All About Lawsuits™ » Class Actions

Walmart Gender Bias Class Action Can Proceed

admin — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 22:10:43 +0000

Think Walmart had a bad Monday?

Over 1 million women found out today that their class action lawsuit for gender discrimination is moving forward against Walmart.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco made the ruling in a 6-5 vote. Read the opinion.

Here’s the opinion summary:

HAWKINS, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiffs allege that Wal-Mart, Inc., discriminates against
women in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964. After detailed briefing and hearing, the district court
certified a class encompassing all women employed by Wal-
Mart at any time after December 26, 1998, and encompassing
all Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief, declaratory relief,
and back pay, while creating a separate opt-out class encompassing

the same employees for punitive damages. We affirm We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(e).
6146 DUKES v. WAL-MART STORES
the district court’s certification of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(2) class of current employees with respect to
their claims for injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and back
pay. With respect to the claims for punitive damages, we
remand so that the district court may consider whether to certify
the class under Rule 23(b)(2) or (b)(3). We also remand
with respect to the claims of putative class members who no
longer worked for Wal-Mart when the complaint was filed so
that the district court may consider whether to certify an additional
class or classes under Rule 23(b)(3).

Toyota Acceleration Lawsuits Combined in California

admin — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 18:12:55 +0000

Judges announced that the Toyota lawsuits related to Toyota’s acceleration issue will be consolidated in a federal court in Santa Ana, California near Toyota’s U.S. sales headquarters.

So far a combination of over 200 consumer and potential class action shareholder lawsuits have been filed, over 50 of which are individual lawsuits claiming personal injury or death as a result of the accelerator issue.

U.S. District Judge James V. Selna will be overseeing the cases.

Immediate Expansion of Toyota Recalls sought by Class Action Lawsuit

admin — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 00:26:51 +0000

The law firm of McCuneWright, LLP has filed for a preliminary injunction in United States District Court, Central District of California seeking an immediate order requiring Toyota to expand the Sudden Unintended Acceleration recalls.

McCuneWright, which filed the first and leading class action lawsuit against Toyota to force the automaker to remedy the sudden unintended acceleration defects in all affected makes and models, is asking the court to issue a specific order requiring Toyota to provide a brake over-ride system on all Toyota models equipped with Electronic Throttle Control System — intelligent (“ETCS-i”) that have experienced significant numbers of sudden acceleration events.

The brake override system is a failsafe system that enables the onboard computer to detect when both the throttle and the brake are being activated simultaneously, recognize that there is an error in the signals it is receiving, and immediately return the throttle to idle. It is an important failsafe system used by other vehicle manufacturers to keep a sudden unintended acceleration event from turning into a runaway vehicle with resulting crashes, injuries, and deaths.

Toyota has recently announced that it will install this important safety device on all new Toyota and Lexus vehicles. In its November 26, 2009, recall, Toyota also announced that it would retroactively install this important safety device on just six existing models and further limited the recall to only recent model years — 2007 — 2010 Toyota Camry, 2005 — 2010 Toyota Avalon, 2007 — 2010 Lexus ES 350, 2007 2010 Lexus GS 350, 2006 — 2010 Lexus IS 250, and 2006 2010 Lexus IS 350.

The preliminary injunction motion asserts that by limiting this brake over-ride system recall to recent model years for just six vehicle models, Toyota has left more than 75 percent of the affected models and model years out of this important recall.

“Toyota cannot justify limiting this important recall to models and model years that include less than 25 percent of the reported sudden acceleration problems,” says Richard McCune, a partner at McCuneWright, LLP. “Toyota has identified an important solution to this problem and it has a duty to its customers and to public safety the apply it to all the Toyota vehicles. Toyota shouldn’t wait until there’s another deadly crash.”

On November 5, 2009, McCuneWright filed the first and leading class action on sudden unintended acceleration, Choi, et. al. v. Toyota Motor Company, et. al. CV 09-08143 AHM (FMOx), in United States District Court, Central District of California. The preliminary injunction and supporting exhibits can be found on the Court’s website or is available at www.mccunewright.com/toyota.

Partners Richard McCune and David Wright are available for interview and comment on the motion for preliminary injunction.

Amended Class Action filed for Toyota for Accelerator Issue

admin — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 00:23:49 +0000

Stanley M. Chesley from the Cincinnati, Ohio-based law firm of Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A. today amended a major class action lawsuit against Toyota Motor Corp. and other Toyota affiliates. The case is based on the sudden acceleration defect in millions of Toyota automobiles that has caused injuries and deaths.

