legalequals-blog

[legalequals-blog]

Los Angeles Gang Curfew Injunction Class Action Settlement Details Revealed

If you received a Los Angeles gang injunction before February 20, 2013, you might be eligible to enjoy the benefits paid out of a class action settlement. A judge granted final approval for the Los Angeles gang injunction class action settlement on March 24, 2017.

The class action settlement stems from allegations that the city of Los Angeles violated the constitutional rights of more than 5,000 residents by ordering a curfew that targeted alleged gang members. City leaders promoted the curfew as a strategy to combat the escalating gang violence occurring in several Los Angeles neighborhoods.

According to court documents, the injunctions allegedly included a legal requirement that residents were not allowed to leave their homes during the period specified by the Los Angeles Police Department. The only exception to the curfew was the allowance for “legitimate meetings or entertainment activities.” A California appellate court ruled the provisions written for the Los Angeles gang curfew violated the Constitution of California.

The primary plaintiffs asserted in the class action lawsuit that the unclear legal language establishing the curfews allowed law enforcement officials to interpret the language loosely. Numerous complaints against law enforcement actions of random harassment and discrimination prompted the filing of the Los Angeles injunction class action lawsuit. Most of the complaints charge LA police with singling out a disproportionate number of blacks and Latinos.

After the arrests of Alberto Cararez and Christian Rodriguez in 2009, several plaintiffs worked with class counsel to file the class action lawsuit. The two men lived in an injunction zone and allegedly left the injunction zone during curfew. However, the court denounced the unconstitutional nature of the curfews nearly two years before the arrest of Rodriguez and Cararez.

Terms of the class action settlement require the defendants to set up a $30 fund to compensate eligible class members. Other benefits eligible class members enjoy include the creation of job training programs and the establishment of a process that removes LA residents from the injunction list.

What You Need To Know About The Los Angeles Gang Curfew Injunction Class Action Settlement

According to class counsel, eligible class members of the Los Angeles injunction class action settlement include anyone who has “been served with one or more of the gang injunctions issued prior to Feb. 20, 2013.” The lengthy list of gang injunctions appears on the class action settlement website www.GangCase.net. Class members who meet the criteria for a job and education program can receive $1,000 if they meet specified requirements. Eligible class members also have earned the right to collaborate in a project that writes new rules for the Los Angeles Police Department to follow.

Qualifying class members have until August 14, 2020 to submit a valid claim form. Class counsel reminds eligible class members the funds distribute on a first come, first serve basis, which means it is in your best interest to submit your claim form promptly. The judge who granted final approval of the class action settlement held the final hearing on December 2, 2016. Discovered what happened at the final hearing by visiting the class action settlement website.

https://legalequals.com/los-angeles-gang-curfew-injunction-class-action-settlement-details-revealed/

[legalequals-blog]

Hertz Parking Violation Fee Class Action Settlement Details Revealed

Primary plaintiff James Pauley filed a class action lawsuit against Hertz in November of 2013. Pauley claimed he rented a vehicle from Hertz at a rental location in Atlanta, Georgia. During the rental period, Pauley received a parking ticket, which he paid before the due date. However, Pauley alleged in the class action lawsuit that Hertz charged an administrative fee that originated from the company’s parking violations processor. Pauley asserted the administrative fee violated one of the provisions of his Hertz rental contract.

The class action lawsuit move to federal court, before winding up back in a Georgia state court. Numerous discovery rounds and preliminary motions delayed settlement of the class action lawsuit until September 2016, when a mediator helped establish the legal framework for a class action settlement. Circuit Court Judge Darrell Pratt preliminarily approved the class action settlement in August of 2017.

Terms of the class action settlement require Hertz to set up a $2 million fund to compensate Pauley as incentive for coming forward as the primary plaintiff, as well as payment to eligible class members who incurred the same administrative fees. Money established in the settlement fund also goes towards paying for court costs and attorney fees.

Hertz continues to deny violating any provision of its rental agreement. However, Hertz agreed to settle the class action lawsuit to avoid the high costs of protracted litigation

What You Need To Know About The Hertz Parking Violation Fee Class Action Settlement

According to class counsel, eligible class members “covers all persons who rented a car from Hertz in the U.S., were billed between April 1, 2008 and April 30, 2017 for an administrative or handling fee related to a parking ticket issued for the rental vehicle, paid that administrative or handling fee, paid the parking ticket on time, and did not receive any refund or adjustment for the administrative or handling fee.” Eligible class members have until November 1, 2017 to opt out of the class action settlement or dispute any of the provisions in the agreement. The potential award per class member is between $10 and $20. Class members must include documentation that proves they paid a parking ticket for a Hertz rental vehicle, such as a bank statement, cancelled check, or credit card receipt.

The deadline for submit a valid claim form is November 30, 2017. Pauley v. Hertz Global Holdings Inc., et al., Case No. 13-C-236, in the Circuit Court of Wayne County, W.V. has a final hearing scheduled on November 16, 2017. Learn more about the final hearing by visiting the class action settlement website www.HertzParkingViolationFeeSettlement.com. The class action settlement website also presents the list of attorneys who represent the class and defense counsels, as well as the criteria for receiving the potential award.

https://legalequals.com/hertz-parking-violation-fee-class-action-settlement-details-revealed/

[legalequals-blog]

Uber Background Check Class Action Settlement Details Revealed

Lead plaintiff Abdul Kadir Mohammed filed the initial Uber background check class action lawsuit on November 24, 2017. The class action lawsuit alleged that Uber violated the federally enacted Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) when the company improperly obtained consumer background checks that presented the financial histories of Uber driver candidates.  Two days after Mohammed filed his Uber class action lawsuit, a second lawsuit filed by another plaintiff prompted Uber to seek arbitration for both lawsuits. After the filing of a third class action lawsuit against Uber on October 1, 2015, a judge ordered the three lawsuits to merge into one lawsuit. The preliminarily approved Uber background check class action settlement resolves the three separately filed class action lawsuits against Uber.

