Ford named in class action over defect in driveshaft flexible coupling in 2015-2017 Ford Transit vans

The class action lawsuit against Ford is for damages caused by Ford Transit vans equipped with uniform and uniformly defective driveshaft flexible couplings manufactured, distributed, warranted, and sold/leased by Ford Motor Company and/or its related subsidiaries or affiliates (collectively, “Ford”).

The complaint claims that 2015-2017 Ford Transit vans suffer from a serious defect (the “Defect”) that results in the driveshaft flexible coupling (“flex disc”) cracking and ultimately failing, resulting in damage to the Class Vehicles and presenting a significant safety risk to Vehicle occupants.

The flex disc is a type of “universal joint” positioned between the engine (in specific, the transmission) and the driveshaft, and is used to transmit the rotational torque generated by the engine to the driveshaft, which in turn transmits it to the axles and finally the wheels, propelling the Vehicle.

The flex disc is made of flexible rubber material and is designed to allow some angular misalignment while reducing driveline vibration.  A triangular flange connecting the flex disc to the transmission is bolted on to one side of the flex disc using three of the holes; a similar triangular flange connecting the flex disc to the driveshaft is bolted on to the other side of the flex disc using the other three holes.

When the flex disc fails, it fails catastrophically. The failure causes the driveshaft violently to tear away from the transmission, which can result in severe damage surrounding Vehicle components, including brake and fuel lines, the transmission, rear end differential, torque converter, evaporation container, and other parts, mangling the driveshaft in the process. The damage to these components contributes to a dangerous loss of Vehicle control, including the loss of brakes and engine power. Further, the forward end of the driveshaft disconnecting from the transmission creates the risk that the driveshaft will “catch” on the ground beneath the Vehicle, violently forcing the driveshaft upwards which can pierce into the passenger cabin and cause the Vehicle to “pole vault,” i.e. catapult the entire Vehicle into the air.

While a Safety Recall was issued June 28, 2017, the complaint alleges that Ford does not have a permanent fix, but rather requires Class Vehicle owners to replace the flex disc “every 30,000 miles” until a permanent remedy becomes available.

As a result of Ford’s alleged misconduct, Plaintiff and Class Members were harmed and suffered actual damages, including that the Class Vehicles contain defective parts, have manifested and continue to manifest the Defect, and Ford has not provided a permanent remedy for this Defect. Furthermore, Plaintiff and Class Members have incurred, and will continue to incur, out-of-pocket unreimbursed costs and expenses relating to the Defect, including replacement parts, repair of other Vehicle systems damaged by the failure of the flex disc, and lost time and business opportunities caused by the time the Vehicles are waiting to be serviced.

Complaint

Ford named in class action lawsuit over Ford trucks equipped with a lift kit and larger-than-stock tires installed at the time of purchase or lease

This class action lawsuit is brought by Plaintiff on behalf of those who purchased or leased one or more new Ford trucks equipped with a lift kit and larger-than-stock tires that had been installed/fitted at the time of purchase or lease (the “Lifted Trucks”). As alleged, the frames of the Lifted Trucks sit higher off the ground than “stock” vehicles of the same make and model (“Stock Trucks”). However, the jacks that come equipped with the Lifted Trucks are the same as those that come equipped with the Stock Trucks—i.e., designed to temporarily raise the comparatively lower frames of the Stock Trucks off the ground to allow drivers to change tires and perform routine maintenance. These jacks cannot safely be used on, and are not compatible with, the relatively higher frames of the Lifted Trucks.

The tires (e.g., metal rims and rubber tires) installed on the Lifted Trucks are larger in diameter than those installed on the Stock Trucks. However, the spare tires that come equipped with the Lifted Trucks are the same as those that come equipped with the Stock Trucks—i.e., relatively smaller in diameter than those on the Lifted Trucks—and thus do not match the size of, and cannot be used with, the relatively larger tires installed on the Lifted Trucks.

Upon information and belief, each Lifted Truck was sold with a manufacturer’s window sticker (“Monroney Sticker”) that represented that such vehicle came equipped with a jack and spare tire. The Monroney Sticker does not disclose that the jack and spare tire are only compatible with the Stock Trucks, but not with the Lifted Trucks.

