ADT

Week Adjourned: 12.1.17 – Toyota, Amazon, ADT

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Edible cars? Ask Toyota. They got hit with a proposed defective automotive class action alleging the car giant used soy-based materials in some of its wiring materials, which has attracted rats and mice – a meal too good to pass up? Apparently, because they rodents are gnawing at the wiring, which require repairs that Toyota has so far refused to cover. And that’s hard fort car owners to swallow.

Filed by Plaintiff Ray Roscoe, the Toyota lawsuit claims that he was told by a Toyota dealership in December 2016 that an additional extended warranty he had purchased did not cover the extensive damage caused by mice on his 2012 Toyota Sequoia. This is because rodents are considered an “outside source of damage to the car”, even though the dealership has to retain a “mouse man” whose sole job is to repair the vehicle damage rodents cause, according to the complaint.

“The inclusion of soy-based materials in class vehicle electrical wiring and wiring components attracts rodents and other animals that nest under the hoods of class vehicles and feast on the soy insulation and electrical wires, thereby compromising the integrity of class vehicle electrical systems and rendering class vehicles fully or partially inoperable,” the complaint states.

The lawsuit goes on the state that complaints filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration provide evidence that many consumers have experienced wire damage caused by rodents and other animals chewing the soy-based portions of the wiring in several Toyota models. Class vehicles include the 2009-2016 Camry, 2002-2016 Camry Hybrid and the 2014-2016 Corolla, among others.

Further, the lawsuit alleges Toyota must have been aware of the defect from the NHTSA records as well as various news reports and its own log of customers’ complaints, but nevertheless “routinely refuses” to repair the vehicles under warranty because it says rodent damage is an environmental problem.

“The environmentally friendly and less expensive soy-based coating is the problem,” the complaint states. “While class vehicles are essentially being attacked by rodents and other animals, older vehicles with non-soy-based insulated wires that are exposed to similar conditions do not experience rodent-caused damage.”

The plaintiff is seeking a minimum of $17,405.36 in damages to recoup the cost of repairs and a rental car he used while his car was in the shop. The proposed class is defined to include everyone in Massachusetts who owns or leases one of 17 Toyota vehicle models, which could involve “many thousand[s]” of class members, according to the complaint.

The case is Ray Roscoe individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc., number 3:17-cv-12332 in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts.

They’re working on it! Amazon employees that is… They filed an employment class action lawsuit against Amazon this week, alleging the online retailer fails to provide its fulfillment centers employees with rest breaks and overtime pay for shifts exceeding 10 hours in length.

Filed by named plaintiff Romeo Palma, who works for Golden State FC LLC, the business that operates several of Amazon’s fulfillment centers in California, the lawsuit asserts he and other workers haven’t received overtime wages, premium wages and timely and accurate wage statements as a result of working 10-hour shifts that don’t provide a requisite third rest break.

According to the Amazon complaint, workers’ duties include packaging, loading, unloading and other tasks. Further, workers are regularly scheduled for 10-hour shifts or more. Workers must walk through large warehouse facilities when they clock in and out of shifts, which can take several minutes, time they are not compensated for, according to the complaint. Further, they are not paid for the time it takes to travel to their location for work.

“This results in class members’ working on the clock more than 10 hours, when scheduled for a 10-hour shift, without receiving or being compensated for a third rest break, in violation of https California labor law”, the complaint states.

“The compensation for the third rest break, because it is for shifts exceeding 10 hours, must be at the overtime rate of one and a half time plaintiff and class members’ regular rate of compensation. Defendant’s failure to compensate plaintiff and class members for third rest breaks, as alleged herein, violated California law”, the complaint states.

Plaintiffs are seeking one hour of wages for each missed or uncompensated rest period, all unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages on the overtime claim, statutory penalties and restitutionary disgorgement pursuant to the Unfair Competition Law.

The proposed class seeks to represent any California resident who worked for Golden State as a nonexempt employee in the past four years.

The case is Romeo Palma v. Golden State FC LLC d/b/a Amazon.com, in the Superior Court of the State of Sacramento.

Top Settlements

Secure your ADT settlement payment! A $16 million settlement has received preliminary approval potentially ending a data breach class action lawsuit pending against home security company ADT.

According to the ADT lawsuit, ADT was negligent in securing its customers’ data, leaving it vulnerable to hacking. This settlement resolves claims brought in five separate ADT class action lawsuits filed between November 2014 and April 2016 in Arizona, California, Florida and Illinois.

Eligible class members include former and current ADT customers who, between November 13, 2009 and August 15, 2016, contracted with ADT or an ADT dealer for installation of a residential security system for at least one wireless peripheral sensor. Eligible class members can receive up to $45 from the settlement fund, once final approval is granted.