All three plaintiffs charged Uber and Rasier with the failure to provide suitable notice ahead of the acquisition of consumer background reports. The FCRA mandates companies to provide enough time for consumers to correct any mistakes found within criminal and financial records. According to court documents, the primary plaintiffs also alleged that Uber failed to provide copies of each consumer’s background report before taking action that included the refusal to hire certain Uber driver candidates.

Uber and Raiser continue to deny the allegations made in the Uber background check class action lawsuit. Both companies maintain FCRA statutes do not apply to the companies, since the companies recruit “independent transportation providers.” However, the two companies agreed to the terms of the class action settlement to avoid receiving an unfavorable judgement in civil court.

What You Need To Know About The Uber Background Check Class Action Settlement

According to class counsel, eligible class members include “Uber driver candidates subject to a background check requested by Uber and Rasier before Jan. 3, 2015 in connection with the use or sought use of the Uber App as an Uber driver.” Eligible class members have until December 14, 2017 to opt out of the Uber background check class action settlement or contest any provision of the agreement. The potential award is estimated to be between $27 and $62, depending whether a class member accepted arbitration, as well as the number of valid and timely claims submitted to the claims administrator. Eligible class members must state under the penalty of perjury that they had to endure a background performed by Uber before January 3, 2015 and they were not working for Uber at the time of the background check.

The deadline to submit a valid claim form is January 15, 2018. The judge who granted preliminary approval of the Uber background check class action settlement has scheduled the final hearing on February 8, 2018. To learn what transpired at the final hearing, visit the class action settlement website www.UberFCRASettlement.com. You can also read the list of attorneys who represent the class and defense counsels.

https://legalequals.com/uber-background-check-class-action-settlement-details-revealed/

[legalequals-blog]

Uber “Safe Rides Fee” Class Action Settlement Details Revealed

Uber has come under scrutiny recently for the company’s practice of not properly vetting driver candidates for its fee for travel business. In December of 2014, primary plaintiffs Bryon McKnight and Matthew Philliben filed a class action lawsuit against Uber challenging the company’s claim that it runs comprehensive background checks on UberX and UberXL drivers. Uber called the background checks “industry leading” because of the service used to analyze driver candidate criminal records at all levels of government. Uber covered the costs of running the background checks by charging passengers a $1 Uber safe rides fee.

According to court documents, the lead plaintiffs claimed the background checks performed by Uber were not as comprehensive as the company claimed. The plaintiffs asserted that Uber drivers only had to present their names, contact information, Social Security number, and driver’s license number via the Uber website. Calling the background checks “woefully inadequate,” the plaintiffs pointed out the background checks did not include a fingerprint analysis or a one-on-one interview between driver candidates and one or more Uber representatives.

Both parties agreed to a class action settlement in February of 2016, but the court declined the initial proposed settlement because of concerns the settlement provided preferential treatment to some class members. The plaintiffs and defendant returned to court in August of 2017 to work out a settlement that sets up a $32.5 million fund for eligible class members. Money also goes to pay for court costs and attorney fees.

What You Need To Know About The Uber “Safe Rides Fee” Class Action Settlement

According to class counsel, eligible class members of the Uber Safe Free Rides class action settlement “include all persons who between Jan. 1, 2013 and Jan. 31, 2016 used the Uber app or website to hail a ride from one of the Uber services that charges an Uber safe rides fee.” Class members have until January 8, 2018 to opt out of the class action settlement or dispute any provision of the agreement. Payments to eligible class members depend on the number of class members who submit valid and timely claim forms. The class action settlement administrator estimates the average potential award will be just over $1 per class member. You must submit the class member identification number that you received with the settlement email notice.

Qualifying class members have until January 8, 2018 to submit a valid claim form. The judge who granted approval of the class action settlement case McKnight, et al. v. Uber Technologies Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-05615-JST, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has scheduled the final hearing on February 8, 2018. To learn what happened at the final hearing, access the class action settlement website www.RideshareSettlement.com. The website also presents the list of attorneys representing the class and defense counsels.

https://legalequals.com/uber-safe-rides-fee-class-action-settlement-details-revealed/

[legalequals-blog]

National Penn Overdraft Class Action Settlement Details Revealed

Primary plaintiff Jennifer Collier alleged in a class action lawsuit that National Penn Bank charged bank customers overdraft fees on debit card transactions that did not exceed account balances. The 2012 class action lawsuit remained in the court system for nearly five years before a judge granted preliminary approval of a class action settlement in 2017. Disagreements between the primary plaintiffs and National Penn Bank concerning the effectiveness of the arbitration process caused the lengthy class action settlement delay.

According to class counsel, National Penn Bank allegedly charged the overdraft fees on customer account available balances, instead of calculating account balances by analyzing bank ledger balances. Bank ledger balances typically are higher than available account balances. Collier asserted the accounting principle implemented by National Penn Bank resulted in customers losing money because of overdraft fees, even though customers had enough money in their bank accounts to cover debit card transactions.

Terms of the class action settlement require National Penn Bank to set up a settlement fund of $975,000. The settlement fund distributes cash to eligible class members, as well as provides Collier with a payout as incentive for filing the class action lawsuit. Court costs and attorneys also come out of the class action settlement fund. Although National Penn Bank agreed to the terms of the class action settlement, the bank continues to deny any wrongdoing. The bank settled the class action lawsuit to avoid the high costs associated with a protracted civil trial.