The amendment charges Toyota with knowledge of the problem and the alleged fix years before the recent recall. According to the new charges, in September 2006, Ernestine Montgomery’s 2005 Camry accelerated without warning when her foot was on the brake, traveled over a sidewalk , and crashed into a the wall of a grocery store. A local Toyota dealer tried to repair the problem, in 2006 by installing a new accelerator pedal. When Ms. Montgomery was in for normal service in December 2009, the Service Manager told her she had the same accelerator pedal that Toyota currently is using to fix unintended acceleration. According to Chesley, “Ms. Montgomery’s experience indicates that Toyota knew about acceleration problems in 2006 and failed to recall cars then.”

The amendment was filed in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas in Cincinnati, Ohio. It alleges fraudulent concealment, breach of warranties, and breach of contracts. Chesley alleges that Toyota misrepresented the problem as being caused by floor mats and has still not corrected it. “Toyota has long known about the defect and has done too little, too late to correct it,” says Mr. Chesley. “This problem is speeding out of control and Toyota is endangering the lives of innocent people.”

The company has received numerous complaints of sudden, unintended acceleration. Many consumers are fearful of driving their cars. The cars have lost value due to this problem, creating an economic hardship for its customers in already tough economic times.

In addition to seeking compensatory and punitive damages, Chesley requested and obtained a Temporary Restraining Order to prevent Toyota’s concealment or destruction of records based in part on an admission by a Toyota attorney that Toyota hid records in a number of cases involving injuries and deaths from rollovers. Chesley’s co-counsel, Robert Steinberg, stated that their expert advised them Toyota failed to utilize fail safe mechanisms used by most manufacturers to prevent sudden acceleration.

Until the problem is completely fixed, Chesley says Toyota should compensate its customers, who now have to carry the burden of the lost value, by making their loan and lease payments.

For more than 40 years, Stanley M. Chesley and Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A. has represented individuals from across the United States in a variety of personal injury, breach of contract, fraud, and negligence claims, including complex product liability cases, toxic exposure, and dangerous prescription drugs. More on information on the firm is found at http://www.wsbclaw.com.

Toyota Class Actions being filed for Accelerator Issue

admin — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 23:23:19 +0000

Attorneys at Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, P.C. filed a lawsuit in Colorado Federal Court this week against Toyota Motor Corporation, alleging that Toyota has known for several years about the unexpected acceleration problems that recently led Toyota to temporarily stop selling and recall many of its most popular models in the United States. The lawsuit, brought on behalf of a Lakewood man, seeks a monetary recovery for all Colorado residents who own the affected cars.

“The problem is that, even for people who have not experienced an unexpected acceleration, they now own a car that they likely wouldn’t have bought or, at least, wouldn’t have paid as much for had they known about this dangerous, life threatening defect,” said Michael Burg, one of the firm’s principle shareholders. “Toyota has been extremely slow to acknowledge the problem, slow to fix it, and many automotive experts believe that they still haven’t correctly identified the problem.”

Toyota’s recalls were spurred by a fiery crash last year that killed a California Highway Patrolman and his family. Investigations by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and San Diego County Sheriff’s Department revealed that the accident was the result of the car accelerating out of the driver’s control, despite his attempts to bring the car to a stop. After Toyota attempted to blame the problem on the car’s floor mats, the NHTSA issued a press release characterizing Toyota’s explanation as “inaccurate and misleading.”

The Toyota cars included in the lawsuit’s proposed class are the 2007-2010 Camry, 2005-2010 Avalon, 2004-2009 Prius, 2005-2010 Tacoma, 2007-2010 Tundra, 2007-2010 Lexus ES350 and 2006-2010 IS250/IS350 2009, 2008-2010 Highlander, 2009-2010 Corolla, 2009-2010 Venza, 2009-2010 Matrix, 2009-2010 Pontiac Vibe, 2010 Toyota RAV4, and the 2008-2010 Toyota Sequoia.

Burg Simpson’s attorneys have substantial experience in litigating both consumer fraud and personal injury claims, both of which could be at issue in this litigation.

www.burgsimpson.com

Judge Gives Citysearch Class Action Green Light

admin — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:10:12 +0000

From MediaPost:

Dealing a blow to IAC, a federal judge has decided that disgruntled online marketers can proceed with a class-action click-fraud lawsuit against the company.