Under terms of the settlement, ADT will put up a $16 million in the fund to cover fees, court costs, incentive awards for the named plaintiffs, and costs of administering the settlement. Remaining settlement funds will be distributed among qualifying Class Members who submit valid and timely claims. Qualifying claimants will receive a larger payment if they contracted for installation of an ADT security system after July 23, 2014. Documents revealed in discovery show the wireless vulnerability at issue was brought to ADT’s attention as of that date. The higher payment reflects the greater strength of those Class Members’ claims.

The deadline to file a claim is February 26, 2018. A final fairness hearing is scheduled for February 2018.

The case is Edenborough v. The ADT Corporation and ADT, LLC d/b/a ADT Security Services, Case No. 16-cv-02233-JST, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

So folks – on that happy note – this week’s a wrap –see you at the bar!!

Week Adjourned: 3.18.16 – ADT, Hip Replacements, Risperdal

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Questionable Security? Heads up all you folks that have residential ADT security systems. The company got hit with a consumer fraud class action lawsuit this week, over claims they overstate the safety of its systems. That’s comforting.

Filed by Santiago L. Hernandez, individually and for all others similarly situated, the ADT lawsuit contends that, despite claims by ADT—that its home security equipment and monitoring services use the most innovative and advanced technology on the market—ADT’s wireless signals are both unencrypted and unauthenticated, and unauthorized third parties can easily intercept and interfere with them.

According to the lawsuit, Hernandez and other ADT consumers in the class are more vulnerable and less safe than ADT leads them to believe. The suit claims violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.

The case is US District Court for the Southern District of Florida Case number 9:16-cv-80335-WJZ.

Top Settlements

Hip-Hip-Hooray! Well, sort of–though it probably doesn’t go far enough to take away all that the victims have been through. But here’s a whopper. To the tune of $502 million. That’s the verdict awarded to five plaintiffs in a bellwether trial concerning Johnson & Johnson’s DePuy Pinnacle metal-on-metal hip replacement devices.

The math goes $142 million in compensatory and $360 million punitive damages. The verdict was reached following 37 days of testimony in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas Dallas Division.

The trial consolidated cases involving five separate plaintiffs who are residents of Texas. The lawsuits, including those of more than 7,000 plaintiffs nationwide in the multidistrict litigation (MDL), claim that the DePuy implants were defective and caused metal debris to enter into patients’ bloodstreams, causing severe injuries and sometimes leading to revision surgery.

According to attorneys for the plaintiffs, the evidence in the testimony against J&J was ground breaking, particularly in relation to what, in effect, amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes to orthopedic surgeons to use and recommend this product.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys also discovered several instances in which physicians lied in medical clinical testing of the devices and forged consent forms for patients who were using the product to lie about the results the patients experienced with the product.

Risperdal Settlement… Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals also got hit with a large Risperdal settlement this week—$124 million to be precise, ending nine years of litigation dealing with allegations it illegally promoted the anti-psychotic prescription drug Risperdal for unapproved or “off-label” uses. Ah, that old chestnut.

The charges were brought by South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson. In February he announced that Ortho-McNeil-Janssen will pay $124,324,700 in satisfaction of the settlement to South Carolina.

According to the lawsuit, Ortho-McNeil-Janssen employed aggressive marketing techniques to persuade doctors to prescribe the drug to their patients, including children with disabilities and elderly dementia patients. The company sent more than 7,000 letters to doctors, allegedly overstating the efficacy of Risperdal without FDA approval.

Risperdal (generic name Risperidone) is an atypical antipsychotic that works by changing the activity of certain natural substances in the brain. Developed by Janssen Pharmaceuticals, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, Risperdal was approved by the FDA in 1993 for the treatment of schizophrenia in adults. Risperdal side effects include gynecomastia (male breast growth), tardive dyskinesia, high blood sugar and diabetes, stroke, heart attack and even death. As of September 2012 more than 420 Risperdal lawsuits had been filed, 130 of which are gynecomastia claims.

Ok, that’s a wrap folks…Have a good one. See you at the Bar!

Week Adjourned: 3.8.13 – ADT, Hertz, Asbestos

ADT hit with early termination fee class action lawsuit to top our weekly wrap of class action lawsuits and settlements. Other big stories involve Hertz and alleged overcharging on sales tax and a major asbestos settlement.

Top Class Action Lawsuits

ADT Billing Practices Setting Off Alarms…Oh yes, my friends. This week an unfair business practices class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against ADT, LLC d/b/a ADT Security Services (“ADT”) on behalf of all consumers who purchased ADT home monitoring services. That’s a lot of folks, I’m betting.