What You Need To Know About The National Penn Overdraft Class Action Settlement

According to court documents, eligible class members include “U.S. persons who from June 8, 2008 to Dec. 31, 2011 held one or more National Penn deposit accounts and who were assessed an overdraft fee related to a debit card transaction that, according to the bank’s records, left the account overdrawn based on the available balance but not based on the ledger balance.’ Eligible class members have until November 7, 2017 to opt out of the class action settlement or dispute any of the agreement provisions. The potential award depends on the total amount of the overdraft fees each qualifying class member had to pay. Class members do not have to submit a claim form, as the class action settlement claims administrator will send the payments out through the United States Postal Service.

The judge presiding over the class action settlement case Collier v. National Penn Bank, et al., Case No. 12061036, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania has scheduled the final hearing on December 8, 2017. Find out what transpired at the final hearing by visiting the class action settlement website www.NationalPennOverdraftSettlement.com. The class action settlement website also presents the list of attorneys who represent the class and defense counsels.

https://legalequals.com/national-penn-overdraft-class-action-settlement-details-revealed/

[legalequals-blog]

CITGO Unwanted Texts Class Action Settlement Details Revealed

Primary plaintiff Matthew Gottlieb filed the CITGO class action lawsuit alleging the company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending unsolicited text messages promoting upcoming sweepstakes. Originally enacted to prevent annoying telemarketers from harassing consumers who want to be left alone, the TCPA has expanded its legal reach over the past several decades to account for rapidly changing technology, such as the introduction of text messaging. Penalties for violating the TCPA range from $500 to $1,500 for each infringement.

According to the CITGO TCPA class action settlement documents, CITGO ran several text-to-win sweepstakes contests from 2014 through 2016. CITGO promoted the sweepstakes at different entertainment venues, such as concerts, theme parks, and sports stadiums. Gottlieb claimed in the class action lawsuit that he entered two sweepstakes sponsored by CITGO on July 31, 2015. At the time, Gottlieb was in attendance at a concert held in West Palm Beach, Florida. A little more than one year after entering the two CITGO sweepstakes, Gottlieb claimed he began receiving test messages from CITGO informing Gottlieb of upcoming sweepstakes. Gottlieb asserted during the class action lawsuit that he never agreed to allow CITGO to send the sweepstakes text messages.

Gottlieb charged CITGO with sending three unsolicited text messages. CITGO sent about 93,000 similar text messages promoting sweepstakes contests to unsuspecting consumers. Terms of the class action settlement require CITGO to set up an $8 million fund for distribution as an incentive award to Gottlieb and payment to eligible class members. Money also goes towards paying court costs and attorney fees. CITGO continues to deny the charges made in the class action lawsuit, but the company signed off on the class action settlement to avoid the uncertainty of prolonged litigation.

What You Need To Know About The CITGO Unwanted Texts Class Action Settlement

According to class counsel, eligible class members of the CITGO unwanted texts class action settlement “include anyone in the United States who received at least one text message sent by or on behalf of CITGO in August, October and/or November 2016.” The potential award depends on the number eligible class members who file valid and timely claim forms. Court documents revealed class members must submit the cell phone number where CITGO sent at least one text message to receive compensation from the class action settlement fund. Class members must also declare under the penalty of perjury that they received the text messages from CITGO in August, October, and/or November of 2016.

The deadline for filing a valid claim form is December 14, 2017. The judge presiding over the class action settlement case Matthew Gottlieb v. CITGO Petroleum Corporation, Case No. 9:16-cv-81911-RLR, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Palm Beach Division has scheduled the final hearing on November 29, 2017. Find out what transpired at the final hearing by visiting the class action settlement website www.citgoTCPASettlement.com.

https://legalequals.com/citgo-unwanted-texts-class-action-settlement-details-revealed/

[legalequals-blog]

Prudential Class Action Settlement - Unpaid Overtime Lawsuit Details Revealed

Two class action lawsuits that accused Prudential Insurance Company of denying overtime pay has merged into a preliminarily approved class action settlement. Primary plaintiffs alleged that Prudential violated provisions of the federally enacted Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 by refusing to pay overtime to certain agents employed by the company. In addition to the denial of overtime pay, the lead plaintiffs charged Prudential with taking illegal tax deductions and requiring some agents to pay for business-related costs.

Initially filed in September of 2006, the Prudential unpaid overtime class action lawsuit asserted that Prudential incorrectly classified several full time employees as part time independent contractors. Because of the misclassification, the primary plaintiffs allege Prudential unlawfully withheld regular pay, as well as failed to compensate full time employees for working overtime.

Prudential Insurance Company continues to deny breaking any of the provisions listed in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. However, the company agreed to the class action settlement to avoid the high costs of litigating a civil trial.

What You Need To Know About The Prudential Unpaid Overtime Class Action Settlement

According to class counsel, eligible class members include agents who work or have worked in a large number of states.

Here is the list of qualifying states and the time requirements eligible class members must meet:

California starting on or after March 20, 2004

Hawaii starting on Dec. 15, 2002

Illinois starting on Dec. 15, 2003

Michigan starting on Dec. 15, 2002

Missouri starting on Dec. 15, 2006

Montana starting on Dec. 15, 2003

New Jersey starting on Dec. 15, 2002

New York starting on Dec. 15, 2002

Ohio starting on Dec. 15, 2006

Oregon starting on Dec. 15, 2002

Pennsylvania starting on Sept. 15, 2003

Washington starting on Dec. 15, 2005

Refer to the class action settlement website www.PFIClassActionSettlement.com to learn about the other settlement class member categories. The potential award is based on a calculation based on the number of weeks each eligible class member worked. If you qualify for one of the class categories, you have to submit the claimant ID and control number presented on the claim form mailed to you. The deadline to submit a valid claim is October 30, 2017.