U.S. District Court Judge Christina Snyder in Los Angeles ruled that the search marketers could be certified as a class because their complaints against IAC stemmed from the same type of alleged conduct.

“Plaintiffs advertised using Citysearch’s pay-per-click advertising program and were allegedly charged by Citysearch for invalid clicks,” Snyder wrote. “Notwithstanding any asserted differences between class members, plaintiffs’ claims are based on an alleged common course of conduct.”

Read the Full Story: Judge Green Lights Class-Action against Citysearch

Class Action Lawsuit filed against Carter’s Inc.

admin — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:05:58 +0000

Sarraf Gentile LLP announces that a class action lawsuit was filed against Carter’s, Inc. (NYSE: CRI) and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of those who purchased Carter’s common stock between April 27, 2004 and November 10, 2009 (the “Class Period”). The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose that: (a) the Company had reported certain margin support payments to major wholesale customers in incorrect periods; (b) as a result, the Company’s financial results were overstated during the Class Period; (c) the Company had failed to properly recognize revenue in violation of GAAP; (d) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (e) as a result of the above, the Company’s financial statements during the Class Period were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The complaint seeks to recover damages on behalf of those who purchased Carter’s common stock during the Class Period.

No class has yet been certified in the action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. Sarraf Gentile LLP has not filed a lawsuit against the defendants.

If you are a Carter’s shareholder and want to discuss your legal rights, at no cost and without obligation, please contact Joseph Gentile at Sarraf Gentile LLP (telephone: 212-868-3610; e-mail: joseph@sarrafgentile.com).

Sarraf Gentile LLP has extensive experience litigating shareholder class actions across the United States and has recovered millions of dollars on behalf of injured shareholders.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Contact:
Joseph Gentile
SARRAF GENTILE LLP
116 John Street, Suite 2310
New York, NY 10038
T 212.868.3610
F 212.918.7967
joseph@sarrafgentile.com
www.sarrafgentile.com

Court Sustains Claims Against Countrywide

admin — Fri, 29 May 2009 20:22:46 +0000

Court rejects nearly every argument by Countrywide in multidistrict litigation challenging the lender’s subprime mortgage marketing and lending practices

NEW YORK, May 28 /PRNewswire/ — The law firm of Whatley Drake & Kallas, LLC announced today that Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the federal district court for the Southern District of California (San Diego) has denied Countrywide Financial Corp.’s motion to dismiss a consolidated class action complaint against the lender, with the exception of the claims of a single plaintiff whose claims were dismissed due to lack of standing. The plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation have accused Countrywide of steering borrowers into risky and inappropriate subprime mortgages irrespective of their suitability to borrowers in order to maximize profits.

Judge Sabraw, who is overseeing the litigation against Countrywide entitled In Re Countrywide Financial Corp Mortgage Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, case number 08-md-01988, sustained all of plaintiffs’ claims except those of a plaintiff who filed for bankruptcy and failed to substitute his bankruptcy trustee as a plaintiff. The claims of plaintiffs in the consolidated actions Levas v. Bank of America Corp., Jackson v. Countrywide Financial Corp. and White v. Countrywide Financial Corp. include violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), conspiracy to violate RICO, violation of California’s unfair competition and false advertising statutes, and unjust enrichment.

Judge Sabraw rejected Countrywide’s argument that the RICO enterprise the plaintiffs had alleged among independent mortgage brokers and Countrywide was not valid because the plaintiffs had not alleged connections between the independent mortgage brokers. In a previous motion to dismiss, the defendants had argued that the so-called “hub-and-spoke” structure of that enterprise was invalid under RICO. Judge Sabraw had previously rejected that argument on a prior motion to dismiss, noting that the Ninth Circuit does not require a specific organizational structure for RICO enterprises, and stated in his May 18 decision that the court found “no reason to depart from its previous conclusion.”

“We are pleased that we are helping the ultimate victims of the mortgage scheme that has nearly destroyed our economy,” said Joe R. Whatley of the firm Whatley Drake & Kallas, LLC, co-lead interim class counsel in the multidistrict litigation. He added, “We intend to continue to prosecute this action until those who obtained subprime mortgages from Countrywide are adequately compensated.”

Countrywide had also requested that the court reconsider its decision on an earlier motion to dismiss wherein it sustained an alternative RICO enterprise the plaintiffs had alleged, the “Countrywide Enterprise,” consisting solely of Countrywide and its subsidiaries. Countrywide argued that the court had previously misapplied the law concerning RICO enterprises among parents and subsidiaries, but Judge Sabraw stated that he found Countrywide’s arguments on this point “unpersuasive.”