Upon information and belief, each Lifted Truck comes equipped with a jack and spare tire. The jack is stored in a compartment inside the vehicle, and the spare tire is housed under the vehicle, below the frame. As described above, the jack and spare tire are only compatible with the Stock Trucks, but not with the Lifted Trucks. Thus, Lifted Trucks include a jack and spare tire that consumers reasonably assume will work with their vehicle – but the components do not.

The lawsuit claims that each person who has purchased or leased a Lifted Truck during the time period relevant to this action was injured by overpaying for a vehicle that did not come equipped with a functioning jack and spare tire, as Ford represented, and as each purchaser would have reasonably expected.

Complaint

Evanger’s Dog and Cat Food Co. and Nutripack named in class action lawsuit over harmful ingredients in pet food

Evanger’s Dog and Cat Food Co. and Nutripack, LLC produce high-end pet foods that are specifically marketed to label-conscious consumers but that, contrary to their labels, contain harmful ingredients. The pet foods were advertised as premium, “100% beef,” and “human grade, USDA inspected meat,” but instead were composed of low quality, non-human grade ingredients and were produced at an unsanitary, non-USDA facility. Many of the Pet Foods were unsafe, adulterated meats, not from animals that were identified on the labels, and contained pentobarbital, a barbiturate used in the euthanizing of animals, the execution of humans and in physician-assisted deaths Plaintiffs’ use of these products led to the sickness of several of Plaintiffs’ pets, and the death of one.

Complaint

Henkel named in class action lawsuit over 30% slack fill in Purex Crystals packaging

Henkel named in class action lawsuit over 30% slack fill in Purex Crystals packaging

This is a class action based on alleged deceptive actions of Henkel Corporation with respect to the packaging of its Purex Crystals product.

Defendant sells the Purex Crystals product as “an in-wash fragrance booster, which provides freshness that lasts for weeks. Use a little or a lot, directly in the laundry! Safe for all loads including towels, activewear, and children’s sleepwear.”

On its website, Defendant states: “Purex® Crystals infuses your clothes with an extraordinary freshness that puts the finishing touch on your laundry and makes everyday a little more rewarding. With the exciting variety of fragrances Purex® Crystals offers, it’s easy to find a fragrance to match every laundry occasion. Whether it’s a relaxing freshness for your sheets or a more stimulating scent for you and your family’s activewear, Purex® Crystals has you covered. Have fun and try them all!”3

Plaintiff expected to receive a full container of the Purex Crystals product, which is packaged in non-transparent containers, as depicted below. Plaintiff was surprised and disappointed when he opened the Purex Crystals product to discover that the container had more than 30% empty space, or slack-fill. Had Plaintiff known about the slack-fill at the time of purchase, he would not have bought Defendant’s product.

Complaint

Hyundai named in class action lawsuit over defect in steering mechanism in Accent and Elantra vehicles

Plaintiffs filed this class action on behalf of a class of Hyundai Accent and Elantra owners alleging the vehicles were sold with a faulty steering mechanism.  According to the complaint, a defect in Hyundai’s steering mechanism causes the power steering to stop working suddenly, causing the wheel to lock or become difficult or impossible to turn at all.

The faulty steering mechanism is found on at least the following models: Hyundai Accent (model years 2013-2016) and Hyundai Elantra (model years 2013-2016), collectively defined as the “Vehicles.” Hyundai’s defective steering mechanism severely inhibits drivers’ ability to react to and/or avoid other cars, pedestrians, or obstacles. The Vehicles’ steering defects have been the subject of a large number of consumer complaints.

The complaint contends that Hyundai has long known about the problem but has not notified consumers. Previous Hyundai models had the same or a similar defect, which Hyundai was slow to acknowledge. Indeed, in 2016, Hyundai issued a recall concerning a similar defect in 2011 Sonata vehicles. The steering problem was caused by conflicting steering wheel input data which caused the power steering to turn off.

Complaint

Netgear named in class action lawsuit over a defect in CM700 cable modem

This is a class action brought on behalf of purchasers of the NETGEAR CM700 cable modem (the “Modem”) sold by Defendant NETGEAR, Inc. (“Netgear”). A cable modem is a device that allows cable subscribers to connect to broadband Internet service.

As alleged in the complaint, since its launch in 2016, Netgear marketed the Modem as a reliable high-end modem that is “ideal for the fastest Internet speed service plans.” However, Netgear failed to disclose that the Modem contains a serious defect that prevents it from operating properly. News reports and customer complaints since the release of the Modem indicate that it suffers from high spikes in network latency—delays in data communication over the network—that degrades users’ Internet connectivity.