The judge presiding over the class action settlement case Jeffrey Bouder, et al. v. Prudential Financial Inc., et al. and Jim Wang, et al. v. Prudential Financial Inc., et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-04359-CCC-MF, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has scheduled the final hearing on December 11, 2017. Learn what transpired at the final hearing by visiting the class action settlement website. The website also includes the list of attorneys who represent the class and defense counsels and any updated information concerning the potential award.

https://legalequals.com/prudential-class-action-settlement-unpaid-overtime-lawsuit-details-revealed/

[legalequals-blog]

Los Angeles Housing Authority (HACLA) Class Action Settlement and Lawsuit Details

The Los Angeles Housing Authority (HACLA) discovered that Section 8 residents will put up a stiff fight to enjoy the legal rights granted under state and federal laws.

A recent class action settlement preliminarily approved on July 29, 2017 ends a lawsuit charging the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles with decreasing voucher payments, without notifying Section 8 residents in a timely manner as addressed in California and federal statutes. The proposed class action settlement creates a settlement fund between $9 and $9.4 million to distribute in accordance to the agreement reached between the primary plaintiffs and defendant.

According to HACLA class action settlement documents, HACLA neglected to provide Section 8 residents the state and federally mandated one-year notice that informed residents of a decrease in housing benefits. The key issue involved an increase in out of pocket rent expenses that Section 8 residents had to pay. Moreover, the primary plaintiffs asserted that the information received from HACLA did not constitute the content required for a legally binding formal administrative notice. Defense counsel claimed the notices were poorly crafted to the point that residents did not know why they had to pay more out of pocket expenses for rent.

HACLA continues deny all of the allegations. However, the municipal housing agency agreed to the terms of the settlement to avoid the high costs associated with a protracted civil trial.

What You Need To Know About The Los Angeles Housing Authority (HACLA) Class Action Settlement

According to class counsel, eligible injunctive class members “include all HACLA Section 8 beneficiaries who received or may receive notices of a voucher payment standard decrease.” Eligible damages class members “include anyone who was a HACLA voucher participant under Section 8 beginning April 2, 2004 and who paid a higher rent to their landlord than they otherwise would have paid if not for the reduced subsidy in effect from July 1, 2005 through April 30, 2007.” Qualifying class members have until November 29, 2017 to opt out of the class action settlement or dispute any provisions of the agreement. The potential award is up to 11 months of the amount of overpaid rent eligible class members sent to the HACLA. Some class members might receive hundreds of dollars.

The deadline to submit a valid claim form is December 6, 2017. The judge presiding over the class action settlement case Nozzi v. Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00380-PA-FFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has scheduled the final hearing on January 29, 2017. To find out what transpired at the final hearing, visit the class action settlement website www.HACLAClassAction.com. The class action settlement website also presents a list of the lawyers who represent the class and defense counsels, as well as any changes to the potential award.

https://legalequals.com/los-angeles-housing-authority-hacla-class-action-settlement-lawsuit-details/

[legalequals-blog]

Northrop Grumman Retirement Plan Fees Lawsuit Ends With Class Action Settlement

Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not a good idea on the streets and even a much worse idea for companies that manage employee retirement plans. Northrop Grumman discovered the legal costs of the retirement version of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

The Northrop Grumman class action settlement consolidates two class action lawsuits filed by several plaintiffs. Primary plaintiffs asserted they lost money saved in their retirement plans because Northrop Grumman violated several provisions of the federally enacted Employment Retirement Security Act (ERISA).

Plaintiffs of the Northrop Grumman class action settlement participated in one of two retirement plans: the Northrop Grumman Savings Plan, Plan 011, or the Northrop Grumman Financial Security and Savings Program, Plan 010.” According to class counsel, Northrop Grumman violated the legal rights of plaintiffs by handing out retirement plan assets as compensation for Northrop Grumman employees. Northrop Grumman designated the asset distributions as administration expenses that employees received for providing work-related services. The primary plaintiffs claim such distributions are not allowed under the provisions of ERISA.

The terms of the class action settlement require Northrop Grumman to set up a settlement fund of $16.75 million. Settlement funds go to eligible class members after the claims administrator accounts for court costs and attorney fees. Northrop Grumman continues to deny the allegations, but the company settled the consolidated class action lawsuit to avoid the uncertainty of a verdict.

What You Need To Know About the Northrop Grumman Retirement Plan Class Action Settlement

According to court documents, eligible class members include “all persons who participated in or were beneficiaries of the Northrop Grumman retirement plans between Sept. 28, 2000 and May 11, 2009.” Qualifying class members have until September 22, 2017 to dispute any of the provisions of the class action settlement. However, class members are not permitted to opt out of the agreement. The court must approve the Plan of Allocation that determines the financial award given to eligible class members.

