bicarbonate levels in patients, often leading to metabolic alkalosis, a dangerous condition associated with heightened risks for heart attack, cardiac arrhythmia and sudden death.

Both Fresenius Medical Care products—Naturalyte and GranuFlo—are used in the treatment of acute and chronic renal failure during hemodialysis. The concentrate is formulated to be used with a three-stream hemodialysis machine, which is calibrated for acid and bicarbonate concentrates, according to the FDA safety recall initiated in March 2012. The recalled Naturalyte Liquid Acid Concentrate and Naturalyte GranuFlo (powder) Acid Concentrate was manufactured and distributed from January 2008 through June 2012.

An internal memo issued by Fresenius on November 4, 2011 warns that the GranuFlo and NaturaLyte products could lead to a greater risk of cardiac arrest and other heart problems. The memo, which was anonymously leaked to the FDA earlier this year, warned doctors working in Fresenius dialysis centers only that 941 dialysis patients suffered cardiac arrest in 2010 from GranuFlo use. Dangerously high biocarbonate levels would put their patients at a risk of cardiac arrest up to six times higher than that of patients using competing products.

No comment.

Top Settlements

Auto Workers Get $6M. And justice for all…all employees that is—and in this particular case it takes the form a $6 million settlement of a California labor law class action lawsuit alleging discrimination and unfair dismissal. Brought by former employees of Freemont-based New United Motors Manufacturing, Inc. (NUMMI), California’s last auto plant, the lawsuit, alleged that employees who were on disability at the time of the plant closure, were denied the severance benefits.

Specifically, the NUMMI workers’ lawsuit alleged that employees who were on disability in the period between October and the plant’s closure on April 1st did not receive benefits and services offered to employees who were not on disability during that same period. Those benefits and services included a severance package including a base payout with an additional retention bonus determined by years worked at the plant. The plant employees working between October 1st and April 1st were also offered transitional services, including access to a one-stop center, career and educational fairs, and skills assessments.

The plaintiffs also claimed that they, being on leave due to their disabilities and/or NUMMI’s refusal to accommodate their disabilities, were unjustly denied the bonus enhancement and transitional services. Further, the workers alleged in their complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that they were physically capable of returning to work during the severance period, but were denied reinstatement. The EEOC issued “right to sue” letters to several NUMMI workers, while retaining the right to continue its investigation.

While the EEOC charges were pending, a group of former employees filed a federal lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs filed claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, The Fair Employment and Housing act, the Unfair Business Practices Act, and California’s Public Policies.

The plaintiffs sought reformation of the severance agreement, restitution, lost compensation and other employment benefits and compensatory and punitive damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for the defendants’ violations of their rights. Defendants named in the suit included New United Motors Manufacturing, Toyota Motor Corporation and Toyota Motor Sales. A class certification was later granted. Prior to the EEOC’s filing its own lawsuit, the matter was resolved via settlement for $6 million. As a part of the settlement, NUMMI entered into a conciliation agreement with the EEOC.

Floxed But Not Fleeced? Last—but certainly not least—the 900lb gorilla—Bayer—reached a partial settlement in an antitrust class action lawsuit involving the prescription antibiotic Cipro. The lawsuit claims Bayer Corporation, Barr Laboratories, Inc., Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and The Rugby Group, Inc. violated antitrust and consumer protection laws by agreeing not to compete with each other, and by keeping lower-cost generic versions of Cipro off the market. This settlement is with Bayer Corporation only; the case against the other manufacturers continues.

FYI—neither the case nor the settlement is about the safety or effectiveness of Cipro. Bayer has paid $74 million into a settlement fund that will compensate consumers and third-party payors (Class Members) who paid or reimbursed for Cipro in California between January 8, 1997 and October 31, 2004. Cipro purchasers not eligible for settlement payments include: (1) anyone who received Cipro through the MediCal Prescription Drug Program, (2) anyone who purchased Cipro to resell it, (3) government entities, (4) the manufacturers and related entities being sued, and (5) all purchasers of Cipro who paid a flat co-payment and who would have paid the same co-payment for a generic version under their health insurance policy.

Individual payments will be based on the total number of valid claims filed and how much the Class Member paid or reimbursed for Cipro. Attorneys’ fees not to exceed one-third of the fund, litigation costs, and other fees and expenses will be deducted prior to distribution. Full details about the settlement can be found in the Settlement Agreement, which is available at www.CiproSettlement.com.

Class Members must submit a claim form by March 31, 2014 in order to get a payment. The claim form and instructions on how to submit, together with complete details of the settlement are available at www.CiproSettlement.com.

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

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

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

Top Class Action Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Class Action Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Class Action Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Class Action Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Class Action Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Settlements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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