Plaintiff purchased a Modem for personal use and suffered network latency, an experience shared by many purchasers of the Modem. Despite this widespread defect, Netgear has not announced a recall of the affected model, or otherwise offered to repair or replace it.

By shipping Modems with this defect, Netgear sold consumer goods that were substantially below the quality generally available in the market, were not fit for the for the Internet connectivity for which they were generally used, and were not adequately packaged and labeled.

Complaint

Odwalla named in class action lawsuit over “no added sugar” representations on its labels

This is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased one or more containers of Odwalla 100% Juices, including Berry Greens, Groovin’ Greens, and 100% Orange Juice, with the phrase “No Added Sugar” on their label or outer packaging (collectively “Odwalla Juice”)

Plaintiffs action arises out of the unlawful “No Added Sugar” statements placed by Defendants on the labels and outer packaging of o.dwalla Juice containers. The Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) regulations promulgated pursuant to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act of 1938 (“FDCA”) specify the precise nutrient content claims concerning sugar that may be made on a food label. See 21 C.F.R. § 101, Subpart D. As alleged, Defendants’ “No Added Sugar” claims on its Odwalla Juice containers fail to comply with these requirements.

Complaint

Weleda, Inc named in class action lawsuit for selling cosmetics as Natural despite containing synthetic ingredients

Defendant Weleda, Inc manufactures, sells, and distributes the Products using a marketing and advertising campaign centered around claims that appeal to health conscious consumers, i.e., that their Products are “Certified Natural” and/or “Natural”. However, Defendant’s advertising and marketing campaign is false, deceptive, and misleading because the Products contain synthetic ingredients.

Plaintiff and those similarly situated relied on Defendant’s misrepresentations that the Products are “Certified Natural” and/or “Natural” when purchasing the Products. Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the Products in comparison to comparable products that did not purport to be “Certified Natural” and/or “Natural”. Given that Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the Products based on Defendant’s misrepresentations that they are “Certified Natural” and/or “Natural”, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered an injury in the amount of the premium paid.

A full list of the products named in the lawsuit and the synthetic ingredients they contain can be found in the complaint. COMPLAINT

Bed Bath & Beyond named in a class action lawsuit over sale of Perfect Touch and Crowning Touch, bed linens

 

This case involves the marketing and sale of bed linens falsely labeled as “100% Egyptian Cotton” by retailer Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. (“BB&B”). For years, under the label Perfect Touch and Crowning Touch, BB&B sold bed linens, manufactured by Welspun India, Ltd. (“Welspun”), labeled as “100% Egyptian Cotton.” Egyptian cotton, due to its quality and scarcity, commands a premium in the market.

Welspun, a large home textile manufacturer based in India and with offices in the United States, manufactures and distributes bed linens and other home textiles to BB&B and other retailers. BB&B is Welspun’s largest customer.

In August 2016, BB&B’s competitor, Target announced that its investigation showed that Welspun uses inferior and less expensive cottons in many of its bed linens labeled “100% Egyptian Cotton.” Target ended its relationship with Welspun, and Welspun admitted, “Without any ambiguity, the fault is on our side.”

In response to Target’s announcement, BB&B ordered an external audit of textiles from Welspun but has continued to sell its products. Because of BB&B’s conduct, consumers who purchased Welspun bed linens at BB&B overpaid for an inferior product. This action seeks full recompense for consumers.

Complaint

Church & Dwight Co named in class action lawsuit for false made in the USA claims on Trojan condoms

 

According to the complaint, California law is clear: Merchandise may be labeled as “Made in the USA” if either: (1) all nondomestic parts constitute no more than 5% of the final wholesale value of the product; or (2) a manufacturer can show that a specific part could not be obtained within the U.S. and that part does not constitute more than 10% of the final wholesale value. Otherwise, a manufacturer may not label its products as “Made in U.S.A.,” “Made in America,” “U.S.A.,” or use similar words to convey that its products are made in the United States.

As alleged, Church & Dwight falsely advertises and markets at least two of its Trojan brand condoms, Magnum Thin Ultrasmooth and Magnum Ecstasy Ultrasmooth (collectively, the “Products”) as being “Made in U.S.A.” when, in fact, nondomestic parts comprising natural latex used in the Products constitute more than 10% of the Products’ final wholesale value.

Complaint