Judge Sabraw also denied Countrywide’s motion to strike an allegation of unfair conduct under California state law, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), which permits the striking of “any redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter.” Judge Sabraw noted that it appeared that the motion was actually directed at the legal sufficiency of the allegations under Rule 12(b)(6), but concluded that the allegations were both sufficient under 12(b)(6) and proper under 12(f), and thus denied the motion to strike.

About WDK: Whatley, Drake & Kallas, LLC is a national law firm with offices in Birmingham, New York City, and Boston. WDK practices extensively in the areas of complex class action and derivative litigation, including securities, ERISA, 401k, healthcare, insurance, antitrust, mass tort and consumer litigation. WDK also remains devoted to its longstanding representation of unions and workers throughout the United States and represents several Taft-Hartley plans.

CONTACT: Joe R. Whatley Jr. (212-447-7011)

Website: http://www.wdklaw.com

Tobacco Ads Class Action Proceeds

admin — Thu, 21 May 2009 15:36:23 +0000

The state supreme court of California ruled on Monday, by a 4-3 decision, that consumers can sue as a group over ads they contend misled them.

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

“This gives the consumers rights to protect themselves from fraudulent advertising,” said Mark Robinson, a lawyer for the smokers who sued tobacco companies in 1997.

The ruling could make California “the class-action capital of the country,” retorted William Stern, a lawyer for business organizations and a co-author of Proposition 64, a 2004 ballot measure at the heart of the case.

The suit accused the companies of waging a long advertising campaign that concealed cigarettes’ addictive and harmful effects. Unlike individual suits over illnesses allegedly caused by tobacco company deception, the current suit seeks reimbursement of money spent by every Californian who bought cigarettes during the period covered by the case: June 10, 1993, to April 23, 2001.

Read the full story here: Class-action lawsuit over tobacco ads proceeds

There are loud arguments coming from both sides of this one within the legal community.

From the Los Angeles Times:

Moreno said the ballot materials for the initiative showed it was intended only to stop “shakedown” lawsuits against businesses. The initiative followed a scandal in which lawyers threatened to sue or sued small businesses for obscure code violations and then pocketed the money the businesses paid to make the suits go away. Some lawyers later lost their licenses as a result of this practice.

“It is clear that the proponents did not intend to eliminate … actions to protect Californians from unfair business practices,” Moreno wrote.

Justice Marvin Baxter, in a dissent, argued that every member of a class action should be required to prove that he or she relied on the allegedly deceptive advertising when they purchased cigarettes, a requirement that trial lawyers argued would be impossible to meet.

“Even if the majority’s holding has some sympathetic appeal on the particular facts alleged here,” Baxter wrote, “the rule the majority announces will apply equally to less egregious cases, where it invites the very kinds of mischief Proposition 64 was intended to curtail.”

Read the full story here: California Supreme Court revives class-action suit against tobacco firms

Florida Class Action Certified Against Hess Corporation

admin — Thu, 14 May 2009 21:18:07 +0000

Cameron D. Moyer, Esq. and James Staack, Esq. announce that on February 19, 2009, the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Pinellas County, Florida, certified a class action against Hess Corporation in the case entitled Grillasca and Mayzik v. Hess Corp. Case number: 07-11610-CI-21.

Hess owns more than 200 gas stations in the state of Florida and it is alleged that Hess seeks up to a $100.00 pre-authorization when customers use a checkcard/debitcard to purchase self service gas at the pump. Plaintiffs’ further allege that Hess fails to inform customers of the pre-authorizations which usually result in a “hold” in the same amount being enacted on the customer’s bank account. The “hold” may last for several days after the fuel purchase.

The Circuit Court has mandated that the class consists of “All persons who purchased self service fuel at the pump in the State of Florida at a Hess owned or franchised fuel station after 11/08/2003 and which persons used a Checkcard/debit card and who were subjected to a $75.00 or $50.00 pre-authorization without warning or notification by Hess that Hess requested pre-authorization from the Checkcard/debitcard issuer for a $75.00 ($50.00 prior to 9/01/2005)purchase and which persons had a “hold” in the same amount of the pre-authorization placed on their personal financial accounts which was in excess of the actual purchase price.

Hess is currently apealling the certification of the above class.