The deadline to submit a valid claim form is October 13, 2017. Only former Northrop Grumman retirement plan participants need to submit a claim form. The judge presiding over the class action settlement for the case Northrop Grumman Corporation ERISA Litigation, Case No. 2:06-cv-06213-AB-JC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has scheduled the final hearing on October 23, 2017. Learn what transpired at the final hearing by visiting the class action settlement website www.Northrop401kSettlement.com. The class action settlement website also presents the list of attorneys who represent the class and defense counsels, as well as updates concerning the potential class member award. The class action settlement merges the class action lawsuits called Grabek, et al. v. Northrop Grumman Corporation, Case No. 06-CV-6213, and Heidecker, et al. v. Northrop Grumman Corporation, Case No. 07-CV-0153.

https://legalequals.com/northrop-grumman-retirement-plan-fees-lawsuit-ends-class-action-settlement/

[legalequals-blog]

TD Bank Penny Arcade Class Action Settlement and Lawsuit Details

A judge preliminarily approved a class action settlement on July 12, 2017 that challenged the accuracy of the Penny Arcade coin operated machines located at TD Bank NA stores.

The class action lawsuit stemmed from an NBC story that aired on April 6, 2016 that demonstrated that Penny Arcade machines do not accurately count the coins inserted by customers. The story also mentioned how the machines shortchanged customers. Penny Arcade coin counting machines operate by counting the coins inserted by customers and then issuing a receipt that reflects the amount of money customers can redeem for cash or have deposited into their TD Bank accounts.

The Penny Arcade class action settlement resolves eight class action lawsuits filed against TD Bank asserting the bank failed to redeem the full value of coins deposited into Penny Arcade machines. Terms of the class action settlement require TD Bank to set up a settlement fund worth $7.5 million. TD Bank continues to deny any wrongdoing in the case, but the bank settled the class action lawsuits to avoid the uncertainty of prolonged litigation.

What You Need To Know About The TD Bank Customer Class Action Settlement

According to court documents, eligible class members of the TD Bank class action settlement “include anyone who used a Penny Arcade machine to exchange coins for cash or credit to a TD Bank account between April 11, 2010 and July 12, 2017.” Qualifying class members have until October 27, 2017 to opt out of the class action settlement or contest any provision within the agreement. The potential award is the total amount of Penny Arcade transactions divided by the number of class members who file valid and timely claims. Class members who did not have an account with TD Bank during the class period must provide proof of making Penny Arcade coin transactions.

Eligible class members have until October 27, 2017 to file a valid claim form. The judge who granted preliminary approval for the TD class action settlement case Macias v. TD Bank NA, Case No. 16-cv-3420; Feinman v. TD Bank NA, Case No. 16-cv-3435; Luce v. TD Bank NA, Case No. 16-cv-2621; Filannino-Restifo v. TD Bank NA, Case No. 16-cv-2374; Diaz v. TD Bank NA, Case No. 16-cv-2395; Spector v. TD Bank NA, Case No. 16-cv-2682; Krulan v. TD Bank NA, Case No. 16-cv-2919; and McEnerney v. TD Bank NA, Case No. 16-cv-2918, all in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has scheduled the final hearing on January 11, 2018. Learned what happened at the final hearing by accessing the class action settlement website www.PennyArcadeSettlement.com. The class action settlement website will provide updates on the potential award, as well as present the list of attorneys representing the class and defense counsels.

https://legalequals.com/td-bank-penny-arcade-class-action-settlement-lawsuit-details/

[legalequals-blog]

Kenneth Cole Unpaid Internship Class Action Settlement and Lawsuit Details

New York labor law includes provisions that prevent employers from taking advantage of the hard work put in by interns. One of the provisions stipulates the payment of some form of wages to interns who in some other states take the same positions in unpaid roles.

Primary plaintiff Oluseyi Awogbile filed the Kenneth Cole unpaid internship class action lawsuit. According to court documents, Awogbile asserted Kenneth Cole broke a New York labor statute that requires employers to compensate interns. The lead plaintiff requested back pay for unpaid wages, as well as payment for the costs connected to litigating the class action lawsuit.

Terms of the class action settlement require Kenneth Cole to set up a settlement fund of $354,375. A plaintiff incentive award goes to primary plaintiff Awogbile and class members receive distributions from the settlement fund as well. The settlement fund also covers court costs and attorney fees.

Kenneth Cole continues to deny the class action lawsuit allegations. However, the company decided to settle the case to avoid the high costs associated with a protracted civil trial.

What You Need To Know About The Kenneth Cole Unpaid Internship Class Action Settlement and Lawsuit

Class counsel stated the class action settlement “covers all persons who worked as current and former interns for Kenneth Cole Productions Inc. and Kenneth Cole Consumer Direct LLC between Dec. 2, 2008 and July 31, 2017.” The class action settlement is divided into verified and unverified class members. Verified class members received a class notice and claim form on August 16, 2017. Unverified class members worked in an internship for Kenneth Cole, but were not mentioned in any of the records kept by the company. Eligible class members have until October 16, 2017 to opt out of the class action settlement or dispute any provision of the agreement. Qualifying class members have the potential to receive an award up to $315. Every eligible class member must complete IRS Form W-9 and send the form with a copy of a government issued ID and the class action settlement claim form. Unverified class members must submit proof they worked for Kenneth Cole.

Class members must submit the claim form my fax, mail, or email, as the class action settlement does not offer an online claim form. The deadline to submit a claim form is October 16, 2017 for verified class members and February 12, 2018 for unverified class members. The judge presiding over the case Kenneth Cole Productions Inc. Intern Settlement, Case No. 161886/2014, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for New York County held the final hearing on July 31, 2017. Visit the class action settlement website KCPInternSettlement.com to learn what transpired during the final hearing. The class action settlement website also presents the list of attorneys who represent the class and defense counsels.

https://legalequals.com/kenneth-cole-unpaid-internship-class-action-settlement-lawsuit-details/

[legalequals-blog]

Encompass Auto Insurance Class Action Settlement and Lawsuit Details Revealed - Washington Only

Auto insurance companies have earned the reputation for squeezing the last cent out of customers. As Encompass auto insurance company discovered, pinching pennies can result in a class action lawsuit.