The proposed class consists of two groups of consumers: (1) all current or former consumer subscribers of ADT who have been charged an early termination fee or are subject to being charged an early termination fee (also called an Early Termination Fee or Early Cancellation Fee, collectively “ETF”, and comprising the “ETF class”); and (2) all current or former consumer subscribers of ADT whose rates were increased or are subject to increase by ADT without prior notice while in the initial contract period or during subsequent contractual extensions.

This ADT class action is intended to redress ADT’s wrongful practice of imposing early termination fees, the lynchpin of ADT’s “never let them go” strategy. Early termination fees are unlawful penalties used simply as an anti-competitive device and do not compensate ADT for any true costs of breach. These penalties, which are unilaterally imposed by ADT “even when ADT fails to perform the services promised” also violate the consumer protection statutes of California and Illinois and similar laws nationwide.

The early termination penalty is extracted under circumstances which cannot be justified, when ADT has failed to perform the very services that form the basis of ADT’s obligation. The penalty is also extracted from customers who contracted with ADT to simply monitor a system that was previously installed, requiring no equipment to be installed and resulting in a windfall to ADT upon termination. By charging the early termination fee ADT gets paid for years of monitoring without doing any monitoring to earn those fees.

In addition, Plaintiffs seek redress for ADT’s pattern of unilaterally increasing alarm monitoring fees while consumers are under contract for lesser fees. These increases are implemented without adequate prior notice and without providing the appropriate and required disclosures necessary to ensure that customers consent to these increases in advance. ADT relies on small boilerplate text neither signed nor highlighted for customers to claim its “right” to unilaterally increase fees.

In addition, California residents who received restitution as a result of a settlement of similar charges against ADT made by the Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office, may still be entitled to recovery under this lawsuit.

Taxing Situation at the Car Rental…And while we’re on the subject—which happens to be the most popular category on LawyersandSettlements.com—consumer fraud—a class action lawsuit was filed against Hertz Rent-A-Car this week by customers who allege the car rental company overcharges on sales tax. Really?

Specifically, the Hertz class action lawsuit, entitled Frederick Cohen et al v. The Hertz Corporation, et al., Case No. 13-cv-01205, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, claims Hertz is in violation of New York state law, as well as other states, by charging sales tax on a pre-discount rental cost, that is charging tax before customer coupons and discounts are applied. Filed by Senior Partner Alan S. Ripka, of the national law firm of Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, the lawsuit contends that, if true, this allegedly unlawful practice may have cost Hertz’s customers millions of dollars.

“New York and other states have passed legislation and regulations disallowing this predatory behavior and to protect the public from this unscrupulous business practice that attempts to overcharge customers under the veil of the tax code,” the plaintiff’s lawyers said in a statement about the proposed class action lawsuit. The consumer fraud class action lawsuit names The Hertz Corporation, Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. and Hertz Investors Inc, as defendants.

The lawsuit seeks Hertz’s compliance with these laws and regulations and the return of all improperly charged costs and fees to Class Members.

Top Class Action Settlements

$35 Million Asbestos Verdict. On March 1st, a $35 million verdict was returned in an asbestos personal injury lawsuit brought by Ivo John Peraica, an asbestos removal worker who died in December from cancer caused by asbestos. The New York Supreme Court jury that heard Peraica’s case returned its verdict Friday, awarding the multi-million dollar settlement to the Croatian-born worker.

Peraica, of Queens, worked for eight years for New York-area contractors removing asbestos insulation from boilers, pumps, and other equipment. He died from complications related to mesothelioma, a cancer whose only known cause is exposure to toxic asbestos fibers.

The asbestos lawsuit claimed that Peraica’s disease was caused by years of inhaling the asbestos dust stirred up each time he stripped asbestos insulation from the equipment at his jobsites—equipment which, according to testimony, was devoid of any warnings about the dangers of asbestos.

The sole defendant at the time of the verdict—industrial products manufacturer Crane Co.—argued that other companies and even Peraica himself were responsible for his exposure to asbestos, but the jury ultimately heaped blame on the Stamford, CT-based company, saying it had acted with reckless disregard for consumers’ safety.

Peraica, a Local 12 Heat and Frost Insulators union member, worked removing asbestos for almost a decade: from the week he moved his family to New York from Croatia in 1978 until he stopped doing asbestos removal work in 1986. Peraica’s widow, Milica, survives him, as do three daughters, one of whom testified at trial to her father’s pain and suffering.

Peraica was unable to testify in person, but before he died on December 28, provided four days’ worth of deposition testimony that was read into evidence.

Ok—that’s a wrap. See you at the bar.