Both parties have reached a tentative settlement over a class action lawsuit alleging Encompass Insurance of America and Encompass Indemnity Company failed to properly compensate consumers for the true value of specific vehicles that incurred irreparable damage. According to court documents, both Encompass companies failed to cover the diminished value of vehicles that incurred damage to the bodies and structural systems. Lead plaintiff Alec Zarelli asserted the failure to compensate consumers properly for vehicle damage represented a major breach in the defendant’s vehicle insurance contracts.

Preliminarily approved on March 10, 2017, the Encompass class action settlement requires the insurance company to compensate consumers for the full value of irreparable vehicle damages as stated within the auto insurance policies. Encompass must set up a $242,400 settlement fund to compensate eligible class members. However, Encompass continues to deny all of the class action lawsuit allegations. The company settled the class action lawsuit to avoid the high costs of protracted litigation.

  What You Need To Know About The Washington Encompass Auto Insurance Class Action Settlement

  According to class counsel, eligible class members “include anyone for whom Encompass paid to have their insured vehicle repaired under the uninsured motorist property damage provision of an Encompass policy issued in Washington. The repair estimate on the vehicle must have totaled at least $1,000, the vehicle must be more than six years old and had less than 90,000 miles on it at the time of the accident, and the vehicle must have suffered structural damage, deformed sheet metal, and/or required paint or body work.” The potential award depends on the total amount of vehicle repair costs and the final number of valid and timely claim form submissions. Court documents reveal the potential award should reach several hundred dollars per qualifying class member. Class members must submit their 12-digit Claim ID with the submission of a claim form.

Eligible class members have until October 2, 2017 to submit a valid claim form. The judge presiding over the class action settlement case Alec Zarelli v. Encompass Insurance Company of America and Encompass Indemnity Company, Case No. 15-2-10639-8, in the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of Pierce held the final hearing on August 8, 2017. Refer to the class action settlement website www.ZarelliSettlement.com to learn what transpired at the final hearing. Scott P. Nealey from the Law Office of Scott P. Nealey and Stephen M. Hansen from the Law Offices of Stephen M. Hansen P.S. provide class counsel legal services for the plaintiffs. Steven M. Levy who represents Dentons US LLP and Jodi A. McDougall of Cozen O’Connor are handling the legal responsibilities for the defense counsel.

Class Members of the Encompass diminished value settlement include anyone for whom Encompass paid to have their insured vehicle repaired under the uninsured motorist property damage provision of an Encompass policy issued in Washington, and:

The repair estimate on the vehicle totaled at least $1,000; and

The vehicle was no more than six years old and had less than 90,000 miles on it at the time of the accident; and

The vehicle suffered structural damage, deformed sheet metal, and/or required paint or body work.

  https://legalequals.com/encompass-auto-insurance-class-action-settlement-lawsuit-details-revealed-washington/

[legalequals-blog]

The Honest Company Class Action Settlement Details Revealed - Mislabeling Lawsuit Ends

  It appears honesty is not the best policy for The Honest Company. Several primary plaintiffs allege The Honest Company fraudulently labeled produces as “natural,” “All natural,” Naturally derived,” or “Plant based.” However, the plaintiffs asserted that all of the products contained synthetic and/or toxic ingredients. The Honest Company class action settlement results from the merging of numerous different class action lawsuits filed against the company

After the initial filing of a class action lawsuit against The Honest Company, plaintiffs Julie Hedges and Candace Hiddlestone filed a similar class action lawsuit that emphasized the natural ingredients claim was in fact deception, as many of the “natural products included methylisothiazolinone, cocamidopropyl betaine and phenoxyethanol.” After The Honest Company agreed with plaintiff assertions, both parties signed off on the class action settlement in June of 2017.

Terms of the settlement require The Honest Company to set up a settlement fund exceeding $7.3 million. The money goes towards paying class members and the incentive awards for the primary plaintiffs. Settlement funds also go towards paying court costs and attorney fees. The Honest Company has also consented to change company labels and promotional materials. Class counsel stated The Honest Company can no longer label any of the qualifying products as natural or 100% natural. The company must never use phrases such as “no harsh chemicals, ever!” to promote products that contain methylisothiazolinone or cocamidopropylamine oxide.

The Honest Company continues to deny the class action lawsuit allegations. However, the company settled the case to avoid the high costs associated with a civil trial.

What You Need To Know About The Honest Company Mislabeling Lawsuit  Class Action Settlement

According to class counsel, eligible class members includes consumers living in the United States who purchased one or more of The Honest Company products listed on the class action website www.THCMarketingSettlement.com between Jan. 17, 2012 and July 10, 2017. Qualifying class members have until October 23, 2017 to opt out of the settlement or dispute any provision of the agreement. The potential award is $2.50 for every qualified purchase of the products listed on the class action settlement website. Eligible class members can receive compensation in the form of cash or a credit towards the purchase of a product offered by Honest.com

The deadline to submit a valid claim form is October 23, 2017. The judge presiding over the Honest Company class action settlement case Honest Marketing Litigation, Case No. 1:16-cv-01125, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has scheduled the final hearing on December 8, 2017.  Visit the class action settlement website to read the transcript of the final hearing. The class action settlement website also lists the attorneys who represent the class and defense counsels.

Eligible Products Include:

The settlement Class covers all persons in the U.S. who between Jan. 17, 2012 and July 10, 2017 purchased any of the following The Honest Company products:

4-in-l Laundry Packs

3-in-l Facial Towelettes

Air + Fabric Freshener

Auto Dishwasher Gel

Bar Soap

Bathroom Cleaner

Bathroom Cleaner Concentrate

Bathtime Gift Set

Bubble Bath

Conditioner

Conditioning Detangler

Deodorant

Diapers

Discovery Set

Dish Soap

Dishwasher Packs

Dryer Cloths

Essentials Gift Bundle

Essentials Bundles

Face + Body Lotion

Floor Cleaner

Floor Cleaner Concentrate

Foaming Hand Soap

Fruit + Veggie Wash

Glass + Window Cleaner

Glass + Window Cleaner Concentrate

Hand Sanitizer Gel

Hand Sanitizer Spray

Hand Soap

Housewarming Gift Set

Kids’ Toothpaste

Laundry Detergent

Mouthwash

Multi-Surface Cleaner

Multi-Surface Cleaner Concentrate

Nesting Gift Set

Oxy Boost

Rinse Aid

Shampoo + Body Wash

Soothing Bottom Wash

Stain Remover

Stain Remover Concentrate

SPF 30 Sunscreen

Toilet Cleaner

Toothpaste

Wet Mopping Pads

Wipes

Wipes – Travel Packs

  https://legalequals.com/honest-company-class-action-settlement-details-revealed-mislabeling-lawsuit-ends/

[legalequals-blog]

Pizza Hut Privacy Rights Class Action Settlement Details - California Lawsuit

Primary plaintiff Jessica Manner filed the Pizza Hut class action lawsuit in February of 2015. According to court documents, Manner alleged that defendant Summit Pizza West, which manages about 50 Pizza Hut restaurants located in California, violated a California statute that prohibits credit card fraud and identity theft. The California consumer protection law also includes penalties for violating the provisions of the statute. California law forbids businesses from asking customers personal information, such as a Social Security number. Businesses also cannot record the personal information on a customer account form.

Manner asserts Summit Pizza West obtained and recorded customer personal information. In July of 2014, she purchased a pizza to go from a San Diego area Pizza Hut. At the end of transaction, the cashier requested Manner’s telephone number, which the cashier recorded by using the restaurant’s electronic point of sale system.

After several rounds of motions and mediation meetings, both parties agreed to the class action settlement. Summit Pizza West must distribute free vouchers to each eligible class member. Class members redeem the free vouchers for food or beverages at one of the Pizza Hut restaurants operated by Summit Pizza West. The defendant has repeatedly denied the accusations made in the class action lawsuit. However, the Pizza Hut franchisee agreed to the class action settlement to avoid the high costs of prolonged litigation.

What You Need To Know

According to class counsel, qualifying class members “include all persons from whom Summit Pizza West requested personal identification information in conjunction with a carry-out purchase from one of the company’s Pizza Hut locations in California between Feb. 20, 2014 and March 13, 2015.” The maximum award each class member can receive in free vouchers is $20.97. Eligible class members who submit valid and timely claim forms will be given three free vouchers, each of which is worth $6.99 for a total of $20.97. Class members can use the vouchers only at the Pizza Hut restaurants operated by Summit Pizza West.

Class members who did not receive an Access Code and a Claim ID must submit personal contact information to the class action settlement claims administrator. You also must declare under the penalty of perjury that you made a class member qualifying purchase at one of the Summit Pizza West restaurants. The deadline to file a valid claim form is September 19, 2017. The judge presiding over the case Manner v. Summit Pizza West LLC, Case No. 37-2015-5909-CU-MC-CTL, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego has scheduled the final hearing on September 29, 2017. Download the transcript of the final hearing by visiting the class action settlement website www.SummitPizzaWestSettlement.com. The class action settlement website also lists the attorneys who represent the class and defense counsels.

https://legalequals.com/pizza-hut-privacy-rights-class-action-settlement-details-california-lawsuit/

[legalequals-blog]

Bank of America Unauthorized Credit Report Lawsuit - Class Action Settlement

A current class action settlement that involves the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) might qualify a class of debtors to receive financial damages. Primary plaintiffs Robert Pastor, Regina Florence, William Florence III, and Scott Van Horn filed the class action lawsuit against Bank of America. According to the allegations made in the class action lawsuit by the lead plaintiffs, Bank of America pulled the credit reports of numerous debtors after the debtors closed accounts. Bank of America allegedly pulled the credit reports, without asking the debtors for permission.

The acts committed by Bank of America violated the FCRA asserted the primary plaintiffs in the filing of the class action lawsuit. Plaintiffs have claimed pulled credit reports do not fall within the limited number of “permissible purposes” mandated by the FCRA. Bank of America allegedly claimed one of the permissible purposes listed in the FCRA involves requesting a periodic review of a current debtor’s credit history, which is also referred to as a soft inquiry. However, the bank requested the credit report review after a bankruptcy court had discharged the debts, which gave Bank of America no permissible purpose to seek the credit report.

Both parties agreed to the Bank of American FCRA class action settlement, which a judge granted preliminary approval in July of 2017. Terms of the class action settlement require Bank of American to set up $1.645 settlement fund. Although Bank of America settled the class action lawsuit, the company continues to deny all of the allegations.

What You Need To Know

According to class counsel, eligible class members “include all persons with a U.S. address whose credit report was obtained by Bank of America or FIA Card Services for an account review inquiry between Aug. 21, 2010 and July 7, 2017, and whose account relationship with the bank was terminated either because the debt on the account had been discharged via bankruptcy, the account was closed with a zero balance, or the account was sold or transferred to a third party.”  The potential award depends on the number of valid and timely claims submitted. Class members who did not receive a postcard informing them of the class member status must submit either their Bank of America account number, the date the account closed at a zero balance, the date a third party bought or transferred the account, or the date of the debt discharge in bankruptcy court.

The deadline for submitting a valid claim form is November 14, 2017. The judge presiding over the case Pastor, et al. v. Bank of America, NA, Case No. 3:15-cv-03831-VC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has scheduled the final hearing on January 11, 2018. To learn what happened at the final hearing, visit the class action settlement website www.pastorBANAFCRAsettlement.com.

https://legalequals.com/bank-america-unauthorized-credit-report-lawsuit-class-action-settlement/

[legalequals-blog]

Twitter, Instagram, Yelp App Privacy Class Action Lawsuit & Settlement

With the Internet morphing in to the electronic version of the Wild West, government agencies responsible for monitoring online security take invasion of privacy cases very seriously. Just ask Path, Yelp, Twitter, Gowalla, and Instagram.

Several primary plaintiffs accused numerous app developers of violating the terms of company privacy policies. The class action lawsuit also accuses Apple of assisting and cooperating with the app developers to breach personal privacy. The apps allegedly uploaded and stored user personal and private address books that stored within the Contacts app found on iPods, iPads, and iPhones. Plaintiffs allege some of the personal information was illegally presented online, without the knowledge of the victims.

Court documents reveal “Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of Apple’s conduct, plaintiffs and millions of other people purchased iDevices reasonably believing that they were secure when, in fact, they are not, and then downloaded Apps, including the Apps manufactured by the App Defendants, and suffered the unexpected and unauthorized theft of their personal data,” While the invasion of privacy was going on, Apple allegedly compounded the problem by allowing the apps to collect customer address book data. Under the terms of the class action settlement, the defendants have agreed to set up a $5.3 million settlement fund.

A class action lawsuit remains open that asserts Apple misrepresented the company’s privacy policy. The app developers continue to deny all allegations, but the companies settled the class action lawsuit to avoid the uncertainty of extended litigation.

What You Need To Know

According to class counsel, eligible class members fall within one of eight categories. To learn which category you fall under, access the class action settlement website www.iOSAppSettlement.com. The potential award depends on the number of valid and timely claim forms filed, which is referred to as the pro rata calculation. Eligible class members must provide your class member identification number to receive compensation from the class action settlement fund.

The deadline for submitting a valid claim form is November 10, 2017. Opperman, et al. v. Kong Technologies Inc., Case No. 13-cv-00453-JST, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has the final hearing scheduled on December 14, 2017. To learn what happened at the final hearing, as well as read the entire list of attorneys who represent the class and defense counsels, refer to the class action website.

Attorneys from the law firms Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Edwards Law, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker, and Gardy & Notis LLP handle the legal responsibilities for the class counsel. Path, Yelp, Twitter, Gowalla, and Instagram have each hired a different team of litigators for the defense.

https://legalequals.com/twitter-instagram-yelp-app-privacy-class-action-lawsuit-settlement/

[legalequals-blog]

NatureMade TripleFlex Supplement Class Action Lawsuit & Settlement

The United States has numerous state and federal laws that prohibit false and misleading advertising, as pharmaceutical company Pharmavite found out during a recent class action lawsuit.

Lead plaintiff Lorean Barrera charged supplements manufacturer Pharmavite LLC with making false and misleading statements on the labels and packages of the company’s glucosamine and chondroitin supplements. According to class action lawsuit documents, Pharmavite failed to deliver the benefits promised on the label. Moreover, Barrera asserted the collective health claims had no scientific data to back up the claims

The terms of the settlement require Pharmavite to create a settlement fund worth $1million, with the company giving eligible class members nearly $6 million in free products. Pharmavite also consented to stop using numerous terms for 24 months, including “rebuild,” “rebuilds,” “rebuilding,” “renew,” “renewing,” “renewal,” “rejuvenate,” “rejuvenates,” “rejuvenation,” and “rejuvenating.” The company used the terms to describe the health benefits of taking chondroitin and glucosamine.

A judge preliminarily approved the class action settlement on June 5, 2017. However, Pharmavite continues to deny the allegations, but the company agreed to the settlement to avoid the costs and uncertainty of a protracted civil trial.

What You Need To Know

According to class Counsel, eligible class members “include all U.S. residents who purchased one or more covered products for personal use) between May 1, 2007 and June 5, 2017.” The class action settlement website www.GlucosamineSupplementSettlement.com presents the lengthy list of covered products. Class members have until November 13, 2017 to opt out of the class action settlement or contest any of the agreement provisions.

Individual class member awards are up to $100 cash or up to $150 of free supplements. The final amount of the cash compensation divided among eligible class members depends on the number of valid and timely claim forms submitted to the claims administrator. Eligible class members do not have to present proof of purchase, but the award maximum for class members who do not send in proof of purchase is $12.50 per product. Class members who send in proof of purchase receive $25 for each covered product up to a limit of four products per household. The settlement does not require proof of purchase for eligible class members who decide to take the free supplements.

Class members have until November 13, 2017 to submit a valid claim form. The judge presiding over the case Lorean Barrera v. Pharmavite LLC, Case No. 2:11-cv-04153-CAS (AGrx), in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has scheduled the final hearing on December 4, 2017. The class action settlement website will present a transcript of what transpired at the final hearing. Elaine A. Ryan from Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC represents the class counsel, while Stewart M Weltman from Siprut PC handles the legal responsibilities for the defendants.

https://legalequals.com/naturemade-tripleflex-supplement-class-action-settlement/